Bill C-2 (Historical)

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation signed at Davos on January 26, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the bilateral agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General for Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements.
Part 3 of the enactment provides for its coming into force.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for taking an interest in the bill before us today.

I realize that free trade agreements can cause some conflict. Our world has been hit hard by the global economic crisis, and the crisis will have an impact here at home. We can take comfort in the fact that Canada has the most stable banking system in the world.

However, we must also recognize that our industries, our workers and our exporters are all under pressure.

That is why it is important for the government to do everything in its power to make things better by developing policies and programs that will lighten the burden on our industries and companies.

We know we are in a time of fiscal crisis and we know there are pressures all around. It is in times like these, more than any other, from the government's point of view and, I think, most Canadians that we should be looking at opportunities to open up the doors for, not just Canadian companies, but Canadian workers also. We should not be looking at ways in which to build walls but in fact to tear down walls and to open up possibilities.

History is very clear, as we have indicated before, that when we build a trade wall up we bring our economy down. We do not want to see that happen, which is why we are taking a number of initiatives to pursue possibilities for Canadian workers and businesses to make their products and services more available world-wide.

As our economic history shows, we are as prosperous as we are in Canada because of the fact that we believe in trading freely. Because of our great capabilities, not just on the technology side but because we are innovative and productive, we can actually produce more products than we can all, as individual Canadians, consume.

Therefore, if we are going to truly move in the area of increased prosperity, we need to look for ways to sell our goods and services abroad into other countries. That is why pursuing free trade agreements, or more comprehensive economic agreements, as some countries prefer to refer to them, is part of our plan.

Free trade agreements are very significant. They will help Canadian producers and our workers. However, we also need to look at, as we do, areas like funding research and innovation, research and development and science and technology agreements. We pursue air agreements and open sky agreements with other countries to advance the air industry and make travel and the shipment of cargo even more productive and more competitive. We do a number of things, on several fronts, to ensure Canadians are positioned among the best in the world so their products and services can be manufactured and sold abroad.

This particular agreement, which is represented by Bill C-2, involves what will be the first ever free trade agreement with European countries. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein agree with us that there will be mutual benefits if we can tear down tariff walls, tear down the barriers that make trade more difficult back and forth and open the doors of opportunities on both sides.

If we look at last year's figures, we have about a $4.2 billion relationship when it comes to merchandise exporting and trade and, even more important, we have over $18 billion of direct investment. That means jobs for Canadians and the expansion of Canadian activity. We have a fairly stable and productive trading relationship with these countries, which are pulled together in this bill known as the EFTA, and we want to see this continue and enhanced.

As important as this bill is and as important as trade is with the individual countries that are named in this bill, it also serves, and we are not hiding this fact, as a lever into the larger EU community. Colleagues will know that we have made great progress on the EU front with 27 other countries eventually encompassed in the EU agreement. We have now gone through what is called the scoping exercise or the first phase of discussions and are very close to getting into official and formal negotiations with the broader EU community. That is something we are hoping to see develop over the next few months.

However, right now we want to focus on the countries named in this particular bill. These are friendly countries and long-standing friends and allies, and we want to see our capabilities back and forth to continue.

A number of issues have been raised, some in committee and others over a long period of time, in terms of consultation. I thank all the members of the committee for recognizing that a lot of work has gone on and a lot of consultation has taken place and we believe all of the substantive issues have been addressed.

These are not always easy discussions at the committee level, especially if there are ideological differences, but my sense is that most of us in the chamber and most of the people on the committee recognize that the opening of doors and the expansion of opportunities is something that is key to us at any time, regardless of the economic environment but especially now in a tough time of economic pressure.

It is important to note that political and democratic pressures come to bear in the negotiations of free trade agreements. Inevitably, certain industries will feel that if they do not have the protection of a tariff wall and they do not have the ability to tax goods coming into the country even before they get here, thereby forcing up the prices so that the goods coming into the country are less attractive to Canadian consumers, the Canadian product is more attractive because an incoming good has a tariff slapped on to it. Some industries, invariably, will be affected by any trade agreement. These are called sensitivities, which is why we work with those industries to try, as far as possible, to soften the impact of a free trade agreement.

I will use one example in this particular agreement that is represented in Bill C-2 and that has to do with the shipbuilding industry. We have had consultations with the shipbuilding industry that go back as far as the 1990s because there have been very high tariffs in that particular industry, some as high as 25% or more. That would mean that a product coming into Canada that is under the shipbuilding umbrella could be facing a tariff as high as 25% or more, which means that the price of the product coming in is artificially raised because a tariff has been slapped on it and that gives a competitive advantage.

We are very careful to protect our industry. When we negotiate a free trade agreement with any country we need to ensure its shipbuilding industry is not being subsidized. We must have a level playing field. I believe, time and again, that Canadians have shown that they can compete with the best anywhere in the world as long as we are on a level playing field. As a government, that is where we need to be vigilant and vigorous when it comes to dealing with other countries. If we are looking at a free trade agreement abroad or an economic comprehensive agreement, we need to be aggressively pushing those other countries to ensure those tariffs are gone and that subsidies to those particular industries are removed so they do not have an unfair advantage competing against Canadians.

On the shipbuilding industry, we have put in place a 15-year phase-out of our tariff. That is the longest phase-out ever in Canadian history in a free trade agreement. We want to make this incremental and we want to give that industry as much time as possible to adapt.

We also have estimated, going over the next three decades, some $43 billion in procurement in the shipbuilding industry. We are showing our shipbuilders that the opportunities are huge moving into the future. We have also put in place a finance structuring facility of up to $50 million that assists our industry in terms of dealing with interest costs when it comes to purchases related to shipbuilding. We have carefully done this in a way that is compliant with our free trade agreements. It will not put us offside or at the risk or threat of any World Trade Organization dispute or any contest.

We have also indicated to our shipbuilding industry that just on the acquisition of Coast Guard vessels alone over the next few years, there are $175 million of acquisition geared specifically to the Canadian industry. Since shipbuilding has been mentioned, I am using it as an example of how we can deal with a particular sector within a free trade agreement.

As elected people, we need to keep in mind that we must be constantly looking at what will be good overall for our producers, manufacturers and the economy of Canada. When we are approached individually by a sector that would be opposed to a particular agreement, we need to consider a couple of things. We first must consider what can we do within the agreement to soften the impact of a free trade agreement and to help that particular industry adjust and stay competitive over time when eventually those tariffs are completely removed.

The other thing we have to consider is this. There will always be in any free trade agreement one or more industries that come forward and say that it will make them less competitive and that they do not want the deal to go ahead. At that time, we not only have to look at it seriously, but we also have to consider that if the deal does not go ahead, other industries will be affected and will stay uncompetitive because we do not have a free trade agreement.

When we look at the agreement in Bill C-2, and we look at, for instance, the fishing industry, which has a huge impact in Atlantic Canada, if we do not move ahead because we have another industry that feels it could not be competitive, an advantage will be lost for our entire marine and fishing industries.

There could be an entire sector of agriculture products that if we did not move ahead with a free trade agreement, we would be still stuck with high tariff walls. If we try to be sensitive to one area, like shipbuilding, our entire agriculture sector will be affected.

Look at the shipment and the export of our paper products. Can we legitimately look at this entire industry, the Canadian companies that manufacture paper products, and say we cannot help with free trade because another sector will be upset, especially in a time when the forestry and paper industry is probably getting hit harder than at any other time in its history?

This is where the democratic process puts us in a bit of a dilemma. We will always have one group of constituents who will be, quite rightly, concerned about a free trade agreement. If we are only being sensitive to that group, we could in fact be denying many other groups the opportunity to more freely and ably market their goods abroad.

We can use the agreement and this arrangement, under Bill C-2, as an example. We can show how we identify an industry, in this case it would be the shipbuilding sector. We have worked with it. We have made the provisions to assist it through this 15 year phase-out period. We have clearly shown the economic advantages and the purchasing opportunities in the years ahead. We have taken great steps to not only sensitize it to a free trade agreement, but also to signal to many other industries that they will benefit from this agreement as well. Provisions are being made and overall, as an economy, we will see things improve.

As we consider Bill C-2 at third reading, I ask our colleagues to give fair thought to this. I ask them to show the world, which is watching us in a time of economic downturn, that Canada does believe that opening the doors of opportunity is the way to go.

This is the worst time for countries to give in to what would be an impulse that is understandable. It is natural that industries, companies and business would step forward and say, in a time of global contraction, that they need protection. The last thing we want to do is start building walls and making it more difficult to market our goods abroad.

We can be a leader and we can be an example. I believe we are doing that. Soon in this assembly we will see free trade agreements related to Peru and Colombia. In the not too distant future we hope to see the materialization of agreements that we are pursuing in Asia and the Americas.

When I was in India last month, I met with the prime minister and the minister of trade. I have an agreement to begin discussion on a more comprehensive trade agreement with India. I will be in China next month where we will open six new trade offices there. We are sending the indicators very clearly, not just in the pursuit of things like science and technology agreement but on a broader array of sectors, that we want an even more vigorous and more robust relationship with China.

At every opportunity we can, we want to allow the world to see and to be aware that Canadian producers, innovators, exporters and merchandisers are the best in the world. We can compete with anybody in the world at any time as long as the playing field is level. This is our intention with our free trade agreements.

I thank members for their involvement in this and hopefully for their support as we continue the third reading discussion on Bill C-2.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my hon. colleague, he missed out on a few things.

First, he should be aware that the Canadian industry for military Coast Guard Laker and ferry fleets requires an investment of $22 billion over 20 years, not $175 million. None of the major yards will be building hovercrafts or the small Coast Guard vessels. We asked and pleaded for a $22 billion investment over 20 years, and we received $175 million.

The minister talked about structured facility financing. We have asked repeatedly, since 2001 in a report done by business, labour and the communities, to have SFF, structured facility financing, and accelerated cost capital allowance together over five years.

The previous Liberals and the current Conservatives repeatedly said that we could not have a double benefit. All we ask for is that the shipbuilding industry be treated in the same fashion as the aerospace industry.

I could not help but notice the other day when a Conservative MP stood and bragged about the investment in aerospace, yet shipbuilding received a pittance. We know that our five remaining yards cannot live by government procurement alone. They have to be stable. We have five major yards left in the country and a bunch of smaller ones. We are very concerned about them.

It is not that the NDP is against trade deals. We are for them, but we have asked for the exact same thing for which the United States has asked. Since 1924, and the minister should know this, every FTA the United States has signed has excluded shipbuilding marine services from the table. The Americans do not even bring it to these deals. Since they are our largest trading partner, we should have followed suit and done the same thing, but we did not. We know shipbuilding is a deal breaker in EFTA.

The minister is right about subsidies. We have not subsidized our industries for years, but Norway did for over 30 years when it was building up the North Sea oil. It subsidized it heavily to the point where it has it right.

It is not just Norway we are concerned about, because the next talks will be with Korea. Korea has said very clearly that the auto and shipbuilding sectors are major factors in the trade deal. Therefore, we are also concerned about Korea when it comes to shipbuilding and other countries down the road.

My hon. colleague, whom I have great respect for, should understand that we have asked very clearly for the shipbuilding aspect to be taken out of EFTA, and worry about everything else. If he says that we can compete with the rest of the world, that is fine. Does that mean supply management for our farmers—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's input. I am fascinated by his last remark. Is the NDP is coming forward with a position different than ours on supply management? That was fascinating territory for him to be straying into.

Any government program, whether it is a local program to fix potholes or whether it is a federal program to look at exploration in space, by its very nature is always over subscribed.

The member says that we are not doing enough on the facility financing. I think $50 million to assist with the paying down of interest is a lot of money. Could it be more? I guess it could be.

Just announced were $175 million for Coast Guard vessel procurement construction acquisitions. Could it be more? Of course, it could be, but $175 million is really nothing to sneeze at.

We have identified some $45 billion of acquisitions over the next three decades. Could it be more? I guess it could. Could we have put more than $12 billion into our infrastructure and roads program? I guess we could have.

There will always be an argument for more resources in any government program, but those requests should not deter the forward movement of seeing Canadian industries becoming more competitive and doors being opened for them.

That is why we have spent a lot of time with the shipbuilding industry. Let us talk about major shipyards. For the Davie shipyard in Quebec, we went to EDC and pursued the Canada account. We looked for provisions even above and beyond what normally would be available through EDC's deliberation to the point of over $300 million for expanding its facilities, but keeping that from violating other trade agreements. It is not perfect.

We have not produced unlimited funds for every program, but we have gone a long way to ensure that our shipbuilding industry is protected in the appropriate ways that are allowable.

We have not only verbal but written assurance from Norway, and the proof to follow, that it no longer subsidizes its shipbuilding industry. That should be acknowledge as an accomplishment of the EFTA, that we have virtually another country standing back and getting out of the subsidy business.

To say that we should not pursue the agreement because in the past a certain country subsidized a certain industry, then we may as well pack up our bags and go home. Every country is guilty somewhere along the line of having subsidized some industry or another. We should not use that as a reason to stop this agreement.

I appreciate the member's questions, but we need to move ahead. Hopefully we can see program increases in some of the areas that he has mentioned.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is a simple one. From his speech, I got the feeling that he is not being as bold as international regulations allow with respect to this kind of financial help. For example, with respect to the forestry crisis, the minister insists that loan guarantees are subsidies, and I sense that the same thing will happen with the shipbuilding industry. That worries me.

Despite the fact that his own lawyers handling the forestry file at the WTO have argued that loan guarantees are not subsidies, every day the minister stands up here in the House of Commons and says that loan guarantees violate WTO rules. That worries me, and I would ask him to clarify his position.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc party continues to follow the same path, but his approach is limited. He continues to focus on loan guarantees, an issue that is currently before the courts. I can assure the hon. member that Export Development Canada has programs to help industries across Canada and throughout the province of Quebec.

These include a financing program and a risk insurance program. He can keep on talking about loan guarantees. It is up to him to decide if he wants to continue focusing on an issue that is currently before the courts. We intend to await their decision. Then it will be up to Export Development Canada to decide if we can continue with certain kinds of programs—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am afraid I will have to cut the hon. member off.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted Bill C-2 has come to third reading because it is part of a broader plan. I wish the minister had more time in his address to speak to the bigger picture, the broader plan of global trading patterns and where we are in Canada's initiatives, being at the forefront of the new trend of freer trade around the world, particularly in this difficult economic time.

When President Obama visited Canada, there was some concern about protectionism. I think the dangers of protectionism became clear to most Canadians, particularly in a tough economic time.

Would the minister comment on the bigger picture? We have debated, at length, Bill C-2, and most of the House has agreed that this is a favourable and positive approach. However, I would like the minister to comment on the bigger picture of free trade and Canada's plans for the future.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Calgary and also his chairmanship of the committee that has looked at these issues.

There is a much bigger picture involved. I do not want to undermine the individual importance for each of the countries with which we will be engaged under this agreement. However, that broader picture is sending a signal around the world that protectionism is not the way to go, that as elected people, we need to understand the impulse to protect. If we really want to protect an industry, if we really want to protect our workers, then we open up the doors to these free trade agreements.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity today to speak on EFTA, as I have done in my previous capacity as the critic for international trade. During my tenure as critic, I had the opportunity to debate this issue, to work on it in committee, and to work with my caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party on this very important bill.

I want to say from the outset that we need to recognize what this debate is really about. This debate is about free and fair trade. I think we as parliamentarians must recognize now more than ever during these hard economic times that we need to promote free and fair trade.

Very close to my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South, there is an airport that acts as a hub for many businesses that export, and I am reminded that we are seeing the challenges now in this global recession.

I think it is so important that we recognize that we have to avoid the protectionist tendencies that exist in various countries, including here in Canada. We need to recognize that we need to open up our borders and have access of goods and services back and forth to other countries.

We are a nation of 33 million people. For us to succeed and have the quality of life that we enjoy, for us to be able to export the goods and services that we need to make sure we generate the revenue so that we can have government play a role in people's lives and improving people's lives, we need to make sure that we create opportunities for trade and growth, both domestically and abroad.

This morning I was reminded again how difficult this economic situation is and the challenges we face. In the month of February, we lost 83,000 jobs. That is a big number, in my opinion. It speaks volumes about the concerns that people have about job losses.

The unemployment rate now, I think, is close to 7.5% or 7.7%. The projection is that it will go into double digits by the end of the year. These are alarming numbers, and in my opinion, a major cause of concern.

One thing I did hear from the minister and that I do want to echo on behalf of the Liberal Party before I speak on EFTA specifically is the importance of making sure that we promote not only bilateral trade, but multilateral trade.

We are a nation of only 33 million people, and when we engage ourselves in bilateral negotiations with other countries we have a difficult time of negotiating a favourable position because of the relative size of our country. Even though we have great human resources, great potential and great geography, because of the sheer numbers it makes it very difficult for us to get a favourable deal. I think that poses a challenge.

I would encourage this government to work very aggressively through the multilateral system, through the WTO, for example, to be able to negotiate better terms for Canada. That should be the number one priority when it comes to promoting trade with Canada.

The Liberal Party supports Bill C-2, but we have extreme caution and concern with respect to the shipbuilding industry. Yesterday our critic for industry made it very clear that we need to have a national shipbuilding strategy. It is absolutely imperative that we have a strategy in place to help our shipbuilders.

As indicated before by my hon. colleagues, Norway, for example, for many years subsidized their shipbuilding industry and put it in a very unique position in light of this free trade agreement.

I think it is important that Canada has a domestic shipbuilding strategy that puts us in a position where we remain competitive. That would be consistent with provisions in the free trade agreement with respect to the buy Canada procurement policy. I think that is very important and would be consistent with those principles. So I would encourage and request this government to take action immediately in putting together a comprehensive strategy to help the shipbuilding industry.

Another cause of concern that many people had expressed to me, especially from the agricultural sector, was in regard to supply management. I am glad to see that in this bill supply management is protected. It is something that the Liberal Party fought for very hard in committee. It is something we really fought for when this was being negotiated and we made our position very clear to the government. So I would hope people recognize the role we played in shaping some of the elements in this particular free trade agreement.

I want to emphasize why this free trade agreement is important. EFTA countries are the world's fourteenth largest merchandise traders and Canada's fifth largest merchandising export destination. We export billions of dollars worth of goods to the EFTA countries, including nickel, copper, pharmaceuticals, machinery, precious stones, metals, medical devices, aluminum, and so forth. In addition, we import from them pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, and many other goods and services. I think it is important to recognize that there is a healthy relationship there.

In my opinion, there is one thing that the agreement does lack that is a challenge, because it is a generation one agreement. It does not have a comprehensive strategy to deal with investment, promoting two-way investments and having that flow of investment between both countries. I hope that is something that will be considered in the near future as well to further enhance this very important relationship that we are developing.

There is concern, and I think rightly so, with respect to this bill. I hope the government exercises good judgment and is careful in monitoring this free trade agreement, especially when it comes to the snap-back provisions, if there are violations of any of the provisions in the agreement. The 15-year phase-out should be monitored very carefully to make sure that there is no violation of that. I would encourage the government to really pay attention to those two provisions, which are very important to making sure that the shipbuilding industry, in conjunction with the national shipbuilding strategy, is in a position to be competitive once this free trade agreement comes into effect.

I would like to raise one other very important point. In my opinion, EFTA is just the first step to something bigger. As I alluded to earlier with respect to multilateralism, I think it is important that we use EFTA as a launching pad to negotiate with the European Union. It is a very important trading bloc. It is something that we need to recognize. This downturn reminds us that our dependency on the United States has compromised our position. I think it is very important we recognize that we need to diversify our trade and look at other markets.

One of the other key markets is the European Union. I think there is enormous potential there as well, and I hope the government understands and recognizes the importance of working with not only the EFTA countries but other European nations to be able to promote free and fair trade.

I have taken enormous pride in working very closely with my colleagues in the Liberal Party on this file. As I have indicated before, I think this is a very important step in the right direction to promote trade. Trade is very important now in light of the economic challenges we are facing. As a nation of 30 million plus, we need to recognize that we have to open doors. We need to be in an environment where we foster an openness and a sense of opportunity for our businesses here to succeed. I very much believe in our businesses. I very much believe in our workforce and the fact that we can be productive. We can be competitive. We can be innovative, and we can compete with the rest.

However, I also want to underscore the importance of promoting fair trade. One of the concerns that my colleagues and I have expressed in the past is the fact that Norway, for a very long period of time, subsidized the shipbuilding industry in their country. We need to recognize that. In order to combat that and be able to put ourselves in a favourable position once the 15-year phase-out is eliminated, we need to make sure we have a national shipbuilding strategy.

With that, I just want to say that I look forward to this debate. I look forward to working with my colleagues from all political parties to make sure that this bill is passed and that we continue to promote free and fair trade, consistent with Liberal principles and the legacy of a party that has very much engaged in free and fair trade and has negotiated free trade agreements in the past as well. Hopefully when we form government in the near future with the support of many Canadians, we will continue to do so.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Mississauga—Brampton South on his comments today, but more so on his efforts as a critic in the past Parliament who really brought this bill to where it is today. I think it was an example of cooperation. We heard diverse views throughout. We heard witnesses extensively on these matters and came to what I think is a very good bill.

More than that, I think it is the start of an ongoing process. The way we proceeded with this reflects on the future. I would like the member comment on that, if he would, about how this begins a process and how it carries on. As he just stated, we are at a time in the world when we do not want to proceed down the old path of protectionism. It is very important to increase relations with countries around the world, to open up markets for Canadian products and open up opportunities for Canadian business around the world.

I know how knowledgeable the member is on these matters, so I would ask that he comment again on that point, and also on this particular bill and how it is an entry market to open a bigger market in Europe.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague again for allowing me the opportunity to share my comments on this. The first question he asks is a very important one, which is what kind of strategy do we deploy to make Canada competitive in this new global environment where there is major restructuring taking place? One of the key and fundamental ways of doing that is to promote free trade. The best way for Canada to do so is through a multilateral position, which I have indicated, through the WTO, and it is very important that we pursue that strategy very aggressively.

In light of that, there also needs to be a parallel strategy to work with some of the key emerging markets. I would sense from my experience that there is no doubt that the potential exists in countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia, and we need to have a strategy not only to push our trade agenda through the multilateral organizations, but also to work with these nations at the same time to make sure that we do not fall behind other countries.

One of the concerns I have is that as a trading nation we are falling behind. We need to be aggressive when it comes to promoting trade, but in a very fair manner and in a manner that recognizes not only the importance of trade but some of the other elements within our system as well.

Also, with respect to EFTA, I mentioned in my speech that EFTA should be a stepping stone toward building a more comprehensive and open strategy with the European Union. That is a very important market, a market that, essentially, we need to be present in, that we need to be more active in. In light of what we have seen in the United States, we now recognize more than ever the importance of diversifying our trade to be able to have a presence in other markets so that when one market takes a downturn we can then take advantage of expanding our trade and services in other markets.

EFTA, in my opinion, is definitely the right step in promoting trade within that geographic region. I would encourage that EFTA go beyond simply a first generation agreement and look at investment and services as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no clearer illustration of just how out of touch Conservatives and Liberals are than that exchange we just had between two members. I like very much the standing committee chair for international trade, but how could they be more out of touch with what is happening across this country? At a time when we are hemorrhaging jobs, when there are hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, the committee chair did not mention that every single witness before the Standing Committee on International Trade who actually came from the shipbuilding industry said that this is going to kill their industry, that they are going to lose thousands of jobs.

Yet with complete complacency, just like they did with softwood lumber, killing that industry, Conservatives and Liberals are combining to say, “We do not care, we are all right, so we are going to just close shipyards right across the country”.

I would like to say to the public watching this morning, particularly shipyard workers in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Marystown, Newfoundland, in Lévis, Quebec, in the Washington yards in Vancouver, and in Victoria and Nanaimo, B.C., every single witness said this is going to kill our shipbuilding industry.

We have had a lot of lip service paid to fair trade. The reality is what countries are doing now around the world is protecting key industries. The Jones Act in the United States and that country's fair trade policies are one very good example. Americans have built on their shipbuilding industry. Conservatives and Liberals in this House are moving to kill ours.

I would like to ask the hon. member, who I like and respect as a person but quite frankly think he is completely out to lunch when it comes to economic policies, how he reacts to Alfred Komo from Halifax, who said:

It's a shame that the Liberal party of Canada feels that it has to remain a puppet of the Conservative government in supporting another bad free trade deal for Canada.

And he signs his name, “Another—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am going to have to cut the hon. member off there to allow a response.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Brampton South.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm shown by my colleague from the NDP.

People want to see that parties are working together, in the House especially, and recognize that these issues exist. I would like to acknowledge that we have demonstrated in the past, in government and in opposition, that we have sound economic policy that breeds prosperity, creates wealth and helps our productivity. We have illustrated that we work with industry to improve its standing, especially vis-à-vis other countries.

The member makes a very good point that the shipbuilding industry is going to face some major challenges. Irrespective of the EFTA agreement, it is going to face major challenges in general. We in the Liberal Party feel it is very important that we have a national shipbuilding strategy and we have asked the government to create a strategy, not just on paper but by investing the money required to make sure our shipbuilding industry is in a competitive position.

We are also asking the government to make sure it stipulates in the EFTA agreement that any violation of the agreement is monitored, and to make sure of the snap-back provision and the 15-year phase-out to allow our shipbuilding industry to be on a competitive footing vis-à-vis the other countries.

The Liberal Party very much promotes free and fair trade. It understands the sensitivities around the shipbuilding industry, and that is why it has called for a very comprehensive, integrated strategy when it comes to the national shipbuilding community across the country, not only on the east coast but also on the west coast and in parts of Quebec as well. I hope the hon. member recognizes that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the member, it was his party, under Mr. Tobin, that initiated the national shipbuilding strategy, and it has been sitting on the Minister of Industry's desk since 2001. He does not have to write a new policy. We already have one.

The problem is that for the five years following, the Liberals let it gather dust. Now the Conservatives are letting it gather dust. The hon. member should know that we in the NDP do not have anything against trading deals with other countries. That is what we should be pursuing.

I am going to ask him this one question, because I know he is a very intelligent individual. When the United States enters into free trade deals, since 1924 it has excluded shipbuilding and marine services from the trade deals because it knows how vital and strategic that industry is to its economy and its country. If the United States does that, and it is our largest trading partner, why does Canada not do it?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I want to illustrate how important the shipbuilding industry is in Canada, in our opinion.

One of the provisions in this agreement that Liberals feel is very important in addressing some of the concerns that have been raised is the buy Canada procurement. There needs to be a recognition that we understand the importance of this provision, because it will allow our shipbuilding industry to create the ships they need for our domestic consumption and use.

Also, it is very important for people to recognize that there is a 15-year phase-out period that would enable this industry to transition, but not in isolation. It has to be done with a comprehensive national shipbuilding strategy. That is something Liberals have been pushing on a daily basis in committee, through press releases and critics, in public and in debates to make sure the government comes up with a national strategy with regard to shipbuilding.

In light of that, I think the three components, that is, a national shipbuilding strategy, the phase-out and the buy Canada procurement, would help the shipbuilding industry, but make no mistake, the industry is going through some very difficult and challenging times. We recognize that and will play a role. In my opinion, whenever the next election occurs, and I do not know that, with the support of Canadians I am confident that when Liberals form the next government, we will work very hard with the shipbuilding industry to have a national--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This is a bilateral agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Canada.

When we are faced with a free trade agreement, we must be able to take a step back and analyze its pros and cons, and that is what the Bloc Québécois does each and every time, in a responsible manner. We have to look at its strengths and weaknesses. The Bloc Québécois' top priority has always been the interests of Quebeckers. We are the only party in this House that rises every day to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

When we look at this agreement in terms of markets and economies that could generate as many imports and exports from Quebec to the EFTA as from them to us, we can see that there are some very significant markets in Quebec.

First of all, there is aluminum, which is our leading export to Iceland.

When it comes to Norway, nickel accounts for 80% of what we export. In Quebec, we have in Ungava one of the biggest nickel mines in the world, belonging to Xstrata. This too is one of our strengths.

Pharmaceuticals should also be included. We all know that Switzerland is a major producer of pharmaceuticals, and thanks to the skills Quebec has developed in this sector and the assistance provided over the years, Quebec provides very fertile ground for this entire industry and a free trade agreement like this could well give its industry a real boost.

Turning to agriculture, there is always a major problem with international agreements because of the supply management issue. Unlike other treaties, though, this one excludes supply management. It is very important for us to be able to defend the interests of Quebec farmers under supply management. In this agreement, the government has understood, for once, the message that the Bloc Québécois gave it: remove the entire supply management question from the treaty.

One very important thorny point remains and that is shipbuilding. There is a feeling in the treaty that this problem was taken into account. That is why the entry tariffs on equipment and ships and any agreements are subject to a 15 year phase-out with countervailing duties that are reduced with a certain moratorium for three years. This was obviously a major concern.

I will be repeating myself now because I had a chance at another stage of the bill to express my views on this matter. I am very surprised, though, that we could not arrive at a consensus in the House—not to put the free trade agreement on the back burner, because I think it is good for Quebec and also Canada—but to deal right away with the real problem in our shipyards. This is a sector that cries out for a real Canadian policy.

I am amazed that the government has not quickly implemented a Canadian shipbuilding policy and that we are not busy in the House discussing one now. If we look at this Canada-EFTA free trade agreement, it soon becomes apparent that the entire shipbuilding industry has been ignored by the Canadian government for far too long in comparison with what has been happening elsewhere, especially in Norway. I know this is a sensitive issue, but the people opposed to the free trade agreement will understand. I am thinking of the New Democratic Party. It is obvious, though, that if shipbuilding were removed from the treaty, the EFTA countries would no longer have much reason to sign it.

We have to be realistic about this situation. But once again, it is important that the Government of Canada use the moratorium and the 15-year period over which tariffs will be reduced to put in place the Canadian marine policy the industry is calling for.

It was very hard to listen earlier as the Minister of International Trade told us yet again that he had provided enough support for this industry sector with the programs that had been put in place. This is staggering, because I do not sense any openness and, in light of how he answered the question I asked him, I sense that the government is going to take the same approach to the forest industry: they have to be careful, there are international laws, there is the WTO.

While the minister is refusing to introduce loan guarantees for the forest industry, claiming that they are subsidies, his own lawyers are arguing at the WTO and in the London court that loan guarantees are not subsidies. He has given the same answer to every question the government has been asked about this, yet no one has been able to quote a section of any law or regulation that says that loan guarantees are subsidies.

There are loan guarantees in the auto sector and many other sectors. EDC provides loan guarantees for all parts of the aerospace industry. That is a fact, yet we have the feeling that the shipbuilding industry is falling victim to the Conservatives' tendency to help only certain industries and to use international laws as an excuse to refuse help for industries not in that select group.

That is a hard reality, because the forest industry impacts Quebec. And if the government does the same thing in the case of shipbuilding, it will affect the Davie yards in Lévis, near Quebec City. Once again, these are repeated attacks against Quebec that we cannot ignore. We agree with Bill C-2 in principle, but there is a problem in this agreement, and it has to do with shipbuilding, because the government has neglected this industry for too long.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have 12 minutes remaining after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has the floor to continue his speech. He had 12 minutes remaining before members' statements.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on Bill C-2, Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which we have been discussing today.

I would like to remind everyone that when it comes time to discuss a bill to implement a free trade agreement, it is important that we weigh the pros and cons in a responsible fashion. It is important because every sector is affected by trade between the countries. In this agreement, there are some significant sectors, some of which are of considerable influence in our economy.

For example, Quebec has aluminum, which is our leading export to Iceland, one of the signatories to this agreement. Nickel accounts for 80% of our exports to Norway, and that nickel comes from a mine in Ungava operated by Xstrata, a Swiss company. There is also the pharmaceutical sector. Switzerland is one of the world's leading producers of pharmaceuticals. Quebec has an industry that engages in the research, development and sale of generic and prescription drugs. This industry is very strong, because when the Parti Québécois was in power, the Government of Quebec decided to provide it with substantial assistance, with the result that an important structure was put in place. We also have to think about agriculture, because we sell and trade agricultural products with these countries. It was important to us that supply management not be on the table. Milk, poultry, eggs and so on are supply-managed products, and supply management makes the industry profitable. There has been no government assistance for this type of industry since supply management was introduced.

This type of free trade agreement therefore must be analyzed responsibly. There is also a whole other sector, and that is shipbuilding. This is an important part of this agreement, because Norway, for example, is a major shipbuilding nation and its shipyards have been subsidized in the past.

When we do such an analysis, it is important to get to the bottom of things. This free trade agreement is good for many industry sectors, but there is a problem when it comes to shipbuilding. That is why there are specific clauses on shipbuilding. The customs tariffs in effect will be phased out over 15 years, and there will also be a moratorium for a number of years. These clauses were included in the treaty because people knew there was a problem. This is important because it is a crucial part of the discussions in this House. I am willing to debate it, but I have a concern. The shipbuilding industry is calling on Canada to develop a real Canadian marine policy that could solve the problems and keep this industry going.

Despite the fact that the industry, the Bloc Québécois and other parties in this House have been calling for it, the government will not listen. When the Minister of International Trade rose earlier to give his speech, he said nothing to reassure us.

He thinks that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Even though the industry believes that Canada needs a real marine policy, that is not important to him. This is worrisome. Instead of debating this bill, we should have reached a consensus in this House to pass it, because this agreement is good for the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy. Instead, we should at this very moment be debating a real marine policy for Canada, to reassure the entire shipbuilding sector and all other businesses, and to show them we are tackling the problems they have brought to our attention.

Thus, we will have to work very hard to convince this government of the need for a real marine policy for Canada. Once this bill passes, I hope the industry and all the parties, including the Conservatives, will understand that it is high time to do so. Now is the time. The tariffs will be gradually phased out over the next 15 years. That time period will also allow us to ensure that our industry can compete with Norway. That is the issue that we should have been addressing.

When conducting a thorough analysis of an issue as important as a free trade agreement, one must always weigh the pros and the cons. There are the pros I mentioned earlier, such as aluminum, nickel, the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and so on for Quebec. The agreement might even be good for pulp and paper mills. Once again, supply management has successfully been excluded, which is not the case with other agreements the government signed that jeopardized supply management. This time, the government listened to the Bloc Québécois and excluded supply management from the agreement.

For those who suggest that it would have been easier just to exclude shipbuilding from the treaty, I would point out that shipbuilding is one of Norway's economic strengths. Had we excluded shipbuilding, there would be no agreement, and we would not be talking about it today.

We have to adopt a conciliatory approach to these issues. We have to be open in our approach to these agreements, and we have to do a macroeconomic analysis of the advantages and disadvantages. When there is one sector in particular that could be disadvantaged, such as shipbuilding, we have to address the problem.

I was hoping the minister would talk about that today. Since the witnesses who appeared before the committee—and, indeed the entire shipbuilding industry—are uncomfortable about this, the Minister of International Trade could have told us that the government planned to deal with the problem, support the industry, and ensure that, once the 15 years are up, our industry will be competitive. If it can compete with Norway, it will be able to compete with every other shipbuilding concern in the world.

However, that is not the sense we are getting from the Conservative government. Time and again, it is all about their Conservative laissez-faire ideology. As it turns out, apply that approach to some sectors, and those sectors disappear. The opposition should attack that ideology and try to convince the Conservatives that, when it comes to shipbuilding, they must set their ideology aside and talk about a real Canadian marine policy. The industry would have found that reassuring.

At the same time, we have to act responsibly. The Bloc Québécois studied this free-trade agreement and weighed the advantages and disadvantages for all industries that will be affected. This is a first because the Canada-EFTA agreement covers Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The real objective, for Quebeckers, is to have a true free-trade agreement with the European Union. That is the objective.

Even the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, who does not share my political views, is defending it. He recently travelled abroad in the middle of the economic crisis in Quebec. That is up to him. Nevertheless, he has taken a clear position on a free-trade agreement with the European Union, which reflects the unanimous position of the National Assembly of Quebec. Therefore, agreements with European countries are welcome. Naturally, given our population and the relative strength of our industries in Quebec or Canada, we have to be open to the world in order to develop. By not looking beyond our borders we will never be able to develop and reach our full potential. Just think of the aerospace sector and many others.

Therefore, we must be able to create a greater vision for the economy of the future, but also for the future of our economy. We believe this Canada-EFTA free-trade agreement is the way of the future with its advantages and disadvantages. Obviously, it puts shipbuilding at a disadvantage. Therefore, I hope that the government has heard everyone's position in this House, especially that of the Bloc Québécois, which has said that it is time for the government to sit down and adopt a real Canadian marine policy. The industry has been calling for it for many years. Naturally, starting today, we will support everything that can lead to a real Canadian marine policy so that, once the 15 years have passed, our shipbuilding industry will be able to compete with Norway and all other countries.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed. The Bloc came here to change Ottawa, yet it seems that Ottawa has changed the Bloc Québécois. They come back with the same old free trade policies as George Bush, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. It is exactly the same thing, despite the fact that Quebec's workers are asking them to change their policy.

The Lauzon shipyard workers' union has clearly said:

We represent CSN-affiliated workers working at the Lévis shipyard. We stand with workers in all Canadian shipyards in supporting your efforts to exclude Canadian shipyards from the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement.

It is very clear. Quebec's workers are telling the Bloc Québécois that they are on the wrong track and making a mistake. They are following the same old free trade policies that linger mainly in Canada. The United States has moved on to a fair trade approach. Here in Canada we are stuck with the old parties making the same old speeches, and this includes the Bloc Québécois.

Now, there is only one question I would like to ask. The Bloc seems to have something against the Quebec City area and the workers in Lévis. Workers in the Quebec City area are asking the Bloc Québécois to say no to this agreement, to take shipyards out of it. Is it that the Bloc Québécois is still upset with Quebec City and that they want to punish workers in the Quebec City area and those who work at the Lauzon shipyard because they did not vote the right way, that is, they did not vote for the Bloc Québécois during the last election? That is the only explanation—

[The Acting Speaker, Derek Lee]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Of course, the Bloc Québécois does not practice the same politics as the NDP. That party practices the politics of 30 years ago. Its political ideas date from 30 years ago. And the New Democrats will be practising the same politics for the next 30 years. That is their legacy.

I have a copy of the letter from the Lauzon shipyard workers' union and I will finish reading the paragraph. It says:

We are convinced that the creation of a Canadian marine policy would be much more profitable and beneficial for the shipbuilding industry than this kind of free trade agreement.

This is where the Bloc Québécois will help. The Bloc Québécois will ask the NDP to work towards creating a real Canadian marine policy. One thing I regret about this House is that the NDP does not attack the Conservatives' laissez-faire ideology. The NDP has decided to attack this agreement. However, as I said earlier, when looking at a free trade agreement, one must do so with macroeconomics in mind. I will not grandstand, as they tend to do, nor will I say that the NDP is attacking the aluminum industry, the nickel industry and the pharmaceutical industry. I will not say that about them. But the fact remains, when you practice the politics of 30 years ago, it is easy to return to old habits.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, but I would like him to answer the following question.

How is it that the three other parties in this House voted against the workers of Canada's shipbuilding industry? Clearly, in 15 years, Canada is going to lose that industry. The statistics are clear. It is also clear that the United States is protecting its shipbuilding industry, as are other countries.

How is it that, here in Canada, no one cares about the shipbuilding industry and we agreed to sign this agreement for no good reason, other than to have an agreement signed? I would like him to explain that.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member knows very well that the very text of the agreement indicates special concern for shipbuilding: there is a 15-year period, a moratorium. Therefore the entire text is up for discussion. Naturally it is an important issue.

When looking at a free trade agreement from a macroeconomic perspective, there are positives and there are negatives. One of the negatives pertains to shipbuilding. Therefore, Canada must decide to tackle the problem. Of course, if the NDP decides to pout in its corner and not put any effort into making progress on a Canadian marine policy, there will be problems. That is why I stated in my speech that I was disappointed today that there was not unanimous support for Bill C-2and for tackling a real Canadian marine policy.

Once again, it shows divisiveness. We are trying to make our colleagues understand that we have to put our partisanship aside and try to work on the real needs of the industry by developing a Canadian marine policy. When Bill C-2 is adopted, the Bloc Québécois will be available. We have 15 years to adopt a policy and to ensure that our shipbuilders will be competitive.

If they are able to compete with Norway, they will be able to compete with every other country. It is a good opportunity.

If the NDP decides to stay in its corner and to do everything it can to prevent a discussion of this issue and if the Conservatives are no longer keen on it, they will have the backing of the NDP for not having a Canadian marine policy. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I quite like the member, but he is misleading Quebeckers.

More than half of all Quebeckers want fair trade. That is what most Quebeckers want. But the Bloc Québécois is aligning with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, both of which are championing John McCain and George W. Bush's behind-the-times ideas. It is absurd to suggest that we cannot protect certain strategic industries.

Workers in the Lévis and Lauzon shipyards have asked the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of the NDP amendment to exclude shipbuilding from the agreement. The United Stated have done so systematically. Under their Jones act, they have excluded shipbuilding and shipyards to ensure that the industry can make a full contribution to their economy.

The NDP is the only party in the House that says that shipyards deserve our support and should be excluded from the agreement. This is the only way to force the government to come up with a proper marine policy.

Why is the Bloc supporting an agreement that sells out shipbuilding when the NDP is offering a solution that would bring in a marine policy? Saying that we might come up with something someday is not good enough. This agreement will kill shipbuilding. That is what shipyard workers all over Canada, including those in the Lauzon shipyard, have told us.

They have made their needs clear. Why is the NDP the only party listening to these workers?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain, and that is that the Bloc Québécois wants to protect the values and interests of Quebeckers. The government says it is open to discussions with the world. At a time of crisis, the Premier of Quebec took the trouble to spend a few weeks discussing a possible free trade agreement between Quebec and the rest of the European Union with EU representatives. We have to keep in mind that Quebec has a population of 7 million, while Canada has a population of 33 million. If we want to lead the world in aluminum, nickel, aerospace and many other industries, we have to be able to open up to world markets.

Obviously, when we enter into agreements and analyze them on a macroeconomic level, we see that they have advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages of this agreement has to do with the shipbuilding sector. However, because of the political divide in this House, which is supported by the NDP, we are unable to tackle the issue of a real shipbuilding policy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important debate, which is why the NDP is following through, as we have at each level of the debate, to ensure the voices of shipyard workers from coast to coast are actually heard in this debate.

As members well know, there is an Ottawa bubble that is incredibly strong for new members of Parliament, the Conservatives, Liberals and even Bloc members. They come here and forget about the interests of their constituents. It happens time and time again. We see these with trade agreements that sell out Canadians and sell out Canadian jobs.

Essentially, we have Conservative and Liberal MPs who only listen to corporate CEOs, even as those corporate CEOs are moving jobs offshore to other countries, to the third world where they can pay miserable wages and then sell their goods back in Canada. The result has been a hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost, and still the government persists in bringing forward sellout agreements, agreements that have not been negotiated with any strength, that have not been negotiated with the interests of the country in mind, but are simply agreements that sell out various sectors of the Canadian economy in the hope that somehow, magically, through George Bush-style free trade agreements, there will be economic benefits.

The reality, which Statistics Canada tells us very clearly, is that approach does not worked. Over the last 20 years, for about three-quarters of Canadian families, their real income has actually gone down, and many of them are listening today. They have seen how disastrous right-wing economic policies, including George Bush-style free trade agreements, have been for the country. They are earning less now than they were 20 years ago. If that is not a silent economic crisis, I do not know what is.

The whole basis that somehow throwing these agreements out and selling out various sectors creates jobs in Canada simply does not work and does not hold up. It is very clear. When the bottom line of these agreements and the whole lack of industrial strategies in a whole variety of sectors does not work, one would think the government would think twice, but no, from Liberals to Conservatives, it is just the same old thing.

Perhaps that is why the NDP representation in this House over the last few years has tripled. It is because people are saying that it does not work in their communities. People are tired of working for minimum wage jobs and are tired of seeing their manufacturing facilities close down.

We saw that with the softwood sellout, which the Liberals and Bloc Québécois members now regret supporting. They are trying to distance themselves as the penalties now start coming into play, with $68 million last week and probably $400 million that softwood communities and small softwood companies, the ones that have survived, will have to pay when the next decision comes down.

It is absolutely absurd and now, the opposition parties that helped the Conservatives drive the getaway car in the softwood sellout, are trying to pretend that they were not in the car. Canadians are not fooled by that.

Now we have an agreement coming forward that every representative, whether a worker's representative or an owner's representative, representing shipbuilding across this country from coast to coast, have said will kill our shipbuilding industry. It has been unanimous. We are not talking about some difference of opinion. We are talking about unanimous recommendations to carve out shipbuilding from the agreement and yet not one Conservative MP has stood up for shipbuilding, even though, in many cases, they represent shipbuilding workers in their ridings. The Bloc Québécois, as I mentioned in French just a few minutes ago, despite being pressed by shipyard workers in Lévis, Quebec, is refusing to stand up for shipyard workers.

Only one party in this Parliament is standing up for shipyard workers and that is the NDP and that is because we have our own shipbuilding critic, the member of Parliament for Sackville—Eastern Shore. We have a new member of Parliament for Welland who represents the shipbuilding workers there and who is doing a terrific job as well.

We represent our constituents. We are standing up for shipbuilding workers. It is not as if the members can pretend they have not heard. Hundreds and hundreds of letters have been pouring in, especially to Liberal MP offices, telling them to support the NDP's amendment for the carve out. More are coming in as we speak. So many are coming in that fax machines have been having difficulty keeping up. The letters say, unanimously, “Support the carve out”.

I read one of the many letters into the record earlier and I will do it again. It said:

One of the most surprising things to me as a shipyard worker is that all stakeholders in the industry including owners, operators and unions from coast-to-coast have emphasized the need for this support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks. It's a shame that the Liberal party of Canada feels that it has to remain a puppet of the Conservative government in supporting another bad free trade deal for Canada.

These letters are pouring in and they are heartfelt. The shipyard workers are saying that Canada has, by far, the world's longest coastline and a proud shipbuilding tradition. In fact, just a few decades ago we had the fourth largest navy on the entire planet. Shipbuilding yards were turning out ships in Vancouver. We had ships coming out every week. We had tens of thousands of shipbuilding jobs.

The reason that industry is now on its deathbed is because of a completely irresponsible approach by the former Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government. Now we have a coffin that is being presented in the middle of the House of Commons by the Conservative government through Bill C-2, which would kill and finish off our shipbuilding sector.

Liberals and Bloc members say that is okay, that they are alright, they are MPs and that they do not care about the workers in this country. What are they basing their vote on? There is some sort of airy-fairy theory that somehow Canada will be advantaged. There has been absolutely no economic impact analysis of this agreement. Not one Liberal MP, Conservative MP or Bloc Québécois MP has actually said that maybe we need to know how many jobs will be lost from this.

It is absurd that the Ottawa bubble corrupts every MP who comes from other parties. They seem incapable of standing up for Canada and for Canadians jobs once they get elected to Parliament. It is appalling. They cannot say that they did not know. Those letters are coming in, letters that the NDP has read into the record, letters from the B.C. marine workers, Davie shipyard and the Halifax shipyards. It is pretty conclusive.

What happens next? Well, we are now starting debate on third riding. In a few moments I will offering a motion that will carve out shipbuilding from this agreement.

What we are saying is that, over the next two weeks, those shipbuilding workers who are listening in today, those shipbuilding workers who have been sending their letters to Liberal MPs and those shipbuilding workers in Quebec who have been indicating to the Bloc Québécois that they should be voting for this carve-out will get another opportunity.

Over the next week, they need to let their voices be heard. They need to ensure that those MPs who are so willing to sell out our shipbuilding industry for some vague advantage that might come, although there is no economic analysis so they cannot really pinpoint anything, but those MPs will be forced to make a choice. They need to know that if they vote to sell out shipbuilding, they will not come back to the next Parliament. It needs to be that clear.

We have precedents for that. We all recall the softwood sell-out that supported by the Bloc and the Liberals. Many of those Liberal MPs who voted for the softwood lumber agreement, particularly in northern Ontario and northern Manitoba, are no longer here. People in northern Ontario and in northern Manitoba said “No, if you are not going to represent us, we are not going to return you to Parliament”. Those Liberal MPs are no longer here.

The Liberal MP from Welland, who was a flamboyant free trader on the George Bush model, is no longer here and has been replaced by a dedicated social democrat who is standing up for the workers in the riding of Welland.

More and more Canadians are saying that they do not want the old speeches that they have been hearing for 20 years that eventually something will happen, eventually our quality of life will improve, eventually we will get higher incomes, while all the money continues to be concentrated in a few people's hands. Corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers are making more money than ever. In fact, the wealthiest Canadians now take most of Canada's income. Middle class and working class families have lost ground. Their real incomes have gone down, even the hours worked have increased substantially. However, the policies that have been adopted by Liberal and Conservative governments have put the focus on the wealthiest of Canadians to the exclusion of everyone else. Increasingly, Canadians are waking up to that fact.

This is a call out for shipbuilding workers in Victoria, British Columbia and Nanaimo, B.C., shipbuilders with that proud tradition that I mentioned in Vancouver, British Columbia in the Washington yards. They need to contact their Liberal MPs and telling Conservative MPs that this sellout is completely unacceptable. Over the next week, they need to make their voices heard.

Shipbuilding workers in southern Ontario in the Welland yards, who, unfortunately, have a terrific MP, also need to make their voices heard.

People in Lévis, the workers at the Lauzon shipyard, must tell the Bloc Québécois that it is unacceptable for the Bloc to penalize Quebec City because the citizens did not vote the right way. This shipbuilding sell-out is unacceptable. These workers made it clear but they must work to make it even more clear since the Bloc does not seem to understand that this sell-out deal is even worse than the softwood lumber sell-out, which cost Quebec workers thousands of jobs. Those workers lost their jobs because the Bloc, instead of defending Quebec's interests, simply decided to go with the same old free trade policies as George Bush, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Bloc refused to defend Quebec's interests, while these workers should have been listened to.

The shipbuilding workers in Nova Scotia have sent in hundreds of letters and they cannot be more clear, but they need to phone the MPs for Halifax West and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who are refusing to stand up for their constituents.

The shipyard workers in Marystown, Newfoundland and Labrador, who have a very good member in the MP for St. John's East, but all of the other Newfoundland and Labrador MPs are trying to vote for an agreement that kills the jobs in Marystown. We heard that from shipyard workers across the country. Over the next week, because we will not be in session, they need to let their MPs know that this is unacceptable, that they must stand up for Canadian jobs and for their community.

The reality we face is a House where one party is defending Canadian jobs and standing up for Canada and three parties that are selling us out. They are not even selling us out with anything tangible to give us. We have no economic impact statement, nothing that actually says what advantages are here. They say that it is symbolic. I am sorry but the shipyard workers of Canada need more than symbolism. They need jobs. They need a maritime policy that actually creates more jobs. They do not need an agreement that, as shipyard workers have so clearly said to the Parliament of Canada, kills their industry.

The Conservatives say that in 30 years they will be investing more money. Well, in 30 years there will not be any shipyards left. The Liberals say that some day they will be in government and they will put a policy in place. Well, there will not be any shipyards left.

The Bloc Québécois says that it will defend Quebec's interests, except when it comes to shipbuilding. It is ready to sell out in terms of the workers' interests because it believes that Quebec will eventually come out on top. But the Bloc Québécois has nothing tangible to show because there has never been an impact study. The Bloc cannot provide any arguments that counterbalance what is being sold.

With that very clear point, I know that the hundreds of shipyard workers who have been writing to members of Parliament and the thousands of other shipyard workers across the country will be impacted by this agreement unless we get the carve-out that the NDP is proposing. We ask the shipyard workers to write in.

I will complete my speech by moving the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on International Trade for the purpose of reconsidering clause 33 with a view to re-examining the phase-out of shipbuilding protections.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I again want to highlight my hon. colleague, who has done an outstanding job in committee and the House by raising the spectre of what may happen to the shipbuilding industry if these particular policies carry on.

My hon. colleague is a learned gentleman. He is not asking for anything that is against the WTO or the GATS. He is not asking for anything illegal. What he is asking for is fairness in representation of the facts when it comes to shipyard workers, shipowners and shipbuilders in the five major yards we have left in Canada.

We know for certain that if we were to get the carve-out of shipbuilding, Norway would raise concerns and might back away from it. That leads to one of the questions I would like to ask my hon. colleague. Why would Norway be so hinged on shipbuilding? We understand that there is a scaled reduction of the tariff over 15 years, but we know very well that favourable tax policies in Norway can offset that.

The reality is that our largest trading partner is the United States, and this is the crux of the matter in my argument. Every single FTA it has signed since 1924 specifically carves out shipbuilding and marine services. It is our largest trading partner. Why would Canada not legally do the same, in order to protect the interests of our shipyards and workers in this country?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who has been the foremost advocate for shipbuilding workers across the country and the foremost advocate for having a national shipbuilding strategy here in Canada. He has done real honour in the House by his actions.

The workers, the owners, and every single representative and witness representing the shipbuilding industry have told us time and time again in committee, “This will kill us”. Every single one said it.

Yet Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc members have said they don't care. They have some airy-fairy approach to the George W. Bush style of free trade, and they think it has to work, even though there are no economic impact statements at all to justify it. They just figure that somehow Canada is going to come out ahead. That is just not good enough for the hard-working shipbuilding workers across this country from coast to coast.

Every other country does this. As the member mentioned, the Jones Act protects the United States' shipbuilding industry so that the U.S.A. can continue to build it in a very viable way. This one kills the shipbuilding industry with 1,000 cuts instantly. As soon as it is approved, it shuts off certain sectors from Canadians in terms of being able to build ships, and that continues until the inexorable end of our shipbuilding industry.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked a very intelligent question. The reality is that every member of the House should be standing up to vote for this NDP amendment.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster on behalf of U.S. steelworkers and the former Dofasco workers of Hamilton, who produced his steel.

Earlier in the debate on this particular motion, I think we heard the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore talk about the command centres of our ships now looking like they are from Star Trek or some futuristic place. In fact, Canada is a leading nation in the development of shipping. I cannot help but remember that just recently we passed the 50th anniversary of the death of the Avro Arrow. I am very fearful that we are at the beginning of the end for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. For steelmakers across this country, who rely on making steel for auto manufacturing and for vessels, this is crucial.

I want to thank the member and again refer to the fact that the United States, since the Jones Act of 1920, has been doing exactly what this member has asked. Did the member try to put this through a committee similar to this?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has been a strong advocate for Canadian workers and Canadian jobs. I wish we had more members like him in the House. We have 37 members like him, but we need to have 137 so that these kinds of sellouts actually stop. We are working on it. The number of members providing strong representation for workers has tripled in the House over the past few years. If it triples again, we will not see any more of these sellouts.

It would be an important step in the Canadian Parliament to stop the Ottawa bubble and actually start thinking about ordinary people across this country, rather than just corporate CEOs and bankers, which is what Liberals and Conservatives seem to love. They love giving money to bankers and corporate CEOs. They do not seem to think very often about the hard-working ordinary Canadians who pay their taxes and actually pay their salaries.

The question asked whether this issue had been raised. It was raised in committee repeatedly by every single representative from the shipbuilding industry, both owners and workers. It was every single one. The member is quite right to point this out. We have Liberals and Conservatives not even bothering to listen. They do not even bother to listen to the impact of their decisions. They did not even want to read the bill. They just wanted to push it right through.

In fact, Liberals moved to cut off witnesses. We had Liberals and Conservatives saying that they did not really want to hear from shipbuilding representatives. They did not really care about that. Somebody said that there were going to be some benefits in this deal, and even though there had been no economic analysis whatsoever, they were just going to pass it through, throw it on the House of Commons and see what happened.

That worked really well for the softwood sellout, did it not? Thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost because members in the House did not do their job. We told them what the impact would be: hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, softwood communities devastated, closures of mills and money going down to the United States. What did they do? They voted it through. We are giving them a last chance to do the right thing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the United States has shown a lot of common sense in past history by protecting its shipbuilding industry through the Jones Act of 1920. Why would the members opposite have such a lack of common sense and not follow the United States? They seem to want to follow the United States in every other field of endeavour. Why would they not follow them in this one?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague for Elmwood—Transcona. The answer is that they are stuck in the past. They are dinosaurs on trade policy. The rest of the world is moving to fair trade. We are seeing a fundamental change, because the old George W. Bush style of free trade policy simply did not work.

We now have fair trade in place in Washington. The Barack Obama administration was elected on that basis, yet here, the last relics of the George W. Bush style of free trade are still in place in the House of Commons. Canadians need to know that we have these relics. They are trade illiterates. They are folks who just take whatever is given to them on free trade without checking facts, without checking what has actually happened to middle-class family incomes and without checking the impacts of each and every one of these agreements that Liberals and Conservatives love to sign, but do not seem to want to read.

I think that is why we need to look at best practices. The member for Elmwood—Transcona asks a very valid question. The U.S. has a viable and vibrant shipbuilding sector because, under the Jones Act, they exempt shipbuilding from international trade agreements. That is a best practice that has led to thousands of new shipbuilding jobs in the United States. The NDP is simply saying that we want to adopt that best practice here and carve shipbuilding out of this agreement.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it reminds one of the old adage about the barn door and trying to catch the horses after the barn door is closed. To be honest, the dry dock doors are about to shut and the last ship is about to sail away.

I commend my hon. colleague, who has fought vociferously and passionately and courageously to save shipyards across the country. Could I ask him what he thinks will happen to those communities where those shipyard workers are?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know what will happen. They will lose their jobs, and their families will lose their breadwinners.

This is why we are saying through you, Mr. Speaker, to the country at large that this is the time when shipyard workers need to speak out. Those hundreds of letters have had some impact--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we know where the government's attention is. We heard it today in question period, when it could not even get a simple question correct. With all the people working in government, with all the statistical information that the government could have, in response to a simple question by one of our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois on EI, it had the audacity to deliberately mislead the House of Commons and Canada by telling us that 82% of EI claimants get EI. Where did that figure come from? The truth is that fewer than 40% of the people who claim for EI actually receive it. Where did that figure of 82% come from? It is unbelievable.

Here is another place where the government's attention is. Page 8 of Quorum shows that in 2007 the ten highest-paid bureaucrats in the government got bonuses of 25%, 33%, 28%, 24%, 15%.

What does the government tell the shipyard workers? “We are going to phase out your industry. You might be able to collect EI if you qualify”.

Well, shipyard workers do not want EI. They want to have jobs and look after themselves.

I get a kick out of the Liberals and the Bloc when they say that they want to have a national policy. We already have one. In 2001, the then industry minister, Brian Tobin, struck a committee made up of labour and industry. It came together with the “Breaking Through” document. It presented five major recommendations to assist the industry and put it on sound financial footing. Some of the elements were a combination of what we call structured facility financing and accelerated cost capital allowance, but in order for them to work, they had to be together.

Yes, the government did put in SFF, but not for the five-year term that we and industry and labour had asked for, and not with ACCA. We needed to have them together. It was a straightforward recommendation that would have put this industry on sound footing. It did not happen.

That report is still collecting dust on the Minister of Industry's desk. How frustrating it is that almost eight years after these workers, companies and groups got together to do that report, trusting that something might move, it has not happened.

We have heard from Liberals. The hon. member for Halifax West, when he was the fisheries minister, stood in the shipyards and said, “Don't worry, folks. We're going to build those big new mid-shore Coast Guard vessels right here”.

Four years later and with a Conservative government, we still do not have them, yet what do the Conservatives announce in a budget? Instead of the $22 billion worth of work that we need over 20 years for building the JSS support vessels, the Coast Guard vessels, the icebreakers, the laker fleets, the ferry fleets, et cetera, we got what we call the “canoe budget” of $175 million to build some hovercraft and do some mid-life refits on some vessels.

That $175 million is important. There is no doubt about it. However, the major yards, except for the refits, are not going to be building hovercraft. It just does not happen.

In reality, very much more was required and very little was delivered.

The Conservatives are nice people individually. There is not one of them I would not want as my neighbour. We have to ask ourselves, though, what they, with their Liberal friends and their Bloc friends, would collectively tell the shipbuilding industry, when in committee after committee they heard and heard again that these trade deals may very well be the end of us in the future.

It is not just EFTA alone that will kill this industry. Once we put in this trade deal with EFTA, then Korea is knocking on our door, and Korea has said very clearly that shipbuilding and the auto sector will be major factors in our trade talks.

That is where the deal will be killed. That is when shipbuilding says goodbye in this country.

The government may want to remain true to its word down the road and say that we are going to build the Diefenbaker here in Canada. The irony of it is that in order for a yard to do it, the government may have to subsidize that yard to get it done, as it did for the Irvings in the 1980s. It gave them millions of dollars to upgrade the yard. They built the frigates. Then it gave them $55 million to shut it down. That was the Conservatives and the Liberals.

The reality is that we have an industry that can be viable, that can hire thousands of people.

I will relate an incident that happened yesterday. The EnCana Corporation, with the Deep Panuke project, announced that Irving in Halifax will be building an offshore vessel. It is a $60 million contract. All of a sudden, 200 additional workers will come back in, $20 million will be offset to the economy in payroll and income taxes, and there will be $14 million of direct input into the Halifax-Dartmouth area.

That is one supply vessel, at $60 million. Can members imagine what billions of dollars of work would do, not just in Halifax, but in Marystown, Lévis, Welland, and the Washington yards in Victoria, what it would do for a stimulus package in this country? We do not have to subsidize it; we have to invest.

The men and women in the military deserve new navy fleets. The men and women in the Coast Guard deserve those new vessels. The men and women who ply the Great Lakes deserve new laker fleets, and the men and women who serve our ferries and transportation on the east and west coasts and in the Great Lakes areas deserve to have those new ferries.

We certainly do not want to see another example of the BC Ferries corporation having three vessels built in Germany at a cost of $540 million and not one job created in B.C. because of it. Then what does the BC Ferries corporation ask? They want a waiver of the 25% import duty charges. They want to waive it, because if they do not get it, what will happen is that they may have to raise rates on the ferries. It is blackmail. That is exactly what they are doing to the government. I hope the government says very politely to the BC Ferries corporation, “No, you must pay those duties coming in.”

George MacPherson, a B.C. shipyard worker, said very clearly, if the government had invested that money properly, it could have built those ships for probably less than what it did in Germany, because 40¢ on every dollar would have gone immediately back into the economy through income payroll taxes. That does not include the offset jobs that would have been there.

Of course, the Conservatives are very serious about economic plans and they like to create jobs. We saw a classic example of that just a while ago when 18 of their friends entered the Senate for $6 million. What a great economic stimulus package that was.

I could be wrong on this one but I would not mind testing it: I do not think there is one member of Parliament in the House who was asked by any constituent to request that the Prime Minister put 18 more of his friends in the Senate to get the economy going. That is where it is, the Senate.

That is not what Canadians are asking for. They are asking for jobs and for the ability to look after their own families, to pay their taxes and live in their communities.

We have five major yards left in this country. Since 2001, since the “Breaking Through” report, we have consistently, over and over again, asked the previous government and the current government to pay half as much attention to the shipbuilding industry as it does the aerospace industry.

It was not lost on anyone when the Conservatives stood and bragged about an investment of over $300 million in the aerospace industry. What happened because of it? Some very good news: Bombardier-Canadair with a more than $1 billion contract. That, in my opinion, is a sound investment.

I know this sounds like a socialist-democratic idea that the ghosts of Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and J.S. Woodsworth are coming back to filter through the House of Commons, but imagine the concept of using Canadian taxpayers' dollars to hire Canadian workers to work in Canadian shipyards, work with Canadian companies, and build Canadian ships.

That is such a far-fetched idea. It must be some crazy NDPer saying this. The reality is that this is what Canadians are asking for. They want investments in strategic industries that will build the economy of tomorrow. They want to make sure that their tax dollars go to hire their friends and their neighbours so that they in turn have jobs to look after their families.

For the government to sell out the shipyard workers and the companies through this EFTA deal means that Korea is next, and what else after that? Yet we have reported over and over again that there is nothing wrong, nothing illegal, no trade disputes at all, in carving shipbuilding out of that debate.

We can have the EFTA deal. We do not mind it at all. In fact, we would like the government to promote the EFTA deal, but leave shipbuilding out of it, because that will eventually hurt our industry.

In 2003, when I questioned the then deputy prime minister, John Manley, in this House, we heard him say that the shipbuilding industry, in his view, was a sunset industry, that it was time to get over it and move on. That is what he said in 2003.

I honestly believe there are a lot of Liberals, a lot of Conservatives and the bureaucrats behind it who still believe that and would trade off this industry for something else. That is inexplicable. It is unbelievable that two major parties in the House who have been governing this country since Confederation can have such a dim view of shipbuilding in this country.

The reality is that with sound investment and the proper protection this industry can grow and be a bright light in the future for our economy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore will have nine minutes left in the time allotted to him the next time the bill is debated in the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-2—Notice of time allocation motion

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-2, Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or time or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my understanding the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has nine minutes remaining in his time period.

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise in the continuation of the debate on Bill C-2.

What my colleague from New Westminster has asked for, and he has asked for it very eloquently and quite intelligently, is exactly what the United States has done.

We are about to sign on to an EFTA deal and it may have serious ramifications for a major industry in our country, namely shipbuilding.

Over the past few weeks, we have received hundreds and hundreds of letters from shipyard workers who are very concerned about their future and the future of their families in the five major yards as well as in the other smaller yards across the country. They are asking the government, quite clearly, why it would sign a trade deal that may affect this very important and vital industry.

The NDP has absolutely nothing against trade deals as long as they are fair and equitable on both sides. We saw what happened with NAFTA and the free trade concerns. We saw our wages and other things go down. We were promised that Mexican considerations would go up. It simply has not worked.

We saw what happened with the softwood lumber deal. We left a billion dollars of our companies' money in the United States. Many mills across the country have shut down and thousands of people have been laid off in the forestry industry.

We are all concerned about the shipbuilding aspects. Lately the government has spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in meetings with experts across the country on what is the best way to stimulate the economy and get the machines going and people working again so as to give them a sense of optimism and confidence once again.

We have said to the present government, and to the previous government as well, that one industry it can look at in a very positive and fiscally responsible manner is the shipbuilding industry. We said before that we had $22 billion worth of work on the books right now. Spread over a 20 years period, that can keep the five major yards singing for a long time and employ thousands of people at very decent salaries so they in turn can pay their taxes, look after their families and live in these communities. We have major yards in Victoria, Welland, Lévis, Halifax and Marystown, plus smaller yards across the country.

We honestly believe this industry has a bright future and those Canadian workers and Canadian companies deserve that opportunity.

I have said this before and I will say it once again. I know this sounds very much like a social democratic ideal, but imagine using Canadian taxpayer money to hire Canadian workers to build Canadian ships with Canadian companies in Canadian yards? Call me a rabid communist, and I really do not care, but what a novel idea to use taxpayer dollars to hire our neighbours to build Canadian vessels that our Coast Guard, ferry fleets, laker fleets and our military desperately require.

We could not help but notice that the recent budget the government announced $175 million for hovercrafts and small boats, but the request was for $22 billion, not $175 million, spread over 20 years.

It is also quite ironic that the government brags about an investment of $300 million in the aerospace industry and look what happened; a $1.5 billion contract out of Quebec to build airplanes. That is a good investment. We want the exact came attitude applied to the shipbuilding industry. The 2001 report, “Breaking Through”, done by labour and business, has five serious recommendations that would move this industry forward.

If we go ahead and sign this EFTA deal, it may have serious ramifications for our shipbuilding industry. It is not only EFTA about which my colleagues in the NDP are very worried. What happens when the next trade deal with Korea comes up? Korea has already said that it wants auto and shipbuilding in those deals.

If our largest trading partner, the United States, with which we have 80% of our trade, in every single FTA that it has ever signed since 1924 excludes shipbuilding and marine services from the table, then why does Canada not do the same?

Why can we not protect this very vital industry, just like China, Korea, the United States, Norway, Italy, Britain, Holland and all other major countries in the world have done for their industries? Why is it that every time we go to the table, we give up these industries for other concerns? That has to stop and it has to stop now.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has done an absolutely fabulous job in pointing out the errors of the softwood lumber deal. He was absolutely correct. Now he is pointing it out with the EFTA deal as well as the shipbuilders and the shipyard workers.

These individuals deserve to have the opportunity to build Canadian ships in Canadian yards, using Canadian taxpayers money to do so. We do not like to see this industry, or any other industry of that nature, given up to those who say, as John Manley said in 2003, that shipbuilding is a sunset industry. We simply do not believe that for one second. We honestly believe this is a sunrise industry, an industry that has a bright future in our country. That is why we ask the government to do exactly what the United States has done: carve this out of the EFTA deal, sign the free trade deal, but then carry on and allow our shipbuilding to grow and prosper.

Norway has said very clearly that it will pull out of EFTA if shipbuilding is not on the table. Why is it so important to Norway to have shipbuilding on the table? For over 30 years, although it does not do it now, Norway heavily subsidized that industry to the point where it got it absolutely right. Even with a 15 year decline in the import tariff, Norway knows very well it can do much damage to our industry, and it is not just Norway, but is Korea as well. What other trade deals down the road will not only put this industry at risk, but other industries as well?

One more time we ask the government, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois to support my colleague's motion to get this carved out from the EFTA deal. We should sign the EFTA deal after that and work on shipbuilding to ensure it has a bright and positive future for Canadians.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for his passionate defence of our shipbuilding industry.

Before the North American Free Trade Agreement, 1,200 people lived in the little town of Wawa, where I lived back in the sixties, and pulled ore out of the ground, out of which they burned the sulphur and shipped it down to Sault Ste. Marie where 12,000 people turned that into steel.

I was in Saint John, New Brunswick, in 1987 visiting the shipyards. I noticed large piles of steel waiting to be used in the ships that were being fixed and built there at that time. They were all stamped “Algoma Steel”, which made me feel good? Here was a Canadian industry, from beginning to end, that was providing good paying jobs for Canadian citizens and opportunities for Canadian businesses to make money. Our economy was rolling at that time.

Why is that not happening any more? The mines in Wawa are shut down. Essar Steel Algoma, formerly Algoma Steel, in Sault Ste. Marie employs between 3,000 and 4,000 people. They are losing their jobs in this difficult recession, as we speak. The shipyards in Saint John, I understand, are shut down completely. Why did that happen?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Soo has hit the nail on the head. It is not only the shipbuilders building the ships, those raw materials also come from Canada.

There is a trickle down effect, from the guys and the girls who mine the ore to the Essar plant that makes the steel and then ships the steel to the yards, which build the ships. It is a great circle of continuity of employment, using the natural resources of Canada and using various Canadian companies, not just in the shipyards, but in cities like the Soo, which my hon. colleague represents so well. He is absolutely bang on.

The roll around effect of jobs and the escalation of jobs throughout this is tremendous. It is not just in what we call the muscle industries, the mining and steel-making, it is also in the high tech industries that build the computer and the navigation systems that are required on-board. A tremendous amount of Canadians have an opportunity to gain that employment.

We are not only fighting for shipyard workers. We are fighting for all the industries that are attached to building these ships in Canada as well. That is why it is so vital to preserve and protect this industry. That is why we ask for the carve out so the hon. member's families in the Soo can also have long careers in the jobs that they enjoy so well.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member across the way for his passionate comments with regard to this very important European free trade agreement. As a member of the committee, I am very excited about the House having this opportunity to support this agreement. It will give Canada the opportunity to get its foot in the door and to expand into the other 27 member countries of the European Union. This issue has been discussed at great length. A variety of witnesses have come forward. They agree that this is in the best interests of all of Canada.

To clarify a comment by the member opposite, he talked about the aspect that $22 billion was the request in the budget for the shipbuilding industry. Actually, the government is anticipating $43 billion over the next 30 years. There is ample opportunity for the shipbuilding industry to flourish in this country.

The member opposite talked about supporting free trade agreements. I would like him to let me know which free trade agreement the NDP would support, because to date the NDP has not shown any indication.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP support free trade deals as long as they are fair, protect the environment and respect the rights of workers and their families. Then there would be no problem and we would support them.

My hon. colleague, who is from the very beautiful riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, by the way, brought up a very good point. I mentioned the figure of $22 billion, but the potential for shipbuilding is $40 billion to $60 billion down the road. However, if we keep negotiating these types of deals with EFTA, the EU and then Korea, an awful lot of that work could end up in the hands of foreign countries.

There may come a day very soon when we may lose the capability of building the ships in this country because some of the yards may have to shrink their operations or shut down completely. My hon. colleague mentioned the Saint John yard. We put millions of dollars into the yard in Saint John, New Brunswick. We built the frigates and then we gave them $55 million to shut the yard down. That made no economic sense whatsoever. It may end up happening again if we are not smart and make sure that shipbuilding is carved out of the EFTA.

It is not just EFTA; it is the European trade talks which are coming up, the Korean talks and everything else. If the United States recognizes the importance of this industry, then so should Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is aware of the Navistar case. The government is procuring trucks. It is a project worth a couple of hundred million dollars. Our country has decided to send this work to Texas, but we have a perfectly good facility in Chatham, Ontario that could produce those vehicles. That facility is going to close eventually. Ironically, it has been rescued in the past and has been successful. We understand the United States is going to purchase its trucks from the Texas plant. We accept that, but why can we not do the same thing in our country? The retooling would be around $800,000, but the employment insurance for the laid-off workers is estimated at $17 million to $19 million. It makes no sense whatsoever. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Windsor West has brought up a very good point on how ridiculous the government can be when it is penny-wise and pound foolish. It is simply not true that money is saved by having those trucks built in Texas. It is simply not true. The reverse is exactly what happens.

One can imagine that if those folks in Chatham were working right now on those trucks, 40 cents of every dollar would go right back into municipal, provincial and federal revenues in terms of taxation. Imagine the pride those people would feel in building something for our military and making sure they did the very best job they could. Imagine using Canadian taxpayers' money to hire workers in Chatham to build trucks for our Canadian military. My god, I do not know where that idea came from, but it is a hell of an idea. We should do it.

Shame on the government for allowing that contract to go to the United States. It is just as shameful as the Minister of National Defence allowing a contract for knives to be made in China. They could have been made in his own riding of Central Nova. The knives from China are inferior. It does not save any money. A lot of workers in the defence minister's own riding lost the ability to create something for our Canadian military. Where is the support of the troops in that one?

My hon. colleague is absolutely correct and I thank him for raising an important point.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has been the foremost advocate for the shipbuilding industry and shipyard workers across the country.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the hundreds of letters, particularly from Liberal ridings in Nova Scotia, that have been pouring in to members' offices. The Liberal members say they will not support their constituents and those people who are calling for a carve out. Why does the hon. member think the Liberals are abandoning shipyard workers and the shipbuilding industry?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 2003 John Manley, in responding to a question in the House, said that he believed the shipbuilding industry was a sunset industry.

We know the Conservatives are not for it, but we are really shocked that the Liberals and the Bloc will not support this initiative. We hope that when the next vote comes around, the Liberals and Bloc will rethink their position and will represent their constituents in this House and preserve and protect those jobs for now and the future.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement implementation act.

If passed, this bill would seriously impact my riding of Halifax and could have devastating consequences for Canada's domestic shipbuilding industry. Earlier, my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, was asked by the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country what free trade agreement the NDP would support.

I would like to point out that the NDP believes that member nations of the EFTA have strong social-democratic traditions and they are actually ideal trading partners for Canada. They have great human rights records. They have great environmental records. The Canada-EFTA free trade agreement implementation act as a whole is a good piece of legislation. We welcome this kind of trading relationship with these countries. The only issue here is that of shipbuilding.

The trade agreement on which we will be asked to vote contains provisions that would remove one of the only tools remaining that protects our shipbuilding industry from being ravaged by unfair competition from foreign builders. Those same European industries were very generously subsidized until recently.

If this bill passes, in just three short years we would see import tariffs begin to be lowered, allowing an influx of foreign-built ships to enter our market. This change would sound the death knell for shipbuilding and it would significantly damage the economy of Nova Scotia. In the interest of standing up for our Canadian shipbuilding industry and the local shipyard workers whom I represent, I must voice my opposition to this bill without an amendment to protect our shipbuilding industry.

As any Atlantic Canadian will tell us, shipbuilding is not just another industry; it is tied to our nation's history. From the earliest days of Confederation, our wealth of forests and hardy labour created hundreds of wooden ships that helped bring much prosperity to Atlantic Canada. It is well known that in those days people could look out at the harbour and see nothing but a sea of white sails moving goods from the great port of Halifax.

During the first and second world wars, Canada stepped up to build hundreds of new ships, punching above its weight when the need was greatest. Between the wars and after, the industry was fuelled by domestic procurement policies to expand our fleets, and by government investment. Those investments created a robust industry and they made a lot of sense, given our enviable coastlines.

Unfortunately, the importance of the industry has not been as clear to recent governments in Canada. Add to that a series of bad trade agreements and we can see how the industry went from being a top producer to the critical situation in which it finds itself now. For years shipbuilders have been calling for a comprehensive strategy to return the industry to competitive standards. Our shipyards simply cannot compete with the heavily subsidized industries in places like South Korea and Norway.

In 2001 the national partnership project, consisting of members of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the shipyard workers, presented a breakthrough report called, “Breaking Through: Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”, after they held a series of consultations across the country. This report is notable because all stakeholders were in agreement about what needs to be done.

In the section, “Issues and Recommendations, Subsidies and Unfair Trade Practices”, the following recommendation was made:

That the Government of Canada: ... resist any requests from other countries to change provisions of the Canadian shipbuilding policy until such time as the Canadian industry has been able to overcome the long-term effects of the subsidy and unfair pricing policies of other countries--

We must remember that this document was produced by shipbuilders and manufacturers, the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the workers.

This change in provisions is exactly what the CEFTA is asking us to do. Norway has invested heavily in shipbuilding, making it one of the strongest in the world despite its relatively modest share of the world market. Those subsidies increased in the early part of this decade, and although they have been reduced now, they resulted in a strong industry capable of filling a variety of orders and competing on the international stage.

Here in Canada there has been a lack of meaningful investment, resulting in an industry that can only be described as being on life support. This is despite the incredible work of the men and women I represent who work at the Halifax shipyards, and that rich maritime history that I just spoke about. Bill C-2 would effectively “pull the plug” on a struggling industry by removing the only protection that exists for it.

New Democrats have called for two things: first, that shipbuilding be carved out of the CEFTA; and, second, that the government take up the challenge and bring this industry back to full health through a comprehensive and meaningful plan.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for the hard work he has done to see that this trade agreement is fair. He made every effort in committee to see that the shipbuilding section was removed from the bill. I also want to recognize the work of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, my neighbour, who continues his tireless campaign on behalf of Canada's shipbuilding industry.

Having failed to secure a carve out in committee, it is now up to the House to do what is right and take shipbuilding off the chopping block.

To turn once again to the impact of this trade agreement, I would like to reinforce the fact that good jobs are what fuel our economy. As I have said before in this honoured place, one shipbuilding job creates four spinoff jobs. A collapse of this industry, ushered in by this trade agreement, would throw hundreds out of work in Halifax alone, and with the loss of those jobs, there go four supporting positions.

We are seeing unprecedented numbers of people becoming unemployed because of this recession. We need to do whatever it takes to prevent the remaining jobs from being lost. Passing this bill would only accelerate that process.

My party has repeatedly asked government to look ahead, look to the future, and make decisions that will foster the development of a global economy, one that is sustainable economically and environmentally, and where Canada can actually play a lead role. Shipbuilding can be a part of that new economy, first by rejecting just this part of the CEFTA and then through the implementation of a national strategy on the industry that will prepare it to compete with subsidized foreign industries on a level playing field.

Just a few short months ago, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and I joined shipyard workers. We joined them along with Independent and Liberal MPs to show support for the shipbuilding industry and call for attention and investment from the government. It was a cold day in Halifax harbour but we all gathered, despite party lines, to say this was an industry that was important to us.

As we debate Bill C-2, workers are actively calling on us to take the support that was voiced in January and turn it into action by carving out shipbuilding from this agreement. As one of the hundreds of letters from shipyard workers makes clear, “All stakeholders in the industry, including owners, operators and unions from coast to coast have emphasized the need for support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks”.

These letters call on Liberal members of the House to withhold their support for this bill until this section is removed. I share their concern and hope that all members will fight for their jobs and for a truly Canadian industry.

In closing, I would like to share another fact about Halifax and its tradition of shipbuilding. It is a fundamental connection to the sea that we have. After the 1917 Halifax explosion decimated much of the city and its industrial sector, one of the first things to be rebuilt was the smokestack at the Halifax shipyard. Everyone could see at the bottom of it stamped “1917”. This underscores the importance of the yards to my community and the central role that community has played in our history.

Recently, that powerful symbol was torn down. At this time in our nation's history, when we are witnessing the ongoing collapse of our manufacturing and forestry industries, let us not add shipbuilding to that list by signing a bad deal. Let us not allow the tearing down of that smokestack in Halifax be a symbol for the future of the industry itself.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, another passionate and knowledgeable member from Nova Scotia speaking about an industry that seems to be, by design of both the previous Liberal government and now this Conservative government, a sunset industry.

I remember in Sault Ste. Marie, in the early nineties, when Algoma Steel found itself in some difficulty and needed to be restructured. The comments from many commentators, Liberal members of Parliament and Conservative members of Parliament, and the member for Toronto Centre will remember this very clearly because he was involved in some of the most intimate discussions and negotiations that went on around that time to save that industry, were that it was a “buggy whip industry”, something that we should cast aside and forget about and perhaps ask the people of Sault Ste. Marie to just get retrained and enter into some other industry or economic activity that nobody had yet defined for us at that particular point in time, and we fought that.

I was a member of the government of that day and we came up with a plan for Algoma Steel that was homegrown, that had contribution from all kinds of stakeholders. The workers, the union, the community itself, the NDP government of the day all came to the table and came up with some very creative and innovative ways to save that industry. In fact, it was some of the good work done then and the seeds sown then that gives us reason to be proud today to say that even in this difficult economic time we are still making steel and selling it in Sault Ste. Marie. Nevertheless, it is owned by a company out of India that so far has acted as a good corporate citizen and that is serving us well, but certainly not as part of the kind of free trade scenario that is being proposed in the bill that we are debating here today. It would give away literally all of the very good and profitable industries that served Canada for so long in the shipbuilding sector.

I would like to ask the member, being from Nova Scotia and seeing the impact of free trade agreements over the last number of years on so many of the resource-based industrial sectors of our economy, how has that affected her community, particularly, and her province? It we pass this bill, what would that do to the people of her riding?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity about a month ago, maybe a month and a half ago, to do an economic stimulus tour of the riding. This was for the media. We went from place to place to look at shovel ready projects, and one place we went to was the shipyard. We met there with Karl Risser, who is president of CAW Local 1. He talked about the fact that these jobs, as I mentioned earlier, are great jobs, are good paying jobs, and that for every one job, there are four spinoff jobs. However, referring to the point that my colleague raised, a lot of those men and women are out west now. They are not able to work in Nova Scotia. The work just is not there. They are fleeing. They are looking for work. They need to support their families.

Karl talked about the repairs project for shipbuilding. He said, “That's going to be a good thing. We'll certainly put some folks to work. But it's not good for the long-term because the men and women who have left Nova Scotia, looking for work, are not going to come back for a one month contract or for a three month contract”.

The issue here is that they have skills. This is extremely skilled work. We really need to bring those people back to Nova Scotia and have them working in the industry in which they are trained.

I would like to address what my colleague said about how in his riding the industry, the unions, the workers and the community worked together to come up with innovative solutions, and I will bring us back to the breaking-through report. I actually have a letter here from Jamie Vaslet who is with the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers, in which he talks about this report as well. He states:

We have, along with all other major stakeholders in the shipbuilding industry, including owners, operators and the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, all expressed the need for a carve out of our industry. But it seems to have fallen on deaf ears yet again.

He says as well that it is quite unbelievable that we are in a situation now where this amendment, and we have been listening to what all the stakeholders are saying, is the perfect solution. It is so simple, but yet we are not listening to the key stakeholders. We are not listening to the people whose jobs are at stake and we are not listening to the employers as well

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always I was delighted to hear the member for Halifax speak up in favour of Nova Scotians and shipyard workers. She raised a very interesting point, which is the NDP's fair trade approach as opposed to the Liberals and Conservatives and their tired old Bush-style unregulated free trade approach that sells out Canadian jobs. In agreement after agreement, we have seen the Conservatives just walking up and selling out whole industries. We saw that with the softwood lumber sellout that killed tens of thousands of jobs and continues to kill jobs, as the judgments based on the softwood sellout come through, another $400 million anticipated in the next few weeks. It is appallingly irresponsible bad policy, bad negotiating. It is like the Conservatives are just unable to get their minds around the Canadian public interest.

Now we have the shipbuilding sellout, which is unanimously described by people in the shipbuilding sector as a sellout. Unanimously. There is not a single representative from the shipbuilding industry, whether owners or workers, who said this was a good deal, who said the carve out should not happen.

My question to the member for Halifax is this. Given the unanimity from the industry, given the strategic importance, and given that Canada has the longest coastline in the world and should be reinforcing its shipbuilding industry like every other long coastline country, why are the Conservatives and Liberals conspiring to sell out thousands of shipyard workers and our shipbuilding industry despite the fact they have received hundreds of letters in the past few days telling them not to?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his question. If I knew the answer to why, I think we would all be better off. I cannot possibly understand what is going on in the minds of the Liberals and the Conservatives on this one, other than free trade is good trade, therefore free trade must be holus-bolus.

We want to look at what is fair trade. As I said earlier, the NDP believes that this is a good trade deal with the exception of the shipbuilding portion. These countries have strong social democratic traditions. They are ideal trading partners for Canada. Although these members have not joined in with the European Union, they have provided an excellent model for how to build strong working relationships with their neighbouring countries. We will only benefit from working with these countries. They really set an example for us about how to strike a balance between trade and national sovereignty without having to sell out the latter.

My colleague talked about this being a sellout, and I actually agree with him. I would like to read into the record what was said by Andrew McArthur from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and vice-chairman of the Irving Shipbuilding Corporation when he testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade on March 3, 2009. He said:

If it's not a sellout, it's getting close to it. It certainly doesn't enhance the survivability of the industry. It jeopardizes it. It would be pretty hard to say it's an absolute sellout, although it's getting close. It's not only EFTA that concerns us. The ground rules may be set. We're negotiating with Singapore. We're negotiating with South Korea. Once we've set the ground rules, if we then get the same with all these other countries, the industry will be in very tough conditions and it will be able to survive only with government contracts--

Pushed a little further with questioning, George MacPherson actually said, “Yes, I would. I would use those words”. The words he is using are “sellout”. I absolutely agree with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important, when we look at the context of trade, that we look at the current deals that have been signed and, as part of our due diligence, to review what is happening here.

With respect to Bill C-2, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has requested the aspects to shipbuilding be carved out, which is a normal process of trade arrangements. In fact, in the history of trade arrangements they have had these elements in a series of different ways. For example, the United States has the Jones act and procurement policies with a number of different defence contracts. It also has policies in manufacturing, for example with the bus industry, where there are provisions that require content assembly in parts manufacturing in the United States. In fact, Canadian companies had to go into the United States and open up assembly plants so they could bid and win contracts for those.

As well, the United States has a buy American clause that is part of its overall procurement policy and always has been. It reached some feverish discussion in recent months but the reality is that it has been in American law for a number of years. The clause has been part of its ordinary procurement policy and has been part of the state and municipal procurement policies.

The request that is being made here is part of negotiation tactics. Unfortunately, we have a history of bad negotiations when we look at the past Liberal government and the Conservative government. This deal here was arranged by David Emerson, a Liberal minister for the Martin administration who crossed the floor after an election and continued with his policies. One of the policies was with regard to European trade and another one was with Colombia. Another deal that has not seen the light of day, thankfully, is with Korea.

If one looks at those policies, the government offered up a significant number of different iconic Canadian industries as bait to bring in trade negotiations and then it caved and gave them away later on.

One of the reasons I have been opposed to the South Korea trade deal, which some bureaucrats will admit, is that something had to be offered up. In this agreement, the government has offered up the automotive industry. It is a terrible position to start with because one knows right away where one's negotiating strength is. Unfortunately, the government comes back with deals that really sell out certain segments of Canada's industrialized capacity.

It is important to note, for example, that the United States has its own defence procurement policy and we do not begrudge it that. We know the United States has certain aspects it wants to continue to have in its country as part of its overall strategic way to deal with civil society, as well as international affairs, which is why it has the capacity to ensure it can respond to certain things.

Sadly, Canada has done the exact opposite. We have basically abandoned any type of sectorial strategy approach and only through a budgetary process year by year scrambles around to try to find some programs or aids that come and go for the aerospace, automotive or shipbuilding industries. The government does not really create concrete plans of action.

We are looking at Norway for particular reasons in this debate because it spent over a dozen years building a shipbuilding industry through heavy subsidization and a national policy. It had over a generation of public policy geared to design and build ships. not only for its domestic industry but also international industry. When Canada enters into an agreement like this with no terms and conditions to protect Canadian industry, it is at a natural disadvantage.

I have had a chance to see some of the work that has been done with shipbuilding. I have been at the Irving yards in Halifax and have spoken with the workers. Interestingly enough, the government's position has always been the issue over labour mobility. It says that if workers cannot build ships because there is no work, then they need to go out to Alberta or somewhere else to find a job.

The first thing one may say to that, even I as a young parent, is that people will do what they need to do, there is no doubt about it. However, when we have thriving communities that will continue to be there, it is important for families to be held together, which is the creation of a bond the community requires to deal with everything, including social programs, crime, education and innovation.

It is not just about workers going away for a couple of months and returning. Canadians will do those things if they need to, as they have done in my riding, but the preference would be to have a job in their own community, especially communities that historically have been around and will be around for the foreseeable future. We should be looking at building that capacity. It is about those communities with a high industrialized component for shipbuilding, for example, as we are talking about today specifically, to be part of a program and plan to create stability. We are going to win from that.

Other organizations or other countries will not be complaining about Canada being protectionist because this is done in other countries, and that is why it is important to have this component carved out and move forward with the rest of the trade agreement that would be more balanced. It would be progressive in the sense that shipbuilding would be removed, but it is not, which, unfortunately, is why we are back here today.

I will again talk about the Navistar truck plant in Chatham, Ontario, where a $200 million defence procurement offer went out to International Truck, which is located in Chatham and in Texas, and it decided to put all the work into Texas. That is not acceptable because a number of years ago International Truck was having problems and it was given a $35 million loan guarantee and for the last several years it has been producing trucks and doing quite well. In fact, when it tried to move production to Mexico, the trucks had to come back to Chatham to be audited and repaired because the quality was not up to what the client needed.

As a Canadian politician, I do not get upset when the United States buys its trucks from Texas for its military. I understand that it has a plant with people working there. If it were going to buy trucks, it would be a good idea if it were to buy them here in Canada. We are always hopeful to gain that type of business. However, I can understand that it wants to have certain segments of its military protected to be able to do procurement there because it actually gets it. It also understands that having development capacity gives it control over who gets those at what time. It actually has that in it its contracting, which means that the United States can cut the line whenever it wants, which would reduce our capability to have our own sovereignty addressed.

It is interesting to note that the plant can produce that truck for around $800,000. With the layoff of workers about to take place, we are looking at about $17 million to $19 million in unemployment insurance benefits. This makes no sense whatsoever on an economic scale. If we were actually going to have that investment, the retooling would be done by Canadians, the equipment allotted would be Canadian and the people doing the work would be Canadians. We would have the next future base of taxation policy from those who are making money in that area contributing back to the coffers of Canada. We would have a net win. Why we would send our truck development to Texas and basically backhand Chatham, Ontario, which is struggling right now, does not make any sense.

It goes to a deeper issue that ties with the essence of shipbuilding and the history we have with the water. Canadians know we have been a maritime nation serving ourselves quite capably during the first and second world wars where we had one of the largest merchant marines and navies by the conclusion of the war. We has a real sense of pride and dignity when we were able to procure much of our own development and had the capacity to do it.

People having the type of work where they actually produce something of net value and that they can relate to is such a value added component to our society. It is an extra added benefit to those who are part of the actual experience. In terms of shipbuilding, there is that element. Similar to that, in Chatham, Ontario, it is what the Conservative government has said, which is that they will not be producing ships for our men and women serving in the military, that it will be done by someone else.

Canadians miss out on that relationship of getting up every day, going to work, getting a paycheque and contributing to the Canadian development experience. It is important for people to have a job because it gives them a meaningful sense of worth. However, the Conservatives have told them that they are not good enough, that the work will be done somewhere else.

What is so important about this debate in terms of the economics behind the shipbuilding industry and how it connects to ourselves as a people is when we see the outsourcing that is going on, which becomes very frustrating. Workers and others are starting to feel the anguish. I worry about the elements that will come next. Being from the auto sector, many of the workers are frustrated that the government is not there for them and that they are having to do things on their own.

In one of the more recent cases that we have had is the issue over Aradco. I want to congratulate Gerry Farnham, president of CAW195, and his workers who fought an American company that pulled out of Canada and left 80 families out of jobs with no severance package. The workers took it upon themselves to occupy the plant and ensure they received a better severance package, which they negotiated by themselves with no help from the government. Those people are working class heroes. They are men and women, some of whom are in single parent families, who took this action to protect themselves and their families livelihoods.

The message the government should take about what happened in that one plant at this particular time is that it must be more responsible when it has the tools and the resources behind it to make a difference in this country.

Those are the reasons we should be carving out this element and protecting our shipbuilding industry and the workers who have the skills and the training, which is important. When we look at the Aradco workers, they were some of the most productive workers but, through no fault of their own, they were usurped. It is the same for the shipbuilding industry, which has some of the best trained and most experienced workers. We will abandon them in some type of an experiment that does not make any sense.

We need to turn this around. People are looking to us and at the examples that we are setting. They are asking what can we do with their taxpaying dollars that will benefit not only just in terms of the immediacy of the tax expenditure that we are doing right now but later on in terms of public policy. That is what a national strategy for shipbuilding and an auto strategy would be and all those other things where there is value and traceable elements of where the money goes to. That is what could be done in this particular element.

Workers will continue to feel frustration as they have done everything right and then they do not have the government behind them.

It is disappointing that we are here by ourselves as New Democrats on this issue. I think we will be looking back later, not only in terms of what we have lost, but in terms of a missed opportunity to reinforce at a time when there is that motivation that should be even bigger to restart an industry and ensure it will thrive. The connection to that is critical, especially when we can look at the incredible opportunities.

We can look at the Great Lakes, not only as a treasure environmentally but also a trade corridor that is significant. The Great Lake freighters will soon need to be replaced but those will all be built in China, Norway or somewhere else when they could be built here.

Sadly, we let the shipbuilding facility at Collingwood go, but we could plan this out to ensure that Halifax, Montreal and other shipbuilding areas where we still have that capacity are preserved. For those who are not aware of it, Collingwood has now become a resort. It is a very beautiful location with a lot of positive things there but we did not plan another deep water capacity port. What we have lost now is the opportunity to have a thriving industry return.

Therefore, we need to think about that in the context of what is happening right now and, with what is going on right now, this is the perfect opportunity.

It is important to look at what the message would be for Canada if we were to carve this out. It would tell the other countries that we are interested in doing this and I do not think we would have a hostile reaction. I do not think any country would challenge us.

When we look at some of the European policies for defence and other procurement, it is quite similar. When we look at the United States, it is very clear that it has decided that it is going to have this at its capacity, and we are very much integrated with the United States.

Ironically, even as we have had some of these elements, the United States has gone to the extreme where, under the Patriot Act and other types of legislation, many Canadian workers are not eligible to work on some contracts in the United States that are defence procurement.

The United States has even challenged the workers who are part of companies that are integrated. This is going to become a bigger issue because we have a number of different procurements that are going to take place over the next few months. We will hear about some of them, including search and rescue planes that need to be replaced. There are concerns already being expressed that the government is going to skew the bidding process basically to give an Italian company the contract. It is sad, because we actually have a number of different consortiums here in Canada, with up to 50% Canadian ownership, that could do that type of work. They should be part of that process.

We are going to continue to see this type of debate emerge. This is not a one-off issue. We are going to see the return of discussion of the South Korean trade deal. That is another one that I mentioned, where the automotive aspect of it is being offered up as an element that basically could be seen as the carrot to bring us in, and then later on we suffer the consequences of that.

It is important to note also that it is not just the New Democrats here on their own who are bringing this issue forward. It is interesting, because we have not only the labour aspect, which is traditionally part of our party and our relations and so forth, but we also have the associations, as well as companies such as the Irvings.

There are some interesting quotes that have come out of this debate that really reinforce the fact that it is going to be costing us as a country a lot of jobs.

One quote is from Mary Keith, a spokeswoman for Irving Shipbuilding Inc. The company has actually put this in a release, so it is not something that was just said off the cuff or thrown out in a media comment. This is an actual release that was put out, so they thought very carefully about what they were going to say.

Ms. Keith said:

The government of Canada is continuing its 12-year history of sacrificing Canadian shipbuilding and ship operators in the establishment of free trade agreements with other nations.

International trade minister David Emerson said at the time that a free trade agreement in principle had been reached with the countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

They were looking at it through a 12-year lens when she made that comment. I think that is significant because a number of different operators or companies out there are seeing this as systemic. When we see something as systemic, we defeat the option of other people who are interested in actually investing or moving into that field.

The people making those comments are indicating that this is not just one-off bad policy from the Conservative government or the Liberals before it. What they are saying is that if people want to get into this business, they'd better buckle up, because the ones who are in it right now are completely dissatisfied with the relationship they have with the government. They feel that not only is it not neutral, it is actually against the flow.

I want to point that out because what we have happening here is a continued pattern of behaviour, the assumption that we can just reduce trade barriers or regulations, whether it be in regard to food or other types of industries such as the airline industry, and we will see natural improvements to the consumer and to civil society. That is not the case. That has not always happened.

What we need is a carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot is good public policy, and the stick is to make sure that the jobs are going to be created here, especially when taxpayers' money is involved.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague speak on the motion for this bill currently before the Standing Committee on International Trade. First, I would like to know what his party proposes to support the shipbuilding industry and what are the main aspects of this bill that will support the industry.

Second, if this motion is adopted by the House and we are unable to make the government improve and provide more support for the shipbuilding industy that could be threatened by this type of agreement, should we simply forget about the agreement? It does nevertheless have certain advantages for Quebec's pharmaceutical industry. What position will the New Democratic Party take?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know the industry will be abandoned in Canada. I would be surprised if the Bloc thinks if the industry has trouble later on we should not worry because the Conservatives will rescue it at the end of the day. I would be surprised if the Bloc believes that would happen, because I do not sense that from the government. Traditionally it has not been there. I would not give the Conservatives that type of credibility or that type of responsibility and think it is real.

It is important that when we have a trade agreement, it is fair and balanced. It should not be done at the expense of one particular group or segment. That is the whole point, I suppose, of a united Canada, because we can be stronger and more successful.

There is nothing wrong with carving out a piece of this deal and then negotiating a better one. There is certainly a lot of benefit from other countries when they come into the markets in Canada. It will be more balanced and fair trade. However, we cannot ignore that Norway has provided more than a decade of support for an industry that will destroy that.

I would say that the Quebec shipbuilding industry will also take a hit. It could actually be much more significant but has not been because there has not been that policy in place. I believe Quebec will suffer from that lost capacity and also potentially a shipyard closure, which has been threatened in the past. That would be a setback for the country and for Quebec.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West pointed out that essentially other countries that have tough negotiators exclude shipbuilding from agreements. The United States has done it for every single trade agreement it has signed. Essentially, under the Jones Act, it carves out shipbuilding.

Referencing the question asked by my colleague from the Bloc, the Bloc should be voting for the amendment because quite simply it means that Parliament is ensuring, essentially, that the work that was not done in the negotiation of this agreement does get done through the due diligence of parliamentarians.

The member from the Bloc knows that many of the letters that are pouring in are from Quebec shipyard workers, but it is not just shipyard workers. Sheet metal workers and boilermakers are writing to us.

I just received on my BlackBerry a message from Jim Fitzpatrick, saying:

I on behalf of my members [of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers] totally support the exclusion of our shipbuilding industry from the EFTA agreement. We have a vibrant workforce on this beautiful west coast--

He is writing from British Columbia, as we can surmise. He continues:

--and with the unemployment as it is at the moment in our shipbuilding industry we need our government's support with regards to this issue.

We are getting hundreds of letters, emails and phone calls to MPs' offices from sheet metal workers, from boilermakers, and above all, from shipyard workers from coast to coast, and only one party is standing in the House of Commons and allowing that voice to come forward. The other three parties are completely abdicating their responsibility to Canadian workers.

I would like to ask the member for Windsor West why he thinks all these other members are forgetting about the Canadian public interest and Canadian jobs.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, a couple of things play into this. First, the architect of this deal was David Emerson, a Liberal. Members have quite clearly hitched the history to him. He was the architect of the softwood lumber deal, and we all know how that is working out. In fact, I was just in the United States and it was questioning Canada's deal itself. So we do not even have a set stability pattern. We basically got taken to the cleaners on that deal. Ironically, we were winning in the courts, and then we pulled defeat from the jaws of victory.

I live across from Detroit, Michigan, which is home to the Detroit Lions, so I am very familiar with that process.

That is what was done with regard to the softwood lumber deal. We see the catastrophic result of it across this country. Who can be satisfied with the status quo in the agreement?

That is part of the problem, as well as expediency. When trade agreements are signed, for some reason they are seen as elements of justification or as a process that shows maturation in a government. That is really worrisome in the sense that the symbolism of it is being presented as more important than what is going to happen to industries after they emerge in this new relationship.

I do not know why the Bloc is supporting this without at least forcing the carve-out. It makes no sense for that party to turn its back on the workers of Quebec, in particular those directly affected. Basically giving up control of the potential shipping industry for the future to other hands without having a public policy is rather peculiar.

Those are some of the reasons I think we are seeing some of the decisions being made and why we in the NDP are the only ones speaking on this issue. I have debated this a number of times and people say I am against trade and moving forward. That is the furthest thing from the truth. What we need is fair trade. This is part of negotiations that have taken place in other bills and other countries and they have those elements.

We should move forward with this, because we not only have examples we can point to, but they are right next door in the United States.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Windsor West on his presentation this morning in the House. He certainly knows of what he speaks. He has watched the auto industry struggle through a number of difficulties over the last few years, all of it connected to so-called free trade, including the impact of the loss of the Auto Pact in Canada, not only in his own city but in cities across the country—in particular, places like Sault Ste. Marie, which provides the steel. It is all interconnected.

Having been here for four and a half years and listening to some of the discussions in the House about trade, free trade and meetings of Canadian representatives with officials from other countries about trade, it seems to me that we go to those meetings like good Boy Scouts. We are ready to throw absolutely everything on the table in order to get a deal that somebody else thinks is good for us because we have a lot of natural resources, not understanding that at the end of the day, in most instances—and I have not seen one yet where we have not—we come out the loser.

I remember standing in the House a few years ago on behalf of farmers, asking the government of the day, which was Liberal, to stand shoulder to shoulder with farmers, as we yet again caved in and provided more opportunity for foreign products to be brought in and sold in our market.

I ask the member for Windsor West to share with us a bit about the impact of the auto pact on his community and this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the people who negotiate on our behalf either have a self-esteem problem or need to see Tony Robbins, or something. It is habitually the case that they go in with a position to give up something quite significant and we get taken advantage of. People just cannot go in there playing poker with their hands facing the opposite way and pretend and hope things are going to go right. Those types of elements cannot be given up right away.

It important that we actually set the proper policy. I have seen it with the auto industry. It is affecting the entire country right now. All we can do now is hitch on to the United States, because we have given up so much of that sovereignty. I would hate to see the shipbuilding industry suffer the same fate, because it is important not only for our national security but also for the type of work that people can do and the value-added work that goes back into the coffers of this country.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think they are trying to influence me.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, we want you to vote like us.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

The members of this House know the Bloc Québécois' position on this Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. In our opinion, the agreement would benefit Quebec. And knowing that the Bloc Québécois defends Quebec's interests, members understand that we will support this agreement.

Today, I would like to come back to the shipbuilding industry in particular. Some things have happened in the history of shipbuilding, and some things have not been done.

For 25 years, the Conservatives and the Liberals have shared power more or less equally. However, I would like to refer to an article that appeared in the Canadian Press on November 11, 2008 about comments made by Denise Verreault. I quote:

The president of Groupe maritime Verreault, Denise Verreault, did not mince words yesterday as she condemned what she called politicians' “lack of vision” on the marine industry.

Speaking at the Institut maritime de Rimouski..., Ms. Verreault said that “politicians could not see further than the end of their own noses or...the next election” when it came to shipping.

For more than 25 years, the CEO of this company based in Les Méchins has criticized the fact that Canada has no marine policy, even though shipping will double by 2020.

“Quite simply, there is no political will or vision. The shipping lobby is not as strong as the trucking lobby. The marine industry needs a single association that is very strong, instead of a number of groups. Our politicians think that ships are a vanishing breed and that as a mode of transportation, shipping is too slow. The hidden costs alone of just-in-time trucking are phenomenal, not to mention the environmental impacts,” said Ms. Verreault, honorary chair of the 27th funding campaign for the Institut maritime du Québec.

We can see that Ms. Verreault was talking about a 25-year period, and we can say that she was referring as much to the Conservative government as to the Liberal government of the time.

There was another very interesting article this morning in the newspapers, about comments made by the member for Bourassa. In a Canadian Press report, we can read:

But to win Quebeckers' hearts, the Liberals will have to rely on more than just their leader's relative popularity. [The member for Bourassa] therefore announced the appointment of two new campaign co-chairs: Gaspé businesswoman Denise Verreault and [other people, of course].

Should anything be inferred from what Ms. Verreault said in November 2008 and her current involvement with the Liberal Party? It is clear from her comments that she condemns the Conservative government for its lack of action with respect to the shipbuilding industry. We also know that she condemned the Liberal government of the day for its lack of action with respect to the shipbuilding industry.

At present, the fundamental problem facing the shipbuilding industry is not necessarily an international trade one, but rather a problem with the industry per se. The fact is that our industry has been neglected for many years, while other countries were heavily subsidizing theirs.

The suggested time frame in the accord is 18 years, that is an initial three year waiting period, followed by a progressive phase-out over 15 years to ensure that the trade can really be considered as free trade, with no extra costs.

What matters is to know what the Conservative government will do and, particularly, given Ms. Verreault's involvement, what the Liberals will do in the next election campaign. I want to know whether Ms. Verreault's efforts will have been all for naught, in the sense that, come an election, she will realize that the platforms include no shipbuilding policy, even though, as we know, such a policy is needed.

What I would like to hear today from Conservative members, and of course from the Liberals and even the NDP, is what they suggest as policy for the shipbuilding industry. It was primarily the shipbuilding industry that caused negotiations to last more than 10 years and people to fail to agree. What could these parties advocate or do to come up with innovative options for the shipbuilding industry? These are main points that must become clear through today's debate. We have to know what the government is going to do and what a party that, as we saw clearly on the weekend, was all energized to potentially form the next government, will commit to doing for the shipbuilding industry. Of course, we must not forget that Ms. Verreault is there, probably to provide strong suggestions.

I would still like to raise a number of points. I do not know whether I will have the time to list them all, but the Bloc has proposed a lot of things specifically to enable the shipbuilding industry to improve.

We must not forget that the shipbuilding industry has some very special features, features unique to it, which must be taken into account in working to ensure its development.

The government must realize that, because of the high cost of its products, the industry needs special financial arrangements for sales contracts. Because its products' value often constitutes the lion's share of the buyer's assets, the industry needs special financial regulations.

Because of the significant investments involved in producing the first of a line of ships, the industry must share the risks it faces in research and development and requires special credit access facilities.

There is also the matter of instability. Shipyards regularly do not operate for a number of months between contracts. Because of its instability and the high fixed costs of its considerable capitalization, the industry must have access to a substantial line of credit.

As it is also excluded from most trade agreements, the industry's international environment involves governmental subsidies, protectionism and buy-domestic policies.

Measures offering protection and support are needed to permit fair competition. Because contracts from DND and the Coast Guard are important to the industry, it needs a government purchasing policy that contributes to its development.

Since Canadian shipowners make up its main clientele, the industry needs a policy that promotes the development of domestic marine transportation, in other words, cabotage. Since the law of the sea is inadequate and does nothing to force companies to replace those dangerous, polluting scrap heaps, those poison ships, the industry therefore needs initiatives to modernize international shipping.

In order to bring in a real marine policy, the Bloc Québécois is proposing measures to ensure the development of this industry, which is of strategic importance to Quebec. It is also essential to ensure the protection and safety of the environment. Many of these measures could help the industry. I would remind the House that the federal government has not supported shipbuilding since 1988. Not only are the few aid measures still available very poorly adapted to the shipbuilding industry, but the federal government has even penalized the provinces that have instituted innovative measures, such as the refundable tax credit in Quebec, which for some years was considered by Ottawa to be taxable income under the Income Tax Act. That allowed it to claw back 20% to 25% of the assistance paid by Quebec to the industry.

In any discussion of financing, insurance or loan guarantees involved in sales contracts, it is important to note that purchasing a ship or an oil rig is a multi-million-dollar investment. Access to credit at favourable interest rates is a critical factor for the buyer. Through EDC, the federal government should set up a sales contract financing program to finance the purchase, repair and conversion of ships in Canadian shipyards. The program should provide funds for a significant portion of the value of the contract—perhaps 87.5%—at private market interest rates to low-risk companies that are in good shape. The program should be offered to both domestic and foreign buyers.

One issue is loans and loan guarantees for shipyards that have to invest or provide a financial guarantee in order to bid on new contracts. The tax rules for financial lease agreements have to be improved. We must bear in mind that under these lease agreements, the ship buyer does not take immediate possession. The buyer rents the vessel for several years and does not take possession until some time later. Because the buyer does not own the ship, tax rules allowing him or her to write off depreciation against taxable income do not apply. The government should improve the tax rules that apply to lease agreements for buyers of ships built or refurbished in Canada.

There should also be refundable tax credits for ship owners. The government should provide a tax credit to ship owners who sign shipbuilding or rebuilding contracts with Canadian shipyards. Because operating a ship is typically not profitable during the early years—all income ends up financing the initial investment—the credit should be refundable.

I want to point out that, in 1999, Antoine Dubé, who was the Bloc Québécois member for Lévis, introduced Bill C-213, which contained measures similar to those I just discussed. In 2000, after the bill was introduced, KPMG conducted a study for the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. It showed that, with respect to the 16 shipbuilding contracts between Canadian ship owners and foreign builders in 1999, these measures alone—none of them subsidies—would have, in a worst-case scenario, kept four to six contracts here in Canada, resulting in an additional $100 million to $150 million in annual sales. Their best-case scenario showed that some contracts for foreign ship owners—for the construction of drilling platforms worth from $300 million to over $1 billion—could have ended up in Canada.

The government must systematically favour Canadian companies for purchases to meet military requirements or those of the Coast Guard, and for offshore investments, drilling rigs and, eventually, wind turbines. A few announcements have been made, but more needs to be done.

In establishing its purchasing criteria, the government has to put a stop to discriminatory rules that offload transportation costs onto the shipyards, penalizing those in Quebec more than those in the maritime provinces.

It must also take measures focusing on water transport within Canada. While international seaborne shipping is growing at an exponential rate, domestic shipping, or cabotage, is growing at a slower rate. But Canadian shipping companies make much better customers for our shipyards than foreign companies. Environmentally as well as from an energy standpoint, shipping is the most logical choice and should rapidly become increasingly popular, given growing concerns about climate change and depletion of fossil fuels. In a nutshell, far from being a thing of the past, shipping is a forward-looking transportation mode.

Why do several government practices limit the development of cabotage for the transport of freight? Dredging and icebreaking expenses incurred by the government along the St. Lawrence River are entirely offloaded onto shipping companies. Conversely, the cost of maintaining roads is shared among all taxpayers, instead of being paid by truckers. Such an injustice hinders the competitive capacity of water transportation in comparison to land transportation.

The government should also eliminate the fees charged marine transportation companies that practice cabotage. It should also put in place a major investment program for port infrastructure focusing on the infrastructure needed to develop intermodal transport. In addition, the government should bring up to standard all the ports it left to crumble given that it is responsible for ensuring the best possible use of its own infrastructure. The government should also strengthen the Coastal Trading Act to support Canadian shipping and to ensure that foreign carriers that practice cabotage are subject to Canadian laws, especially those governing working conditions.

As for measures pertaining to international marine transport, we should oppose flags of convenience. Canada must ratify the UN convention on ship registration and lobby internationally for its implementation. We must fight poison ships by strengthening international marine law and creating an agency such as ICAO for marine transport.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it does show both the Conservative and Liberal members that it is possible to put in place measures to foster the development and competitiveness of the shipbuilding industry and the marine industry in general. Today, I would like to know what is the position of the Conservative, Liberal and NDP members, and the measures they are proposing to entrepreneurs and employees in the marine industry. I would like to know and I am certain that Ms. Denise Verreault would also be interested.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I very much like the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I know that if it were up to him, he would be willing to ensure that the Bloc Québécois adopted the right position. However, the Bloc leader seems to want to punish the workers in the Quebec City area. I do not know why, but I imagine it is because Quebec City rejected the Bloc Québécois. Thus, the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to want to punish those workers, because they are asking Bloc members to support the NDP amendment.

Pierre Bérubé, a steel erector at the Davie shipyard, said:

As a worker at Davie Yards Inc., in Lévis, I wish to express my concern about the survival of the Canadian shipbuilding industry if the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) goes through.

That is why I support your efforts to exclude Canadian shipyards from that agreement.

Gaétan Sergerie, a welder at the same shipyard, said: “Like all workers at these shipyards, I am concerned about the repercussions that this free trade agreement will have on the growth of shipbuilding in Canada.”

Paul-André Brulotte, the union president, is saying exactly the same thing.

Quebeckers are asking the Bloc Québécois to support the NDP amendment. Why does the Bloc refuse to listen to them?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc hear these remarks and are listening to them as well. But we must always look at the agreement that was signed. We are at the stage of implementing that agreement. What the NDP would like is to leave out shipbuilding.

As I said earlier, I do not think it is a core problem of international trade as such. Rather, I think the problem stems from a lack of desire by the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government to support this industry. The negotiating process of 10 years ago indicates that the problem was substantial, and that negotiations at the time were primarily focused on the industry, which was the stumbling block.

I repeat, if the industry is not supported, whether or not the agreement includes shipbuilding, there will be no future for shipbuilding. When entrepreneurs and skilled employees cannot succeed in this sector, there will be no future. I believe there are skilled people and dynamic entrepreneurs in this industry. And so the 18 year delay would allow them to go even further.

If the NDP put as much energy into convincing the Conservative government and perhaps one day a Liberal government, with Denise Verreault of Chantiers Verreault as the co-chair of the campaign, I am sure they could eventually persuade the government to implement a real shipbuilding policy.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member and thank him for his intervention. I agree that this tariff, this one little piece in the EFTA is not going to really create a vibrant shipbuilding industry.

Recently, some of my colleagues and I met with representatives from the shipbuilding industry. They said that this 25% tariff is not going to help the industry, but taking it away, if we get rid of this, it will kill the industry as it exists now.

I agree that we need to have a full, robust shipbuilding policy, but why would this member not support the one piece that we have now that prevents pulling the plug on a dying industry. I will refer to the Breaking Through: The Canadian Shipbuilding Industry report, which I will again mention brought industry together with workers to come up with creative solutions for the shipbuilding industry. I have some excerpts from it here.

Their recommendations included: eliminating exceptions to the existing Canadian shipbuilding policies such as tariffs and federal procurement; strengthening industry and government partnerships to focus more on high prospect areas such as oil and gas; improving the planning processes on federal procurement; pressing for the elimination of foreign subsidies and unfair pricing practices by dozens of countries; designating the industry as a national priority; and promoting marine transportation as an environmentally friendly alternative to other modes of transportation.

This is part of a shipbuilding plan to save this industry. Right now we just have this one provision in front of us. My question to the member is, why would he not support an amendment that could be the base upon which we could actually build a shipbuilding plan?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, the free trade agreement has been signed. We are at the implementation stage. If we give in to the NDP's call to remove the shipbuilding industry from the implementation bill, the agreement would automatically collapse, and negotiations would have to begin again. The fact of beginning again does not mean it would happen automatically or even that there would be a free trade agreement. It is unlikely. I have to say, and I said it earlier, and I am not ashamed to repeat it, a number of the elements of this agreement provide strong support for Quebec's development and economy.

As regards shipbuilding, there is a huge potential, as I have said. These companies could become more effective and productive even more quickly. However, there must be a degree of openness in the free trade agreement, and it must be supported by other government activities. I firmly believe that, in this, the House of Commons cannot be circumvented by the government, whether it is this party or the other in a little while. I refer again to this past weekend when people seemed very energized.

I note in closing that people were invited to testify in committee and did not appear. Even the president of Verreault shipyards was invited but she did not come. We can ask ourselves the same question that arises from the statements by our NDP colleague. Still, we must move forward and encourage the government to put measures in place.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the implementation of the Canada-European free trade agreement. The bill deals with a proposed arrangement between some of the European countries and Canada. The agreement was initiated nine years ago by the Liberal administration under Jean Chrétien. It came at a time when the ideology of free trade and the free market system was at its height. That is not the case today.

In the last 12 months, the world has seen a profound change. It has not yet played out completely around the world. It is a change that will lead us to make different choices in the future. It will lead us to situations where we must, in some cases, protect our industries. In many cases, Canadians will be obligated to take another look at free trade. For the purposes of preserving our economy, we will be obligated to better understand how the world will work.

That is what we are faced with today. We are not faced with the situation of nine years ago. We are not even faced with the situation of two years ago. We are faced with the situation that has come upon us today. If we look at the history of the opening of the liberalization of trade in Canada, for many years, we were under the guidance of a policy that said that good fences made good neighbours. In many cases, we understood that the situation in the world between countries was not open or equal. We were not in a position to allow free trade to take place. We needed to have tariffs and protection for our industries because the world was not the place it was 20 years previous.

When we started on the free trade talks and agreements that came along in the 1980s, we built them on the basis that we would open up the world economy. We were making trade and taking away barriers. We were going to create a level playing field around the world, where the best possible situation could arise for industry and commerce and permit an expansion of the world's economy. By and large, some of that worked and some did not work. Some of it was based on trade and some was based on technological advancement and many other factors.

However, today, we are dealing with where we are going in the future with trade. How do we set the path for our Canadian economy? We have seen that there is not likely to be less regulation, but more regulation. We are likely to pay more careful attention to how our industries work, not less attention.

Our amendment proposes to carve out the very important shipbuilding industry from the agreement. We do not see that this will work for our shipbuilding industry in the future. We do not see that free trade will make the kind of difference to our shipbuilding industry that we might have thought about 20 years ago. It is not the case today. This is why we are very interested in ensuring that our shipbuilding industry is protected and allowed to grow in a reasonable fashion.

Shipbuilding will have a place in Canada. We are a maritime nation. We have the largest coastline of any country in the world. A lot of that coastline is in my riding in the Arctic, among the Arctic islands. There is an enhanced interest in the development of arctic resources and arctic transportation and the use of the Arctic as the ice melts. With climate change, we see the opening up of the Arctic Ocean, the arctic shipping lanes and all of that.

It is imperative that Canada stays on top of Arctic marine shipping development. Right now that is in the hands of the Russians. They are the leaders in this field. Where are we? We are nowhere in it. We will enter into the next century of development in the Arctic, where marine transportation will be of the utmost importance, and we will have a shipbuilding industry that we have not supported and that we have not ensured has the opportunity to take advantage of this new and exciting area to work in, the Arctic.

That one factor should give us all pause. It should make us ask what is good for Canada, not what is good for the world, in our new opportunities in the new economy, which will have a very large Arctic base. Is it good simply to abandon the shipbuilding industry to the vagrancies of the world market to the kind of competition that can come not only from Norway and from that direction, but from the Koreans and the Chinese? Is that what we want to accomplish?

It is not simply about building ships. It is about all the ancillary things that go along with ships. If we are turning over the shipbuilding industry, we are turning over many of the components and technologies that can give Canada the edge in the new economy into which we are moving.

Therefore, what are we doing here? What are we trying to accomplish with this free trade agreement that was started nine years ago by the Chrétien Liberals, when free trade was popular? Are the two major parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, simply caught in their past rhetoric, in their past ideas of free trade and free markets, that they cannot see what the future holds? Can they not say that this is the direction we should go in, that this is where the new economy is, that those are the things we have to protect and that those are the things we have to create.

Is that what their problem is, that their ideology has just bound them down? They used to complain that the NDP was ideologically bound by its protectionism, by its social justice, by its concerns about the environment, so that it could not be open to the development of world trade. Times are changing and we need to respond in a fashion that is acceptable and reasonable.

When the Mulroney government got us into the free trade agreement, the allegations at the time were that the free trade agreement was supported by the Conservatives and would continue to keep our dollar high. At the time, the New Democratic Party was pushing for a lower interest rate, which would help our economy. When the Liberals got in, they actually did that. They lowered the interest rate and let the dollar fall. Under the free trade agreement with the United States, we flourished. However, was it because of the free trade agreement or because of the lower dollar? Both of those factors had to come into play.

What is happening today? We are in the midst of a major global financial crisis, which we have not settled, yet we are talking about putting ourselves into more free trade agreements, when we do not understand yet what the financial situation of the world is going to be.

When it comes to currency, what is going to happen when the price of oil, inevitably in the next 12 months, starts to rise dramatically again, when the U.S. economy recovers and when the U.S. dollar starts to fall?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

That would be a terrible thing to see that recovery happen.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It is going to be a terrible thing. I thank the Conservative Party for its comments. I am glad it agrees with me. I am glad its vision is extending past the next six months.

When the American dollar falls and the Canadian dollar inevitably rises, as it is a petrodollar and based on our resource industries, we will find ourselves in a more difficult situation with free trade.

We are going to demand protectionism for our country. When the currency situation flips around with the United States, Americans will import into our country the things we used to export to them. That will be a problem for our economy. If we do not recognize it and realize where these things will lead us, we will be in a lot of trouble. That argument fits with what we are talking about today.

A free trade agreement with Europe was initially thought up nine years ago in a different time. Let us get back to where we are today and where we need to go in the future with our shipbuilding industry. We have a shipbuilding industry that is in crisis, so let us kick the legs right out from underneath it. Let us knock it right down on the floor. That is a good idea. That makes a lot of sense. That is the kind of thinking that can really bring us forward in this world.

When the NDP stands here and fights tooth and nail for this, with the support of the whole industry, with the support of all the workers in that industry, the collective wisdom of the Liberals and Conservatives, along with the Bloc, have decided that ideology reigns. Ideology will not do it for us. We need to think about where our industry has to go. We need to support our industries in this troubled time. We cannot afford to make decisions like this. We cannot afford to cast loose a major part of the manufacturing potential along our east and west coasts, up and down our rivers. The kind of future we are going to build in our country requires us to continue to support our shipbuilding industry. We cannot give this up. By giving doing so, we are giving up a significant part of the future of those provinces and territories that rely on this industry and the products of the industry to develop the new economy to move Canada ahead.

I plead with the other parties to look at what they are doing. They should take off their blinkers and realize where we are in the world today and where we have to go.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but I want to clarify something that occurred earlier today.

Earlier the member for Burnaby—New Westminster asked the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore as question about what happened under the Liberals. He referred to the minister, John Manley. For the record, I was Mr. Manley's parliamentary secretary. I remember the NDP brought forward a motion in the House, which dealt with the a review on shipbuilding. Had it not been for the Liberal team, the motion would have died. Those members can make all the statements they want, but this is in the record and I challenge the member to look at it. Had the Liberals not voted in favour of the motion, the review would not have started.

Then the members referred to Mr. Tobin, who took over from Mr. Manley. I happened to be his parliamentary secretary as well. He was moving forward and was making strides until the NDP betrayed Canadians, overthrew the government, and off we went.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's question, whatever it was. I have to refer to my speech. I said that if we looked backward, if we continued to think of ourselves nine years ago when we talked about trade agreements, we would not address the needs of Canadians.

When the hon. member says that the New Democratic Party may or may not have voted against a review of the shipbuilding industry and compare that to taking 25% off the tariff that protects Canadian shipbuilding in the world, he is talking about things which are not quite the same, do not have the same merit and do not have quite the same importance to our country. Could the member please look at where we are going and look at this legislation in that regard?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a letter from a shipyard worker. I am not sure if he is from my riding or the riding of Dartmouth, but he sent me a copy of his letter to the Prime Minister. He wrote:

As a worker employed in the shipbuilding industry for a number of years, I wish to express my concern over the EFTA trade agreement presently before Parliament.... This is an industry that, with the right support,could employ thousands of workers in this country, and provide a major part of the economic stimulus your government has been talking about for this country. To sign a trade agreement that further erodes our ability to compete makes absolutely no sense at this time.

For the first time in our history all stakeholders in the shipbuilding industry came together with the position that the EFTA trade agreement would be detrimental to our industry and “Shipbuilding” should be carved out of any such agreement.

Could the hon. member tell us of the impacts that not voting for this amendment could have on Canada's economy?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I referred to a number of areas where I think Canada needs to make progress in developing equipment and machinery, especially for resource development in the Arctic. In the 1970s and 1980s Canada did pretty well with what it built for the north.

A primary industry like shipbuilding is not simply about building hulls and putting sails on or motors in. It is an integrated industry. It is also about the people who build all the electronics, the people who build the machinery that is used on the ships. Those industries are attached to other industries. If we take the legs out from under the electronics industry for marine use in shipbuilding, we will see a drop off in that industry and an inability of that industry to compete in other areas. Shipbuilding is the prime industry but it is surrounded by other industries. Pulling the prime industry out puts the boots to many other industries.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, God love a Liberal. The Liberals are rising in the House to defend a report which nine years ago they did absolutely nothing on, while they are getting ready to sell out the entire shipbuilding industry in Canada. One has to have a lot of nerve to do that.

Liberal members have been besieged by hundreds of letters from shipyard workers in their ridings, boilermakers, sheet metal workers, people who depend on the shipbuilding industry and the Liberal members are giving them the backs of their hands. It is absolutely disgraceful.

The Conservatives and the Liberals are conspiring together to sell out one more industry. They did it with the softwood lumber sellout and now they are doing it with shipbuilding.

Could the hon. member for Western Arctic tell the House why the Liberals and the Conservatives always get it wrong?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House only three years. I have only seen the Liberals and the Conservatives get it wrong for three years. Sorry, I cannot speak to nine years ago and I really do not want to go there.

What I want is to get it right for Canada. I am speaking to this bill to try to impress upon members the need to look ahead, and not to think of ideologies other parties held so dear for many years because they thought that was the way to go. We have to consider where Canada has to go. We should not think about the past. We should think about the future.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight again.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster referred to the sellout of the lumber deal. I chaired the committee when it did the review. He was a member of the committee. All the stakeholders came before the committee and asked for financial support, which the Liberal team was ready to give. What happened? The Liberals agreed with the NDP on the 2005 budget, but the NDP went to bed with the Conservatives and the deal went down the drain. A billion dollars was left in the United States. The lumber deal went down the drain thanks to the NDP.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to repeat myself and I do not want to go in directions we do not need to go in this House.

The issue in front of us is a 25% tariff that is going to be applied to our shipbuilding industry over the next three years. This will actually cripple the industry at a very difficult time for industry in general. What are we doing? Why are we doing something that was created by the Liberals nine years ago and carried on by the Conservative Party? What is going on in this country?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting intervention especially given the fact that the NDP did not even have enough votes to vote with the Liberals at that time. Obviously the Liberals cannot even do basic counting.

The Canadian public was tired of the Liberals' behaviour with respect to the sponsorship program. That is really what is at stake here. The bluster coming from the member shows the sensitivity the Liberals have about this issue. They know that their minister at the time, David Emerson, who flip-flopped and crossed the floor to the Conservatives, was the mastermind behind it. He sold us out with the softwood lumber deal. He was the architect of and tried to sell us out with the South Korea deal, which the New Democrats have been able to stop. The heart of the matter is that this deal should be stopped right now. If the Liberals want to do something productive, they could carve out this element and correct their ways.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem that I see is we did not have enough seats then and we do not have enough seats now to do the right thing for Canadians. The solution of course is more seats for the New Democratic Party.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my friend and colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, on all the hard work he has done on this issue.

At first blush, when we talk about a free-trade agreement with countries like Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, many Canadians might be a bit confused and wonder how we could have a problem with it. In fact, the countries I just named are very close to us historically and in many other respects. My colleague said as much, and another colleague from Halifax was able to prove it: Bill C-2 will destroy Canada's shipbuilding industry. Although I congratulate my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, I also want to thank the people across Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, including the people from the Lévis shipyards. In fact, these shipyards are still known as the Lauzon yards, even though the City of Lauzon amalgamated with Lévis quite some time ago.

It is sad to see how the Conservative government is incapable of paying attention to detail in its work. It is as though once something fits with its ideology, the government refuses to believe that there could be any problem. In fact, this bill poses a major problem, even though other members who will vote for it to support the Conservatives said there were good things in it. Obviously, every time we can look at expanding certain sectors, some good will come of it. But we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time and we are able to negotiate an agreement with these countries without compromising a vital Canadian industry. And that is what we must do.

The Americans have never had any qualms about this. In the United States, ships had to be built there in order to access domestic waters. Some would call this protectionism, but the Americans think it is only normal, and this is part of what is protected every time the Americans sign an agreement in this matter. How is that Canada is the only country incapable of including a similar provision to protect itself, in light of the evidence that Norway in particular will take the lion's share, while we lose thousands of jobs in a sector that could be strategically important in the very short term?

It is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-2. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Parliament for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the titanic job he has done on this, and there is no pun on the word “titanic” as we talk about shipbuilding.

As people hear us speak on this issue today, they will be as surprised as we were that the Conservatives were unable to listen to the voices of the men and women who work in shipbuilding across our great country. Canada is the only country in the world that people can talk about stretching from coast to coast to coast because it borders on three oceans, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic. Shipping and shipbuilding have been integral in building our country.

We realize that shipbuilding industry in Canada, from British Columbia all the way to Nova Scotia, passing by Lévis-Lauzon, where the Davie shipbuilding operation is located and recently bought by some Norwegians, is in a great deal of trouble. That is why it is so disappointing and surprising that the government would be selling out our industry in that regard.

It is often heard, when we deal with trade issues, that some parts of the bill will be good, particular when one rhymes off the list of countries involved. In fact, it can raise eyebrows when we say that we find offence with the treaty with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. However, the government is throwing out a very important industry. It will be killing our shipbuilding industry if this agreement goes forward, notably to the profit of Norway, which has become a powerhouse in this field. This is most disturbing.

We know Conservative ideology. The argument of the Conservatives is any trade agreement is good in and of itself and we do not have to look at the details. However, that is precisely what we are called upon to do in the House. We are here to look at details, see how things will affect Canadians, go forward when they meet a certain number of criteria, including the fact that it will not take away Canadian jobs, and hold back when it will produce an undesired result such as the one I just described. However, they are not doing that. They are pushing it forward full throttle.

In this case, it is even more disappointing to hear that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this agreement. When we know how many jobs are involved with a shipbuilding concern like Davie in Lauzon, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why the Bloc Québécois supports the bill.

We know how many jobs are at risk and will be lost if we sign this agreement, including those at the Davie shipyards in Lauzon-Lévis. I simply cannot understand why the Bloc Québécois members are supporting this.

I listened carefully to their arguments. They claim that there are other areas of activity, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, that could benefit from a levelling of agreements with a country like Switzerland. I have no problem with that. It is probably true. However, when such an agreement is reached, we must look at the overall picture and judge accordingly. There is no overriding reason why we should destroy the shipbuilding industry and Quebec's shipyards. I just mentioned the Davie shipyard in Lauzon, but there is also the very active Ocean Group Inc., which is located just a little further downstream from Quebec City on the north shore. There is no reason we should destroy this industry in Quebec. Those who vote in favour of this agreement with the European Free Trade Association will have a lot of explaining to do later on.

It is not unusual that the Liberals would vote for it. Over the past three years—this is the Conservatives' fourth year in power—their bootlicking has defied imagination. There is not one subject on which the Liberal Party has taken a stand. It does not have principles. It does not believe in anything, except for its own opportunism.

Therefore, that the Liberals would sell out again and vote for the EFTA agreement does not surprise us in the least. They have supported the Conservative government at least 70 times. We are becoming increasingly used to their conduct. At present, they have a right-leaning leader. He is a man who used the prestige of his position at Harvard University to support the war in Iraq. In some of his writings, he attempts to justify the use of torture on human beings.

We will see what the Liberals do with the gun registry. Probably the same thing they did to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, an important Canadian law that had been around for about 100 years. They supported the Conservatives, who scrapped it, and they also voted with the Conservatives to eliminate the right of women to receive equal pay for work of equal value.

That is the sad reality of just a few months with their new leader, a rightist who has shifted to the right. He should at least be identified and named so that the public clearly knows that the party whose name sounds like the word liberty, the Liberal Party, has become a weak version of the Conservative Party with its right-leaning leader.

Therefore, we are not surprised to see the Liberals rising to vote with the Conservatives time after time. What is surprising and disappointing this time is that, despite the arguments they made, the Bloc Québécois is voting with the Conservatives to impose this new agreement on Quebec and Canada that will destroy our marine industry and crush workers across Canada in this crucial sector.

In closing, I would like to thank and acknowledge the courage of all the men and women who wrote to us asking that we keep our resolve and fight this bill. We will continue to support the workers, to condemn the shift to the right by the Liberals who systematically support the Conservatives, and to lament the fact that, this time, the Bloc Québécois is throwing in its lot with the Conservatives to the detriment of the workers in Quebec and Canada.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for adding to the speeches we have made in this corner of the House on this important international agreement. As he pointed out at the beginning of his speech, it is hard to imagine that we would not want to have a treaty with countries like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland and that there are many reasons why we share things in common. I think many Canadians celebrated the rise to power recently of the first openly lesbian prime minister in the world, the head of Iceland. This is an indication of the kinds of values we share with the people of Iceland when it comes to the full equality of gay and lesbian citizens.

These are the kinds of countries we want to do business. However, the carve-out for our shipbuilding industry is not part of this agreement. Other countries that have negotiated with these countries have managed to negotiate a carve-out. In my riding of Burnaby—Douglas, British Columbia, many people at one time made their living in the shipbuilding industry, which was largely based in North Vancouver. We have seen it dwindle away as Canadian ships and Canadian ferries are built overseas. This agreement will only lead to a further decline in the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.

Could the member comment further about the kinds of countries that we want to have agreements with and why, when there is a concern about a particular industry, Canada would not have sought a carve-out of the industry from this kind of agreement?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to us that the Conservatives would continue to support every possible trade deal, no matter what is in it and no matter how much it hurts Canada. Part of their ideology is that trade, in and of itself, is a good thing so they can sign any deal.

To answer the question of my colleague, I would give the example of the Colombia trade deal that has been put in place now. When it caused a great deal of reaction among thinking people who looked at the human rights record of the current government there, it was changed so the current government, which has killed many trade unionists, would be obliged to pay a fine when a trade unionist was killed. That was the Conservatives' way of leavening the proposed agreement with Colombia.

It does not surprise members, I am sure, to learn that the New Democratic Party is strongly opposed to that agreement. I suspect that since the Conservatives are for it, it will mean the Liberals are for it. The Liberals are for whatever the Conservatives are for because they are cut from the same cloth. On this end, we will continue to look at issues that involve protecting Canadian jobs. That does not mean protectionism, but if Americans are capable of protecting their shipbuilding industry, if there can be carve-outs in these agreements, why is it not possible for Canada to do the same thing?

Why is it necessary for us to adopt an agreement with the European Free Trade Association that will undermine the Canadian shipbuilding industry, indeed will kill the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and will hurt workers from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, including an important shipbuilding operation in Lévis-Lauzon, Quebec?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contained in letters from workers in Lévis and other places across Canada are some heartfelt concerns. The thing that strikes me is they are appealing to us to appeal to the Liberals because they do not want to wind up on EI, which the Liberals gutted in 1995. The Liberals set in place the rules that have excluded people from EI today. This is a huge irony.

Has the member seen some of these heartbreaking letters?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that at the end of the day, every time we talk about a lost job, we talk about a family. We are talking about individuals who are having a tough time.

We are also forgetting that in killing the shipbuilding industry, the Conservative-Liberal alliance party, and people can work out the acronym, is ensuring that the steel industry, in places such as Hamilton in particular, will have few places to sell its steel. It is a connectedness in the economy that the Conservatives have never been able to understand.

Yes, I have looked at those moving letters from men and women who work in those jobs and who simply do not understand how their government, with the culpable complicity of the Liberals, is selling them down the river. Why are we so incapable in the House of doing the same thing that has been done in other countries that have signed similar agreements, which is to carve out the section that will protect this key industry?

My colleagues from British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and I am from Quebec, have worked very hard to try and preserve the industry, to avoid the error of this trade agreement. We have stood and spoken to the issue any number of times.

Unfortunately the NDP, for the time being, does not have the plurality of votes in the House that it would require to block this mistake, and it will go to go through again. The Conservatives have an ideology and the Liberals believe nothing. The Liberals will vote with the Conservatives because they do not believe in anything.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague from Outremont give us a sense of how many jobs may be affected if this bill passes? Once the Conservative Party is history, as it surely will be one day, does the member think that it will be too late to revive shipbuilding in Canada?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of direct employment, shipyards across Canada still employ several thousand people. If we sign this agreement, all of those jobs will be in danger because Norway will be able to take over the lion's share of our market. Except for some minor repair work, this will be the end of Canada's shipbuilding industry. We have been building ships here for 400 years, but this agreement could ring the death knell of a major industry that provides direct employment to thousands of people.

Some people tend to forget what is going on for my colleague from Hamilton, where they make steel. One of the basic ingredients in stainless steel is nickel, which is produced in the region represented by the member who just spoke, the name of his riding being a clear indication.

Jobs in mines and the steel industry could be lost if this agreement is signed. That is why these tragic job losses will reach much farther than jobs in the marine sector. Job losses will also affect the resource sector—mines—the processing sector—manufacturing—and, of course, all related services.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. There being no further members rising, pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-2, and of the amendment.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion.

The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no on this motion.

As well, I would like to add the names of the members for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Scarborough—Rouge River and Scarborough Centre.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, they abstained on the other vote.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members will vote against this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting in favour of this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote against this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #44

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I rise on a point of order. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, when the votes were being tallied up through the whips of the parties, I believe I heard some extraneous remarks from the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois with respect to abstention.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Not us.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It was Marlene.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In that case, I will stand down and withdraw that.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would remind my hon. colleague that it was a member of his own party who made the comment, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Liberal Party deputy House leader.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Clearly, no one is arguing the point.

The next question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to this motion in reverse.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #45

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.