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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motion in amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important amendment to this bill, which has been called by the shipbuilding industry “the shipbuilding sellout”. We have had debates in this House about trade agreements before, and the sorry history of this Conservative government is that it has been an incredibly ineffective negotiator.

We saw that with the softwood sellout, which continues to have profound repercussions for our softwood industry across the country. Softwood mills are closing down and softwood workers are being thrown out of work, all because the Conservative government was ineffectual at the negotiating table.

The EFTA agreement has the same problem. Essentially what it does is expressed in the words of unanimous recommendations by the shipbuilding industry itself, saying that this agreement constitutes a shipbuilding sellout, a sellout of our shipbuilding industry. Whether we are talking about marine workers from British Columbia or marine workers from Nova Scotia or the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, witness after witness says this agreement will kill shipbuilding jobs in Canada and will kill them in an irreparable way.

This amendment will carve out shipbuilding from the agreement. As we all know, around the world legislators do their due diligence when trade agreements are negotiated, whether it is the U.S. Congress, most recently with the U.S.-Peru deal, or whether it is the European Union in the most recent EPA signed with Caricom. In every case the legislators must look at the text of the bill, look at the implementation legislation, and decide what is in the interests of Canada.

What we are hearing unanimously from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and from shipbuilding workers on both coasts is that this agreement, unless shipbuilding is carved out, will kill the shipbuilding industry in Canada.

The witnesses were very compelling. They were not only talking about the fact that this will kill shipbuilding, but the fact that this will, in a very real sense, have implications for all the sectors in the industry, whether we're talking about shipowners or ship repair facilities.

I'll quote Mr. Andrew McArthur, who was speaking on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. This is what he said earlier this week at the Standing Committee on International Trade:

It's not only the shipbuilding industry that's jeopardized, it's the shipowners. On the east coast you've got owners who operate offshore supply vessels. Norway operates one of the biggest fleets in the world. They have something like over 50% of the total world supply of offshore supply vessels. The North Sea is in a downtrend where they're looking for places to send these ships that were built with subsidies that have been written off. They could come in here and undercut any Canadian operator on the east coast for charter rates. It's not only the shipyards, it's the ship owners.

From the shipbuilding industry, we also had comments about the ongoing viability of our shipbuilding industry, because as the shipyards shut down, the repair facilities are menaced as well. Essentially what we are doing is triple jeopardy: killing the shipbuilding industry, killing ship repair facilities, and killing the possibility for shipowners to be competitive.

In the long term, what we heard from Mr. McArthur on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada is that the technology comes from new construction and design, and without the ongoing technology and education of our total workforce, the industry is just going to die. We need the new construction to sustain the ongoing technical capability, so repair would suffer.

We have heard a lot about the brain drain in our shipbuilding facilities. Essentially over time we are losing people who are qualified and trained in shipbuilding. This is not an industry that can be rebuilt overnight by snapping our fingers. Whether we are talking about Marystown in Newfoundland and Labrador, Halifax--and I know very well that Halifax shipyard workers are imploring Nova Scotia Liberal MPs to vote for this amendment to carve out shipbuilding--Welland, Ontario, or Victoria, Vancouver, and Nanaimo in British Columbia, marine workers are calling on this Parliament to carve out shipbuilding.

As for shipyards, the Davie shipyards, for example, would be threatened by this agreement. It is our duty to carve out shipbuilding from this agreement. Whether we are talking about Quebec, Ontario, western Canada or Atlantic Canada, jobs in all regions are at risk in these tough times, the worst recession we have seen since the 1930s.

The Conservatives are pushing forward. They are refusing at any point to allow for our shipbuilding carve-out. They have their own reasons for that, and I think certain Conservatives, particularly in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, will bear the brunt of that irresponsible action. However, the opposition in a minority Parliament has an important role to play.

Conservatives have said that they are going to withdraw the bill if this amendment is passed. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that is ridiculous. The government lost on iron and steel in the United States because of a botched negotiating strategy, and the softwood sellout has been appallingly bad across the country. Because the government has had so few successes in the area of trade--in fact, none--they will re-introduce this bill to committee with the changes so that we can clean up and restore some of the paragraphs in clause 33. However, the government's threats to withdraw the bill are simply not credible.

Accordingly, I ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment, as they did at committee, in order to carve out shipbuilding from this agreement. The Bloc supported our motion at committee so it stands in the House.

The Conservatives' threat to withdraw the bill is simply not credible. I ask the members of the Bloc Québécois, who are concerned about the future of the Davie shipyards, to consider our amendment and support it in the coming weeks. I know my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke agrees that we should follow up on the committee's work with a well formulated amendment.

Of course we ask Liberal members of Parliament to vote for this amendment to carve out shipbuilding. This is what shipyard workers in Halifax are asking for. This is what marine workers in Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for. This is what marine workers in British Columbia are asking for. For Liberal members of Parliament, it is quite clear. I believe they must choose to vote with what those shipbuilding workers across the country have said unanimously.

I have to stress this point. There is not a single representative from the shipbuilding industry, whether workers or owners, who came forward and said, “Oh, this is not a bad deal”. All of them said the impact will be catastrophic and all of them said there will be losses of jobs. Can we take that risk at a time when we are essentially hemorrhaging jobs in so many sectors? Can we take the risk of a botched negotiating strategy by a government that simply does not understand how to be tough at the negotiating table? It is tough with ordinary Canadians, but it is very weak when it comes to the United States softwood industry or Liechtenstein. It just caves at the negotiating table.

Our responsibilities as opposition members of Parliament are to vote for the carve-out and for this amendment. This is a shipbuilding sellout. There is no doubt about that. We have heard compelling, unanimous testimony from our shipbuilding friends and colleagues across the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. It is very clear what course this Parliament must take. By voting for the carve-out, we are defending the interests of our shipbuilding industry and we are defending the interests of our shipyards across the country.

We are allowing that opportunity to stop the brain drain, to stop the collapse of our shipbuilding industry and to start to restore our shipbuilding industry to the prominence it once enjoyed. We have the longest coastline in the world by far. It is inconceivable that the country with the longest coastline in the world and a proud shipbuilding tradition would knowingly have its Parliament adopt a trade agreement untouched and unamended when we know the impacts would be disastrous. I ask for my opposition colleagues to vote for this amendment.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on a subject of huge importance to the economy of Canada.

In January 2008 Canada, along with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, collectively known as the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA, signed the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement.

In today's economic times, we have to continue to open doors for our businesses in global markets, in contrast to the NDP's desire to close doors and try to make it as a stand-alone trade zone within Canada. It is simply impossible to do that.

The November 2008 throne speech underscored the importance this government places on trade and investment and reaffirmed our commitment to actively pursue trade negotiations and partners around the world. The Standing Committee on International Trade has reviewed Bill C-2 and has now reported back to the House with just one minor technical amendment.

The opposition, the NDP, proposed to vote 16 amendments to this bill, claiming that Bill C-2 did not effectively recognize Canada's shipbuilding industry, as we just heard from the member from Burnaby. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The government is fully aware of the views of the shipbuilding industry. We negotiated and consulted extensively with stakeholders in the industry to ensure their concerns and interests were fully understood and considered during the negotiations.

Government officials also consulted with the provinces and the territories on the treatment of ships in the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement, and today we are about to sign a free trade agreement that we can be proud of. It is a deal that addresses Canadian shipbuilding concerns in a number of different ways.

For example, it contains a 15-year tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, and a 10-year phase-out on all other sensitive shipbuilding products, protecting our shipbuilders in Canada. These phase-out periods include a bridge period of three years, during which tariffs will be maintained at the most favoured nation level. These provisions give our shipbuilders considerable time to adjust to a duty-free environment.

This is important. Fifteen years is the longest tariff phase-out period for an industrial tariff in free trade agreement history in this country. These provisions respond directly to the concerns vocalized by the shipbuilding industry and by the NDP.

On rules of origin, the provisions under the EFTA are those sought by the Canadian industry. They are consistent with those in Canada's other free trade agreements. The EFTA also contains specific provisions for the collection of customs duties in accordance with the tariff phase-out program on the value of repairs and alterations to ships that are temporarily exported from Canada to EFTA countries.

We have ensured that this new agreement does not introduce any new obligations for Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or any other products. Accordingly, and this is important, federal and provincial governments will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards for the purchase, lease, repair or refit of all types of vehicles.

That is very important. That is something that the NDP does not recognize exists in this contract.

Separately, this Conservative government has announced more than $43 billion--that is billion--for the procurement of maritime vessels in the next 30 years. These are vessels that the government will purchase.

Furthermore, the government continues to encourage the use of Canadian shipyards through the renewed structured financing facility--

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but unfortunately it is 11 o'clock. We have to proceed with statements by members, but the hon. member is going to have a full five minutes to complete his remarks when debate resumes on this bill a little later.

The House resumed from March 5 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When debate was interrupted, the member for Cariboo—Prince George had five minutes remaining.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had just spoken about a very important part of Bill C-2, and I think it is worth going over it again. It is that Bill C-2 does not introduce any new obligations on Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or for any other products. Accordingly, federal and provincial governments in Canada will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards in the purchase, lease and repair of vessels of all types.

This is good news for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. This is good news for Canada's economy. This goes along very well with the recent announcement by the government that it is putting more than $43 billion into the procurement of maritime vessels over the next 30 years. That is good news for the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and the industry is rejoicing about that huge government infusion of cash.

That is good news for the economy of Canada. That is good news for everyone but the NDP, because the NDP does not like good news. It cannot survive with good news. Whenever there is good news happening, NDP members do whatever they can to try to carve out some little portion of it to make it into bad news, because that makes them happy.

That is why the member for Burnaby—New Westminster does not like Bill C-2 at all. As a matter of fact, he does not like any free trade agreements. If people listened closely when he was talking about the softwood lumber agreement, which he wants to rip up, they would have heard huge applause coming from the American softwood lumber dealers in the southeastern part of the U.S.A. They were cheering him on. They want to rip up that softwood lumber agreement, go back to the courts and stop any sales of Canadian wood to the U.S. That would be the best thing for them. They were cheering the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. They do it regularly whenever he talks about scrapping the softwood lumber agreement.

The government continuously encourages the use of Canadian shipyards for building ships through the structured financing facility. That allows shipowners who buy their ships from Canadian shipyards to reduce their interest cost on their financing. The government has put an additional $50 million into that fund, and that is good news for the shipbuilding industry. It is bad news for the NDP, because that party does not like good news and has trouble with it.

The government also recognizes the importance of Canada's domestic government procurement market for our shipbuilding industry. We are taking steps to address the many challenges faced by Canada's shipbuilding industry by buying down the interest rate of the loans that shipowners are using to purchase ships from Canadian shipyards.

The government has shown its support for our ship industry. In budget 2009 we invested $175 million on a cash basis for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake some life extensions and refits.

I could go on, but I want to remind members that Bill C-2 passed second reading by a vote of 258 to 36. That vote was a clear show of support for this agreement in the House, except from the NDP, which, as I said, does not like good news.

I would like to ask all members of the House to continue to support this government and its efforts as we continue creating a strong competitive economy for Canada today. It will give our children the opportunities they need to succeed in tomorrow's world. Bill C-2 is an example of that.

We appreciate the support of the Liberals and the Bloc in getting this agreement. We have been trying to do it for 10 years and finally we have an opportunity. Notwithstanding the NDP, which does not like agreements such as this one, we are going to get this passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a load of claptrap.

For members and people who are watching from Cariboo--Prince George, this is the member who did not even bother to read the softwood lumber sellout. They can look that up in the Prince George Citizen. He did not even do that on behalf of his constituents. The result has been hundreds of lost jobs in Cariboo--Prince George.

For the folks who want to look that up, it was in the online edition of the Prince George Citizen a couple of years ago.

Perhaps he has read this agreement. I certainly hope so, but the shipbuilding industry does not see this as good news. In fact, the shipbuilding industry came before committee to ask unanimously to be carved out. Those were shipyard workers from Halifax, shipyard workers from Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Shipbuilding Association of Canada.

They were very clear. George MacPherson said that the position of the association from day one was that shipbuilding should be carved out from the EFTA. Mr. Andrew McArthur said, “It is not only the EFTA that concerns us. The ground rules may be set.... Once you've set the ground rules...the industry would be in very tough conditions”.

Why does the member think he knows more about shipbuilding than all the shipbuilding association representatives and workers who said, “No. Carve this out of the agreement”?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the member for Burnaby—New Westminster's edification, of course I was working on the softwood lumber agreement all through the completion of it. I certainly had an understanding of it. Even before the text came out, I knew all the salient points. I knew it was a good agreement.

As a matter of fact, during the committee stage I had to assist the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in many cases to understand the softwood lumber agreement. I do not take a back seat to him at any time.

The fact is that the government has put a $43 billion commitment into building new vessels for Canadian waters. They are all going to go to Canadian shipyards. The shipbuilding industry is going to get a huge infusion of cash from that money. We have protected the shipbuilding yards on the tariffs. It is a 15-year phase-in.

Many things are going to be good from this EFTA deal, but then again it is good news, and of course the NDP and the member do not like good news, ever.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.

There is an interesting opportunity for us to have a true national shipbuilding strategy. In my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, we have outstanding men and women who work on shipbuilding.

The questions I have are these.

First, a section of Bill C-10 tore up an arbitrated agreement that our shipworkers had. This agreement actually eliminates the arbitrated wage settlement for which they have been waiting for a long time. Will the hon. member bring this matter to the attention of the minister and ask his government to reinstate that agreement? It is the right and fair thing to do for the shipworkers who work in our government shipbuilding and ship repair yards.

Second, will he support a national shipbuilding strategy and the movement of the import tax that we have when we buy ships abroad so that the import tax would go into a dedicated fund, matched by the private sector, that could be used for infrastructure for our shipbuilders?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for those two excellent questions. I know that the member certainly does like good news when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. He is looking for a revival of that industry in his riding, and good for him.

I will certainly bring those two points he has made to the minister's attention and work with him and members from all parties who want to see the shipbuilding industry complete this revival and once again make Canada a world force to be reckoned with by competition around the world.

That is exactly what Bill C-2 is trying to do. It is unfortunate that the NDP is opposing it so strongly. The Liberals and the Bloc are supporting it. They know a good-news story when they hear it. Unfortunately, the NDP does not like good-news stories, so we expect them to oppose it.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my understanding that when the member for Burnaby—New Westminster gave his speech earlier today, his five-minute question and answer period was overlooked, so at this point, before I resume debate, I would like to go back to the five-minute question and answer period to be put to the member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

Questions and comment. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to one very specific solution for which I have been fighting for a long time. It could provide the moneys for our shipbuilding industry. As I said before, we have an import tax on purchasing ships abroad. Let us take that import tax and put it into a fund that is matched by the private sector. Those moneys could then be an injection into infrastructure for our shipbuilding industry. Would my colleague from the NDP support that proposal?

Would he also support a national shipbuilding strategy? In my riding and indeed nationally, our navy, BC Ferries and the Coast Guard have enough work for the next 20 years. Frankly, our navy needs our ships now. They need the frigates and the joint supply ship, which is absolutely essential for our navy to be able to do its job. It is actually a crucial piece of infrastructure for our navy. Would the member put his back into it and fully support our Canadian navy's ability to get the joint supply ships, the frigates and the long-term 20-year infrastructure plan that we need for our Coast Guard, our navy and BC Ferries?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes I do. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asks a pretty substantive question, because if he does not vote for the amendment on the carve-out, the tariff is eliminated. The Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the marine workers in his riding, in Nova Scotia and across the country have been saying that is the reason the carve-out is needed.

That is why he needs to vote for the amendment the NDP has brought forward here. If we do not do the carve-out, then what he suggests cannot be done. What he suggests is very much in line with what the NDP has been proposing. My colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore has been the strongest advocate for shipbuilding in this whole Parliament, and he has been talking about a wide variety of measures. We cannot do it if the carve-out is not put in place.

I ask the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to stand up for B.C. marine workers, like his colleagues in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who are considering voting for the amendment. I hope that he does too, because in doing so, we save the shipbuilding industry, and the other things he suggests become possible.