House of Commons Hansard #220 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, we on the government side and in the Liberal Party always respect the membership. We advance accordingly, knowing full well that they have a tremendous contribution to make. Certainly that has been the way we have traditionally operated and it will be the way we continue to operate.

Having said that, I want to say how gratified I was to hear the hon. member opposite say that he agreed with my speech about the need for Canada to export. I think he understands, or understands hopefully, that we on the government side are somewhat on the right track in this matter. That is very important to note.

In 1997 the member for Fundy—Royal had private member's motion No. 214. I will read from that motion:

—the government should actively develop an innovative national shipbuilding policy which focuses on making shipyards internationally competitive by providing tax incentives and construction financing comparable to what is being provided elsewhere in the world and which ensures reasonable access to foreign markets, particularly the United States of America—

The hon. member for Fundy—Royal was really saying that he has concern over the Jones act, the 1920 piece of legislation. I find that very interesting coming from the very party that allowed that to go forward under the free trade agreement. It is outrageous, quite frankly, that they would have let that proceed in the manner they did and now we are stuck with that kind of nonsense.

For the hon. member to talk out of one side of his mouth on a motion back in 1997 and quite differently now is quite interesting.

During that same debate the member for Saint John went on to suggest improvements to export financing and loan guarantees. She talked about the exclusion of newly Canadian constructed ships from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations. “For the life of me,” she said, “I cannot understand why the government would not look favourably on that. It is done for rail cars, vans, trucks and computers”.

Let me point out that by any other name is a subsidy. If it quacks like a duck, I can guarantee it is a duck. That is a subsidy, something that those people opposite say they are not in favour of yet that is exactly what it is.

The implication of that would be enormous. The domino effect it would have on all other industries would be outrageous. I say to them their unfairness will not work and it is simply something we in the government will not buy.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Given the amount of respect I have for the House and this institution, I want to make sure we have as co-operative a relationship as we possibly can. Having said that, I would be free to take a brief moment to tell the member the difference between a subsidy and a tax incentive. I would be willing to help him.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Nice try but it is not a point of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate, particularly as I said earlier because shipbuilding is such an important component of the economy in my riding of West Nova.

Since the first European settlers arrived in West Nova, boat building has played an integral role in our rural society. Moving along the rich coastal waters of the Bay of Fundy, many of my constituents are involved in the fishing industry and as such depend on the expertise of our very experienced shipbuilding industry.

What scares me about the downturn and the lack of a shipbuilding policy is the potential loss of expertise of our shipbuilders. Not only are we losing the economic benefits of shipbuilding but we might lose the expertise that they have. I would want that to continue.

Shipbuilding in West Nova grew sharply during the second world war as the allies worked feverishly to prepare our navy for the daunting task that lay ahead, which culminated with our victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. West Nova has some of the finest shipbuilders in the world. They have developed their expertise after decades of practising their trades for local fishers.

We have a federal government that is indifferent to the shipbuilding industry. Throughout the world we can find examples of countries that are supporting their own shipbuilding industry. We need only look to the south of us to see the United States and the Jones act which effectively prevents our Canadian shipyards from competing with U.S. shipbuilding interests.

Our colleagues from across the way continue to refer to the past when NAFTA and free trade were negotiated. It is incumbent upon the government to look at the future. The Jones act has not been working. It is something that really affects our ability to be competitive in the shipbuilding industry. I would urge the government to work with the U.S. to reduce or remove the effects of the Jones act.

Obviously the U.S. has recognized the importance of shipbuilding to its local economies. Our own Liberal government, despite repeated promises to introduce a new shipbuilding policy both in 1993 and in 1997, has decided to turn its back on this vital industry.

This industry could easily employ 10,000 employees instead of the fewer than 4,000 who are presently employed. The Liberal government suggests that politics have nothing to do with its decision to turn its back on our shipbuilding industry. I suppose this goes with what my colleague from Lévis said.

Those who are speaking to shipbuilding seem to be from the opposition. I wonder if the government's lack of interest in a shipbuilding policy for eastern Canada is due to the fact that not many Liberals were elected there, especially in Nova Scotia where none were elected. Perhaps that has an impact on the Liberal lack of interest in shipbuilding policy.

Perhaps the government is turning its back on our fishing industry and therefore does not see the necessity of having a shipbuilding policy. Fishing is still a viable option in West Nova, and for that matter in most of Atlantic Canada. We have some of the richest grounds in the world just off the southern tip of Nova Scotia. Our lobster industry is by far the most lucrative.

There is still a need for shipbuilding services in our area. However, if the government continues to ignore the plight of those involved in the industry, our small family owned shipbuilding operations will not be able to compete with foreign competition.

Let us consider the family boat building operations in my riding such as A. F. Theriault and Sons. on Meteghan River, Camille D'eon's boat building in Middle West Pubnico and Doucette's boat building in Cape Ste. Mary's. What about David LeBlanc in Mavilette and Cape Ste. Mary's or Paul and Alain Pothier in St. Martin? These are all small family run operations that have survived over the years because they have mastered their craft to a point where they have developed great reputations from within the fishing industry.

The PC Party wants partisanship to be taken out of this discussion so that all parties in the House can work toward developing a policy for shipbuilding that will help promote and put Canada on a level playing field so that we can compete with other countries that build ships.

The shipbuilding industry has proposed four measures which would immediately stimulate the shipbuilding industry. They include changes to leasing regulations, a refundable tax credit, and a pro-Canada provision of levelling the playing field, as I said earlier, without competitors.

With proper support from our federal government some of the family operations could legitimately expand their operations, creating countless numbers of new jobs for our struggling economy.

I have referred a lot to my riding of West Nova but a new shipbuilding policy is a pan-Canadian issue. Shipyards are located across Canada in B.C., Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland.

Canadian shipyards have the capacity to directly employ over 10,000 Canadians. The economic benefits of $100 million worth of new shipbuilding business will create over 1,500 jobs in shipbuilding and allied businesses and generate over $23 million of income for the federal treasury. It is for these reasons that we believe there should be a comprehensive shipbuilding policy in Canada.

The P.C. Party of Canada wants the government to work in a non-partisan way with all parties of the House toward developing a comprehensive shipbuilding policy which will help promote a very important industry in our Canadian economy.

I encourage all members of the House to support this very important endeavour.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, since these are probably the last remarks in today's debate, I must thank the member for Saint John and the Progressive Conservative Party for raising this issue on opposition day.

The motion is broad, but at the same time very clever; it is unifying in that it brings together all the opposition parties, but also picks up the text of a resolution adopted by the Liberal Party at its convention, and introduced by the Maritimes Liberal Association. I find this very clever, because it forces Liberal members to ask themselves a very serious question.

There seems to be two different concepts of democracy. In a dictatorship, people are told “Do as you are told and keep quiet. You do not have the right to speak up”. A modern version of this, the Liberal version, highlights the role of the grassroots members at a convention, but it means nothing because their voice is ignored. Would the member agree?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on something very important. Before I answer his question I would like to say that I know all members of the opposition are in support of the motion. It is really ironic when the motion word for word is a motion that was drafted and supported by the Liberal Party of Canada.

In reality, we do not need a vote because we already know that it is unanimous unless the Liberals choose to make it otherwise. If they do that then they are neglecting their responsibility toward people in the fishing and the shipbuilding industries.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It being 6.25 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions on the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, May 5, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1999, I expressed concern in the House that the Minister of National Defence indicated during the previously held take note debate on Kosovo that he did not know the details concerning the involvement of Canadian troops in a peacekeeping mission. The minister in fact said that these details would be worked out after the signing of a peace agreement. Then a formal request would be made by NATO, and Canada would have two weeks to respond.

I asked the minister at that time if he would commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so that he might respond to the request with the full and open backing of Canadians through parliament.

The minister made it very clear in his answer, and the government has made it very clear since then, that there will be no vote on that issue. The minister indicated that the government had had a debate and would make a final decision expeditiously as matters unfolded. The minister said they would do so and keep everybody fully informed.

That was the keynote of the day. There would be no vote but everybody would be kept fully informed. We can see as matters have evolved that there has been no vote and that about 800 troops have since been committed. They are on standby for whatever NATO may deem to request of them.

The point is that with no vote Canada has joined the largest allied military assault in Europe since World War II. The phrase “sentence first and verdict afterwards” is from the twisted world of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and it seems the same twisted approach is being used by the government.

The government has seen fit to hold votes on many other pieces of business, on legislation that it has introduced in parliament updating terminology related to the Royal Canadian Mint, Teleglobe Canada legislation, establishing parks, amending the wheat board act, and even legislating workers back to work. Yet the government does not think that Canadians deserve to have their elected representatives vote on Canada's participation in the bloody slaughter of innocents in Yugoslavia and Canada's participation in the devastation of an economy and infrastructure including water, sewage, roads and communications which will take untold generations to rebuild.

The government places expediency before democracy. The Liberal government has acted as if the Liberal Party is at war and not the country of Canada, which is a very scary conclusion. The government suggests that it is at war. We note that the term war is quite often avoided and we talk about a conflict. In reality we have to call it what it is. The government is at war for democratic reasons, the government says, but it has overridden democracy in favour of one party rule to pursue its goals.

Upon what moral authority does the government see fit to send our country to war without a vote? The vote is the key issue. It is very important. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he demanded a vote on Canada's participation in the gulf war of 1991. Yet now he has chosen to hide from democracy in this crisis.

When I was campaigning many people indicated their very serious concerns about government. They were quite pessimistic about the political process, to the point that many had given up their right to vote. I encouraged people that the vote is the keystone of our democracy. It is a key point in our democracy. We must not at any cost give up the right to vote. I urge all members to consider seriously that in this issue the vote is the important issue.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Kitchener—Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, may I say to the member in starting that the opposition parties have the opportunity every time they have an opposition day to bring forth a vote if that is what they are talking about.

There is no question that Canadian participation in NATO operations is important, not simply because we are members of the alliance but because of the moral issues at stake. Members of the Canadians forces deserve our recognition and support for the important task they have taken up on behalf of all Canadians. Parliament has played an important role in our Kosovo deliberations.

In making its decisions respecting Canada's involvement in Kosovo, the government recognizes the importance of the views of parliamentarians on this crucial issue.

Parliament has debated the situation in Kosovo on four different occasions: first on October 7, 1998, when all parties agreed that Canada should join our NATO allies in air operations if they proved necessary; second on February 17, 1999, when there was hope that a peace agreement would be signed and our involvement would consist of a peacekeeping force; third on April 12, 1999, when the House once again discussed events in Kosovo and when all parties supported Canada's decision to participate in NATO-led air operations; and fourth on April 19, 1999, when the House debated the opposition day motion calling for a debate and vote on any deployment of ground troops for military or peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. That motion was defeated.

Twice-weekly briefings on Kosovo are being given to joint meetings of the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Moreover, ministers and officials have participated in daily technical briefings which have been well attended by the public and the press. Should the nature of our involvement in Kosovo change, the government has made a firm commitment to consult parliament.

As the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, this thankfully remains a hypothetical question. If the situation changes he will address the question on votes at that time. However, for the time being questions about voting on ground troops is irrelevant. Our efforts should be directed toward resolving this tragic dispute, not debating hypothetical questions.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think this is very relevant to the debate that has just taken place and, therefore, I would like to review on the record some comments that were made by President Václav Havel, the President of the Czech Republic, on April 29.

He said that if it is possible to say about war that it is ethical, or that it is fought for ethical reasons, it is true of this war. He was referring to the Kosovo war. He said that Kosovo has no oil fields whose output might perhaps attract somebody's interest, no member country of the alliance has any territorial claims there, and Milosevic is not threatening either the territorial integrity or any other integrity of any NATO member.

He went on to say that, nevertheless, the alliance is fighting. It is fighting in the name of human interest for the fate of other human beings. It is fighting because decent people cannot sit back and watch the systematic, state directed massacre of other people. Decent people simply cannot tolerate this and cannot fail to come to the rescue, if a rescue action is within their power.

He concluded by saying that this war gives human rights precedence over the rights of states. The federal republic of Yugoslavia has been attacked without a direct UN mandate for the alliance's action, but the alliance has not acted out of licence, aggressiveness or disrespect for international law. On the contrary, it has acted out of respect for the law and that law ranks higher than the protection of the sovereignty of states. It has acted out of respect for the rights of humanity.

I think that is the answer to the member's question about whether the vote is important or whether human rights are important.

On April 27, two days earlier, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question which was prompted by the events that have transpired in Kosovo over all these many weeks which had to do with refugees. I asked the minister the question because as Canadians we collectively share concern about the plight of the refugees in Kosovo and because many members of parliament have been approached by constituents who have family members in that area who are in harm's way. The question to the minister was basically: What are the government's efforts with regard to these refugees, particularly those who have family members already living in Canada?

The minister responded by saying that there had already been, I believe, 120 applications for sponsorship and that that they covered as many as 700 people. She was also pleased to announce, and I think the House was very delighted to hear, that as of April 27 the first refugees were arriving in Canada, some in my riding of Mississauga South.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please update us on the rapidly evolving developments with regard to refugees, those who are coming here under sponsorship and those who we are bringing to Canada possibly on a temporary basis as opposed to a long term basis? I think Canadians would like to be updated on that matter.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Kitchener—Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying to my friend that back in 1956 there was a similar debate taking place and it was about Hungarian refugees. I was one of the refugees who ended up coming to this country in 1957. So it does have a great deal of personal resonance with me.

We are making every effort to facilitate family reunification in the present situation. I am happy to be able to tell the hon. member that 53 refugees from Kosovo have already arrived in Canada to be reunited with their families. Others will be arriving over the next few weeks.

To date, under a special system we have put in place to fast track the processing of family reunification applications, we have received 158 applications from Canadians or Canadian residents with relatives over there. Those applications involve 974 people.

CIC has put the following system in place to handle the applications to bring over Kosovar refugees who have relatives in Canada.

The relative identification form, RIF, has been developed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada to assist the department in tracking and monitoring cases. It will also help to identify relatives of Canadian residents who may be eligible for resettlement in Canada.

For individuals living in Canada with relatives from Kosovo who are in Macedonia or Albania, they must call the Kosovo hotline at 1-888-410-0009, toll free, to register their request. The hotline will either complete the RIF on the caller's behalf or provide the caller with the RIF to complete themselves and they must then fax it to the hot fax at 1-877-883-8834.

Information gathered from the RIFs will be forwarded to various organizations by CIC to assist in the processing.

We currently have five visa officers in Macedonia and four in Albania. Once the refugees have been located, CIC visa officers will interview them and if the refugees wish, they will be fast tracked into Canada.

Our goal is to reunite these families within two weeks after the family members have been located. This timeframe may vary depending on various formalities and movement restrictions imposed by local authorities.

Some of the refugees are in camps. Some are being temporarily sheltered by host families, sometimes in very remote locations. Some may even be in other countries. Locating these individuals—

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am sorry but I do have to interrupt. As the hon. member knows, there are two minutes provided for the response and we went over significantly already. I do apologize but I did have to interrupt.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)