House of Commons Hansard #44 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Division No. 663Government Orders
The Speaker
I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Division No. 663Government Orders
The Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Division No. 663Government Orders
The Speaker
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
moved:
That the Standing Committee on Industry review policies currently in place that affect the Canadian shipbuilding industry in order to assess their ability to provide a competitive and equitable environment for growth of the industry in Canada.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in this place to discuss a very important issue which I believe is critical to the economic well-being of the country and in particular Atlantic Canada.
I rise today as a member of parliament for the riding of Fundy—Royal which borders the city of Saint John. I am one of many members of parliament who have spoken in this place over the last number of years to put forth the need for us to modernize our current shipbuilding policy.
Members from all sides of the House have spoken on behalf of this initiative. It has a wide breadth of support from a number of political parties, for example the New Democrats, and a hot and cold relationship with the Liberals. The member from Lévis, Quebec, has been a strong advocate of the need to revitalize our shipbuilding policy.
No member in the House of Commons has fought more tirelessly than the member for Saint John to ensure that the people of Saint John, New Brunswick, are able to earn their living at the shipyard located there and that Saint John Shipbuilding Limited will work again. The member for Saint John has spoken in the House on countless occasions, whether it be during debate or in question period. I rise today on behalf of all individuals who are trying to advance this debate.
Motion No. 71 calls on the Standing Committee on Industry to complete an indepth review and analysis of current shipbuilding policies and how they affect the growth or lack thereof of the shipbuilding industry.
The motion does not compel the government to make any changes. It only requests that the industry committee assess the current system for its ability to promote growth in the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Put simply, it proposes that the committee complete an indepth review of the file.
I will talk about what we need to do to revitalize our shipbuilding as has been advocated by an unprecedented number of individuals. Only last March the motion put forward by the member for Saint John on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada called on the House to develop a national shipbuilding policy. At the same time the member for Saint John utilized the exact same language the Liberal Party of Canada used on two separate occasions to put forward a resolution by its members at its national convention concerning the need for us to develop a national shipbuilding policy. At that time in the House the Liberal government chose to reject that initiative. I find this a bit shocking.
I have a document with me which I hesitate to use as a prop by any means. It is entitled “Atlantic Canada: Catching Tomorrow's Wave”. I do not know if members have had a chance to review this document, but on page 104 it notes that one of the critical initiatives needed to develop a modern economy in Atlantic Canada is a new shipbuilding policy. Maybe the Liberals are actually listening to the member for Saint John, to me and to all other individuals who have put forth this point.
Page 106 goes on to say that Canada is the only country which does not provide any direct construction grants, loan guarantees, preferential rate export financing, research and development grants, preferential tax treatment or customs duties on imported ship materials.
That document was produced by Liberal Party members from Atlantic Canada, what few it might actually have. A number of them were able to coalesce to put together a document on September 30, 1999, less than six months after they turned their nose down on trying to advance the debate we had put forward back in March.
I am advocating something that is almost unprecedented. These individuals are calling for us to modernize the shipbuilding industry. They represented all 10 premiers of this great country of Canada not just once but on two separate occasions: in St. Andrews in 1997 and again in Quebec City in 1998. All 10 provinces have actually put their shoulder to the wheel and said that we need to ensure we have the financial instruments to develop a shipbuilding policy.
In addition to all 10 premiers, the ship owners, the shipbuilders and labour have coalesced around the same principles and are advocating the exact same things that we need to modernize our shipbuilding industry.
Before I go into the actual issues in terms of what I am advocating the Department of Industry and the Minister of Industry bring forward, I want to make it very clear to everybody in this place today or watching at home on CPAC that we are not looking for subsidies in any way, shape or form for the shipbuilding industry. We are looking for the government to do two principal things. One is to give it sound, viable access to its market and the other is to provide a proper tax regime for it to be able to compete.
Sound and viable access to its market for most commodities might be roads, rails and other direct infrastructure like ports and airports, for that matter. We have those challenges near my home in the riding of Saint John. That is normally the kind of infrastructure we speak about.
Another role in terms of what we are looking at in terms of a sound, viable access to its market is an international trade regime so that it actually has a marketplace in which to establish. I will come back to that in a few moments as I progress through the course of the debate.
We also need to develop an international tax regime whereby we can be competitive in Canada. The corporate taxes in Canada are completely uncompetitive in other regimes. In fact, Canada has the second highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world, second only to Japan. It is difficult for any industry to compete and make a profit in Canada, in particular the shipbuilding industry.
The four points I will advocate would be the cornerstone for developing a modern shipbuilding policy supported by all 10 premiers, labour, ship owners and shipbuilders. I know the member for Saint John can attest to them as well as every family, every man and woman who actually has earned a paycheque in shipyards whether it be in Saint John, New Brunswick; Marystown, Newfoundland; Port Weller, Ontario; Lévis, Quebec; or elsewhere throughout the country. These are the initiatives we are looking at doing.
First and foremost, we understand categorically that any time a large capital good is purchased in Canada or anywhere in the world the available financial package is a cornerstone of whether or not the bid is competitive. That means access to capital at the most aggressive financing rates possible. That is why we are advocating that a loan guarantee program be adopted similar to the one in the American title XI program which guarantees under very prudent criteria the loan of a potential ship buyer.
The title XI program has been in place place since 1936. Do members know how many loan defaults it has had since then? The member for Saint John knows the answer. The answer is zip, zero, not one loan default. If a student in university copied something and got in trouble it was called plagiarism. In the real world, if it works it is called being resourceful. I am advocating that Canada develop a loan guarantee program similar to the one in title XI and adopt it in the Canadian context.
We have a natural vehicle to deliver that in the departments of industry and international trade, the Export Development Corporation. It will guarantee a loan for a foreign buyer of a ship. We also need to adapt it to guarantee a loan for a domestic buyer of a ship, especially given the fact that we have a aging fleet on the Great Lakes, one of our principal markets in terms of where we can build ships on a competitive basis in Canada.
The second point I am advocating is that our punitive tax regime in Canada needs to provide accelerated depreciation combined with revising Revenue Canada leasing regulations. Lease financing has become a very natural vehicle for purchases of large capital goods. We need to ensure that our tax regime is competitive with that of the United States. I am not looking at subsidies. I am looking at a loan guarantee program. I am looking at changing the Canadian tax regime.
The third point I am advocating is that we need to ensure that we find sound, viable access to our markets. I spoke about the need for a trade regime. The result of the free trade agreement, NAFTA, in general has been very positive for Canada. Prior to 1988 we traded essentially $80 billion each year with the Americans. Today we trade around $240 billion to $260 billion each year with the Americans.
However, the Jones Act which has been in place in the United States since 1936 has blocked our penetration into the American market. That is fine to some degree. We can compete if we have a proper tax regime and a proper loan guarantee program with the markets in the EU. We can build ships in our own waters and on the Great Lakes.
It is incumbent on the government, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Industry, to step forward and talk with the Americans about opening up some kind of bilateral accord on building certain types of ships. The example of offshore drilling rigs comes to mind. The member for Saint John and I have spoken about it on countless occasions. There is an actual demand for more capacity to build drilling rigs for development off the banks of Newfoundland in the Terra Nova, Hibernia, Ben Nevis and White Rose oilfields, in terms of the development that has taken place along the Carolinas and what we have seen in the Gulf of Mexico.
We could develop shipshape drilling rigs, which are in demand with the States, and we could open up a bilateral accord in that way. Maybe we should look at ocean-going tugs, which are manufactured in P.E.I. In Georgetown, P.E.I., in the solicitor general's riding, they manufacture a very cost-competitive ship. Maybe we could develop a bilateral accord in that area.
What we are looking at is a loan guarantee program similar to what the Americans have under Title XI, revising our leasing regulations so we have a competitive tax regime and opening up some form of bilateral accord.
I heard, sadly, in the House on a number of occasions the government say “You, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, negotiated the free trade agreement and at that time you missed out on an opportunity to ensure that shipbuilding was exempt from any kind of protectionist regime under the free trade agreement”. I would like to remind every one of those members, categorically, that free trade has been a win for Canada. In 1988 our trade with the Americans amounted to $80 billion. Today it is around $240 billion.
The government has been in office for almost seven years and it has not knocked on the door of one congressman or one senator in the United States of America to say that maybe it is time we actually tried to do something in that regard.
The problem with this issue is that there is no leadership in advancing the file. This is where I am at a loss. The Minister of Finance says that it is not his file. The Minister for International Trade says that the EDC is under his jurisdiction but it is not really his file, that it comes under the industry file. The Minister of Industry says that the instruments we are looking for belong in other jurisdictions.
If we do not have a quarterback in place who is willing to advance the shipbuilding industry in this country, then it is time we change the quarterback. We should change the Minister of Industry so that we can ensure we get people back to work in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in Vancouver and in Ontario.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to Motion No. 71 presented by the hon. member from the Tory party. The motion calls for the Standing Committee on Industry to review the policies in place which affect the Canadian shipbuilding industry in order to assess their ability to provide a competitive and equitable environment for the growth of the industry in Canada.
This is a noble cause. Canadians want to sympathize with the hon. member who laments the days when Canada was one of the great shipbuilding nations.
Lower taxes would help all factors of our economy. If the government would lower taxes it would help our industries. Lower taxes would help all companies across the country.
The official opposition policy calls for private sector self-reliance without the federal government providing tax dollars to support any specific sector.
Let us look at the shipbuilding industry in Canada. With only .04%, that is 1/25th of a percentage point of the world's shipbuilding production, Canada cannot sustain a shipbuilding industry. Rather than try to match these subsidies and other incentives offered by other countries, we should concentrate our efforts on negotiating down unfair export subsidies.
Far from guaranteeing loans to Canadians who purchase Canadian built ships, we should drop the 25% tariff we have on non-NAFTA ship imports so that all Canadian shipowners and ship purchasers are not penalized.
Industry Canada can tell us about the problems in the shipbuilding industry. It is a declining industry, a dead in the water industry. There is an overcapacity in the world of over 40%. Canada is not even in the ballpark.
What the Liberals and Tories have done to the shipbuilding industry in Canada is a study on what not to do in terms of productivity. Yet the industry department continues to have a shipbuilding policy which has technology partnership grants, research and development grants and the Export Development Corporation supporting it. Why?
The technology partnerships program is available to firms for research and development, if they so wish. It is repayable based on success. It is a risk sharing, reward sharing program. No one should use this program for shipbuilding because there would be no way to pay back the loan.
Let us look at the world shipbuilding industry. This industry has moved away from North American and European markets to southeast Asian markets. Japan and South Korea continue to control over two-thirds of the total international market for shipbuilding and ship repair. China is emerging as a rival. When combined, these three countries control over 75% of the world market.
Due to extreme pressure from Asian shipbuilders many traditional shipbuilders, including the Norwegian company Kvaerner, have chosen to get out of the industry altogether.
Canada cannot build major ships. We can manufacture only minor and smaller vessels here. Both of these markets are already operating at over 40% of their capacity. Demand and prices are already weak and are forecast to continue to decline. Prices for 1999 are down by 6% to 24% from last year.
The international market is experiencing a significant downsizing. Market conditions for shipbuilders are not about to change. The total employment in Canada's shipbuilding and ship repair industry as of May 1999 was about 5,000.
What should be done? We should not turn to taxpayers and make them pay for a shipbuilding industry in Canada that will never be a viable industry. On this side of the House we support de-politicizing economic decision making by eliminating grants, guarantees and subsidies.
What did the Tories do about the shipbuilding industry when they were in power for nine years? The destruction of the shipbuilding industry during their time in government was devastating to our eastern provinces and to B.C.
Let us look at subsidies as a solution. The Tories think, as the Liberals do, that all we have to do is get the industry committee to approve millions of dollars worth of subsidies and we can resurrect Canada's shipbuilding industry. That is typical. The Liberals use the industry committee and its minister to try to give millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds to hockey teams. This is all very disgusting to those of us who are building an alternative to the traditional way of doing things here in Ottawa.
In the last session the House debated shipbuilding. A Bloc MP wanted to establish a federal loan granting program that would cover up to 87.5% of the money borrowed to purchase a commercial ship built in Canadian shipyards. That bill would also have provided a favourable and generous tax treatment of lease financing for the purchase of Canadian built ships. The Bloc MP's bill proposed a refundable tax credit for refitting commercial ships in Canada. This was not just another attempt to do some Liberal bashing over this issue; maybe the Bloc Quebecois also wants Canadian taxpayers to continue pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into Quebec up to the last minute, until they leave Canada, but it is very clear that the people of Quebec will not be following the Bloc Quebecois anywhere.
Let us look at the industry committee. In November of last year the industry committee dealt with the shipbuilding matter. The committee heard the sad details of the worldwide industry, which spelled poor prospects in the industry for our country in the future.
The Liberals on the committee did not know or were not willing to admit that their minister for the homeless was secretly lobbying cabinet, trying to broker a common ground between industry and the government. Canadians think that she is in Toronto working on the homeless problem. We know that she is not in B.C. helping Vancouver with its homeless people. The media caught her working on shipbuilding. The Liberals only want to meet to talk about helping the shipbuilding industry. This garners votes in eastern Canada and Quebec, and they hope in B.C.
The government could be wrong, but it does not want to have to face Canadian taxpayers and our foreign trading partners with the facts and figures on actually how much money it would pour into the industry. That is a big question.
This is the same government that cannot account for $1 billion in HRDC spending, which we were debating earlier today. The concentration on this issue could be construed as a thinly veiled attempt to orchestrate the immediate building of five or six ships which the federal government plans to construct in four or five years. We are watching for an attempt to have these ships built this year or next. This may save the taxpayers money or it may not. Maybe the ships could be built cheaper offshore. That would save taxpayers some money. Let us look at a viable solution. Maybe the Liberals will have these ships constructed just before the next federal election so they can throw the industry a bone. No one will be fooled.
I will support the review of the shipbuilding policy. However, I will support it reluctantly.
The questions are: How many times do we have to review this matter? How much money is it going to cost taxpayers? Canadians know that the current Liberal government is maintaining a high, artificial level of taxation. It is hurting our economy, our productivity and our growth with high taxes, as the member from the PC party mentioned. It is hurting our consumers and it is discouraging foreign investors from coming to Canada. It has caused a brain drain that threatens our country.
Something has to be done about the high level of taxes that is killing jobs, our economy, our industry and the country. Our employment levels are too low. With our vast resources and our ability to create wealth with other nations in the global economy—
Shipbuilding IndustryPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Fundy—Royal in New Brunswick.
I say pleasure, because this member, along with certain others, has long been calling for a real shipbuilding policy.
Before I address the motion, I have a few comments about the speech by the Reform Party member. I was somewhat taken aback because I have been on the Standing Committee on Industry since the 1997 election, and I noticed that the party is on its third industry critic. The first two shared our vision, but all of a sudden, perhaps seeing the possibility of political gain in their fight with the Progressive Conservatives for a certain percentage of the voters, they are switching their position.
I want to point out to the Reform Party member who has just spoken and who is not listening to me—but I will say it again—that 20 members of his party supported my Bill C-213 just a few months ago. So some consistency is called for on the Reform Party side.
Now, I will return to the motion by the member for the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Fundy—Royal. His motion made sense and perhaps still does. What he was calling for at the time was for the issue to be considered by the Standing Committee on Industry.
There were at least three sittings of the Standing Committee on Industry where we met with Department of Industry officials. In response to a question by a Reform member, a deputy minister replied that the Reform member was wrong, that the federal government had no particular policy on shipbuilding and that the member could rest assured that no more was being done for that sector than for any other. I then rose to say “That is exactly where the problem lies. You are doing nothing in particular for this sector. You have abandoned it”.
Yet that party had committed, in its red book and in 1993, to hold, within a year of its election, a summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. Since then, nothing.
A little later on, management and the unions appeared before the committee. We asked the unions “Do you feel that there is a shipbuilding policy in Canada?” They said there was not. Then we asked management “Do you feel that there is a policy?” They said “Yes, there is the customs duty”. Clearly the CEO of the Shipbuilding Association did not want to overly displease the Liberal Party. He said “Yes, there are certain policies, including the customs duty” but that is all.
Over and over again I asked “Do you feel that you have a true shipbuilding policy?” In the bill we are going to address tomorrow evening, moreover, the three measures I am referring to are the three ones being requested. I stated further “You are supported in this by the unions, by the Chambre maritime du Canada, by the provincial premiers. You have the support of 150,000 people who sent a mail-in postcard to the Prime Minister. You even have the support of members of the Liberal Party of Canada who are holding their convention.” Some Liberal members attending the convention voted with the grassroots, urging their government to act.
The Minister of Labour tried to do something. She appointed a delegate to the Maritimes to look into the matter. The Reform Party member noticed and he criticized the minister for it, telling her “You should not have done that. You did that in secret”. As for the Minister of Industry, he did not want to do anything, while the Minister of Finance could not do a thing. That has always been his line.
Why can the Minister of Finance not act? He will not tell the House. He lets the Minister of Industry answer, but we are asking for tax measures. Outside the House, the Minister of Finance says “You see, I have some interests in the shipbuilding industry. These interests are now in a trust, but I cannot answer. I would not want to be seen as someone who wants to promote that sector because I happen to have some interests in that particular sector”.
Things are not good when the one person who could do something does not dare do so for fear of being criticized. When she saw that her industry colleague was not acting, and even though this was not her responsibility, the Minister of Labour tried to do something, but the Reform Party member criticized her for it.
I want the Minister of Labour to know that she did well, as did her colleague from New Brunswick. She wants to look into the matter. I have nothing against that, but we have been asking for reviews for seven years. The industry got organized and conducted a review. The Standing Committee on Industry considered the issue from a productivity point of view.
Figures in hand, the unions appeared before the committee to testify that Canadian shipyard workers were paid 20% less than their American counterparts, and 50% less than workers in Germany and Japan. Only two countries, Korea and communist China, pay their shipyard workers less, and that is the example the Reform Party member would have us follow.
There are people who claim to be experts on the shipbuilding industry while never having set foot in a shipyard. I would like the Reform Party member to try this line in Halifax or Vancouver, where there are two large shipyards. Or he could try out the audience in Lévis. He would be well-advised to pre-record his press conference because he is going to run into trouble.
This position is indefensible and inconsistent with the earlier positions taken by the Reform Party. Now it is trying to teach us a lesson about free enterprise. All they are trying to do is lower individual income taxes.
The member for Fundy—Royal told us that Canadian corporate taxes, which take in shipyards, are among the highest. That is one of the problems. Why do Canadian shipowners have their boats built outside Canada? Why do those people who have had ships built sometimes sail them under foreign flags? Because corporate taxes are not the same everywhere in the world, and there are tax havens. The Minister of Finance knows this. He chairs a committee of members of the group of 20 and he should give this some thought. That is the problem, not what workers are paid.
The problem is a serious lack of guaranteed financing. No one here in this House is asking for funding. The Reformers keep saying it, and the member himself keeps saying that the member from the Bloc is asking for a refundable tax credit. The words mean what they mean: refundable. It is not funding. A loan guarantee is not funding, it is support.
Is the Reform Party, which is trying to copy the American program, trying all the time to tell us that things are better in the United States? What is called for in Bill C-213 is exactly what the Americans have been doing for the past 100 years. We in Canada are doing what? We are exempting the U.S. from paying 25% duty. However, our Canadian shipowners cannot go to the United States, because of the protectionist measures.
The member for Fundy—Royal said “We have to look at that. It cannot be included in a bill”. It is not in my bill either because the Minister for International Trade is the one to go and negotiate some similar measure with his American counterpart or a change to NAFTA—and that is very difficult—or have the Jones act amended to exempt Canada from such a policy. If this were the case, with the current rate of exchange there would be work in Canadian shipyards, incredibly more than Canada could generate.
I recently did a study on the Internet and by phone. In the United States, shipyards are currently working at full tilt. The remaining European shipyards are also working to capacity because following the Asian crisis the Asian shipyards are not working at full capacity.
The Reform member does not know what he is talking about when he speaks as other detractors of the shipping industry. He said that China, Korea and Japan are building 500,000 tonne boats. No Canadian shipyard is in that league. They do not go beyond 100,000 tonnes. Why? Because they build ships that have to go through the Panama Canal which will accept nothing over 90,000 tonnes. So, let us compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples. If you do not know what you are talking about, better not to speak.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Madam Speaker, first, I wish to praise the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for being so passionate and caring for the shipbuilding industry in this country. There is no member of parliament who has worked harder on this issue for workers in the shipbuilding industry all across the country. He, his party and the Conservative Party should be congratulated for bringing this motion forward. I applaud their efforts in bringing this to the forefront and to debate in the House of Commons.
I will begin by saying that I am wearing the CAW/MWF pin from the Marine Workers' Federation. Mr. Les Holloway and all those wonderful people in Halifax, in Saint John and in other shipyards around the area have worked tirelessly on this issue to get the government to listen. What this nation needs is a shipbuilding policy. Holland, Italy, England and the United States have one but we do not. If we did, it would be working.
We constantly hear from the industry minister that there is an overcapacity in the industry, yet Canada only produces .4%. What the industry has been asking for is that the level be brought up to 1%, a .6% increase, in order to create and sustain thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Vancouver.
It is incredible that the government will not listen. It is absolutely unbelievable. The reason it does not listen is because its focus is between Windsor and Quebec City in terms of central Canadian thinking.
We have a farming crisis and the recent fisheries crisis but the government refuses to listen to the extremities of the country.
I say, in all honesty, that any time we have a labour leader like Buzz Hargrove and the owner of one of the largest shipyards in the country, J.D. Irving, singing out of the same hymn book on this policy, one would think that the government would grab at that, but it does not. It absolutely ignores the issue.
I honestly believe the government does not understand the industry at all. It is completely blank. It is like a deer caught in the headlights of a car. It just cannot figure it out.
The member for Fundy—Royal mentioned the book Atlantic Canada: Catching Tomorrow's Wave . Unfortunately, the government missed the boat on this one. It is unbelievable.
We had the appointment of Senator Boudreau from Nova Scotia who is now in the Senate draining the taxpayers' purse promoting this red book wherever he goes. The problem is that he has absolutely no clout with the government. If he did, the government would be listening to everyone on the shipbuilding policy.
There was a great book written recently by a great author in Nova Scotia who lives in my riding, Mr. Lesley Choyce. He wrote a book entitled Nova Scotia: Shaped by the Sea: A Living History . In it, he describes how Nova Scotia was one of the finest and largest shipbuilding provinces in the 18th and 19th centuries. What has happened in this new millennium? The thing has fallen apart. Why? Because the government refuses to institute a policy of fairness so we can keep workers in this country.
As we speak, shipbuilding workers from the Saint John dockyards are being lured to the United States to build ships. It is unbelievable that the United States has such an overcapacity of work that it has to get Canadian workers, who are the best in the world when it comes to building ships, to build ships in the United States. We could easily be doing that in the yards of Saint John, Halifax, Marystown, Lévis and Vancouver.
It is amazing that the government cannot figure this out. Hundreds of workers are leaving this country and their families behind to build ships in the United States when the work could be easily done in this country. It is absolutely incredible that the government would ignore the needs of Atlantic Canadians, Quebecers and British Columbians when it comes to building a shipbuilding industry.
I find it scandalous, to the highest degree, when I hear where the finance minister, who has Canada Steamship Lines, has his ships built. Where does he have his ships built?
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Yes, in Taiwan, an Asian country. He could not even build his own ships in this country. This is from a man who wants to become the leader of the Liberal Party and the prime minister of the country. It is not much of a commitment to working people in the country.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is taking shots at one of the cabinet ministers. It is totally inappropriate and totally unwarranted. He should tailor his talk in a way that does not do that because it denigrates this whole House and all Canadians. That is absolute rubbish. He should withdraw it and get to his point.
Shipbuilding IndustryPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am afraid that it is really a point of debate so we will allow the hon. member to carry on.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Unfortunately, the truth sometimes hurts. The reality is that the government has completely ignored the needs of the 10 premiers of the country who have said that they need a national shipbuilding policy. It has ignored the needs of thousands of Canadians. It has ignored the needs of hundreds of communities in the country that rely on shipbuilding for their livelihoods.
What will the government tell these people when those yards eventually shut down? What will happen then? Oh, I know, there will be a traditional transitional jobs fund grant. That should be good. Maybe that is what the problem is.
The shipbuilding industry should go to the human resources minister for money and grants. That way it would not have to file any papers or anything. It could get the money or whatever it needs right away. Maybe that is what the NHL should have done. Instead of going to the industry minister it should have gone to the human resources minister. There is all kinds of money for those initiatives but absolutely not one shred of concern for this country's shipbuilding industry and that is an absolute disgrace.
I could go on and on. People like Les Holloway of the Marine Workers' Federation and many other communities across the country are asking for leadership. They are asking the government to listen to them, to work together with the industry, the communities and the workers to come up with a comprehensive policy that will make the shipbuilding industry what it once was in Canada. Our workers and our industry people are the finest in the entire world when it comes to shipbuilding. We can be proud of that instead of having rusty shipyards throughout the country.
John Cannis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Madam Speaker, I was going to start with the text of my prepared notes but I will not. I am going to take this opportunity to respond to the emotional and passionate presentations I have just heard from the Conservative member who brought the motion forward, the Bloc Quebecois member and my good friend from the NDP. What I heard took me away from what I really wanted to say about the good work that was done in committee and how extensively the committee looked into this matter.
I have heard comments which have shocked me. Instead of focusing on constructive comments of what we can do about the shipbuilding industry, I heard about the farmers and I heard about HRDC. I heard everything but constructive input. I find that shameful. They were referring to ministers and their businesses which are in trust. That is shameful. That is not what we are supposed to be doing here tonight. We are here to discuss shipbuilding and to bring some constructive points forward.
I am going to take this opportunity to refer to my notes and talk about how enthusiastically and aggressively the committee addressed this issue.
The member referred to Les Holloway and all the other great people. I am glad he is doing this. He should do it to get their votes if that is what it is going to take to get their votes and if that is what it is going to take to get a contribution to their campaigns. That is fine. I have no objections to that, but I do object when we go totally off the issue.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member, my good friend from the Liberal Party, is insinuating that I made comments for vote getting. If that is the case, I guess J. D. Irving will be voting for the New Democratic Party as well.
Shipbuilding IndustryPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am afraid that is debate.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, that is not what I said. I was saying we should compliment, congratulate and support people who support us.
I am pleased to respond to this motion brought forward by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal that the Standing Committee on Industry review policies currently in place that affect the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
We on this side of the House are very open to the idea of a parliamentary review of the shipbuilding industry, but this motion seems to be caught in a time warp. I understand where the members from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP are coming from. I understand the regions. I understand the members have to address a specific industry in their ridings and be so passionate.
What is the point of standing up and bringing something forward that has already been addressed? Is it showcasing? If it is, I congratulate the member. I think he is doing a great job. Tomorrow he can send a press release to his local newspaper saying “Look, here is what your member for Fundy—Royal has done”. But we have a responsibility when we come to this House.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is wondering why. It is because Davie Industries is under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act. There are 200 people—
Shipbuilding IndustryPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am sorry but this is debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.