Debates of March 28th, 2000

Shipbuilding Act, 1999

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my gratitude to the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for all of his efforts on this issue.

For quite some time, for a number of years, he has formed a coalition of people from the shipbuilding industry, unions, builders and industrialists in the sector to draft Bill C-213. I think the government should support it if only to help this major industry.

At one point, the industry was thriving in Canada. It had considerable potential for creating good, high end jobs. To think that this government was elected on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, and that today, at least according to my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, it appears to be wanting to smother this industry.

Bill C-213 contains some extremely constructive proposals that have none of the wastage found at the Department of Human Resources Development and in other departments, as is being shown increasingly these days. There is no wastage. On the contrary, it is a framework, solid support, similar to what already exists in the United States under title XI, which, since its passage, has not wasted a single cent. In fact, all the projects, all the programs set up in the United States in the context of title XI, the guaranteed loan, have paid off handsomely.

Why not institute a similar program here in Canada? Because the government lacks confidence in the shipping industry and lacks vision and does not have its heart in the right place to want to create jobs of this calibre.

The fact that in a country such as Canada, which opens onto two oceans, which has a seaway among the finest in the world, the government does not want to go to the trouble to support this bill, I find quite deplorable. I find it deplorable that the Liberals do not want to support this bill as it should be supported, because it is an excellent bill.

It could go a long way toward helping create jobs in this sector. Once again, I would like to close by congratulating my colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on all the work he has done in preparing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure and pride to rise on behalf of my brothers and sisters in the shipbuilding industry, those hardworking people who build the greatest ships in Canada and around the world to speak to this very important and timely bill brought forward by the great member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. My party congratulates the member for his outstanding work in bringing Bill C-213 to the House.

I am very happy that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough mentioned the Conservatives' report although we would like to know what Joe Clark would have to say about it. We only wish that the Conservative government when it was negotiating the free trade deal, had included shipbuilding in that deal, similar to what the United States did when it protected itself with the Jones Act. If that had been done we probably would not be having this debate right now. That is old history. I have a little more history for the Liberals.

I see one of my good colleagues and friends over there, a soccer player whom I admire greatly. In the 1993 red book, their election promise was, “Vote for us. Trust us and we will give the country a shipbuilding”. It is seven years later and not one damn thing has been done about that, not one.

The government continually misleads the general public. Its Atlantic caucus is saying very clearly to the government and to the members of the Liberal Party that in order to improve its electoral chances in Atlantic Canada it needs a shipbuilding policy. What does the government do? It ignores its own backbench members. It is absolutely scandalous.

I am going to give the Liberals who are here listening to this a lesson in election 101. If they want to win any seats in Atlantic Canada, then put a shipbuilding policy in now. Organizations like the CAW, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the chambers of commerce, provinces and others are on side for a shipbuilding policy so that we can protect and preserve the thousands and thousands of well paying and skilled jobs that are in Atlantic Canada in Marystown, Saint John, my great city of Halifax and in other ports across the country.

It is absolutely insane that the government does not listen to the people of Atlantic Canada, western Canada, Quebec and Ontario. These people are not asking for handouts. They are asking for jobs, jobs that other countries have. Other governments support their workers and industry.

One of the greatest sins in the House of Commons is that the finance minister who runs Canada Steamship Lines Inc. has his ships built in other countries. It is an absolute disgrace that he can stand up in the House and say that he wants to lead Canada in government, that he wants to be the prime minister, yet he turns his back on Canadians and those hardworking people of Atlantic Canada. It is an absolute disgrace.

Tomorrow we are going to have a free vote on Bill C-213. I only hope and pray that the government along with the Reform Party can actually see what has been happening in Atlantic Canada and will vote with their minds and their hearts in support of Bill C-213.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a very important public policy issue that has been advocated by a number of members of parliament on both sides of the House.

There will be a vote on Bill C-213. All the vote is about is whether the bill merits being sent to committee to be studied further. If there are particular aspects of the bill that certain individuals do not advocate, it is their opportunity to use the parliamentary procedure that exists to amend it in committee.

There are four initiatives in the bill put forward by the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

The first initiative is to ensure that we re-establish bilateral trade talks with the Americans.

The second initiative is to ensure that we have accelerated depreciation within Revenue Canada leasing regulations, which is a tax cut and not a subsidy.

The third initiative is to have a loan guarantee program very similar to what the Americans have, known as title XI. This loan guarantee program ensures that potential purchasers both domestically and abroad have access to capital in the most prudent and cost effective manner possible.

The formula the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is advocating is similar to a program the Americans have had since 1936 and there has not been one loan default.

I ask all members of the House to understand that we will be voting on whether the bill merits being sent to committee. I challenge all members to at least advance this public policy issue and support it at second reading.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for having given unanimous consent to allow me to respond and to conclude this debate.

First of all, I would like to thank all members who spoke to this bill, not just today, but also in the first two hours of debate. I am truly grateful. That goes for Liberal members as well. We live in a democracy, and they expressed their views, which I believe is important.

I was very pleased to see that the leaders of the New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties took the time to speak during the debate today. Seeing the opposition party leaders speak during a debate on a private member's bill is a great honour for me.

I also wish to thank the 100 members who signed my bill last spring so that it could be given priority. Had they not done so, I would still be waiting for the luck of the draw and there would be no debate today. I therefore thank these 100 members, 40 of them in the Bloc Quebecois, because not everyone could be present, all members of the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties, and 20 members of the Reform Party, now called the Canadian Alliance.

I wish to pay tribute to the member for Elk Island, who came to support me at public meetings. The former Canadian Alliance critic attended a press conference, as did the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and a representative of the Progressive Conservative House leader. Canadian Alliance members had supported the idea of this bill last year. They wanted a debate to be held.

I appeal to the Liberal members. Because of the size of the majority, several have told me individually that they were sensitive to this issue. I checked with the whip, and the position of the Liberal party is that there should be a free vote on a private member's bill.

I am well aware that some members represented the Minister of Industry's view in the House. In recent months, when the Minister of Industry began visiting people in the Atlantic region or elsewhere, we saw that he was becoming more sensitive to their problems.

I also noticed that the Minister of Labour was concerned as well, as a member representing a riding in the Atlantic region. Unfortunately, I did not hear many members from the Vancouver region.

To say no to this bill is to say no to 150,000 people who sent a postcard to the Prime Minister telling him that they support this bill. To say no to this bill is also to say no to all the provincial premiers. Twice during federal-provincial conferences, once in 1997 and again in 1999, in Quebec City, they urged the Liberal government to support a shipbuilding policy.

To say no to this bill is to say no to the Liberal grassroots who, at the Liberal convention, two years ago, passed a resolution in favour of such a policy.

To say no to this bill is to say no to a joint request from Canada's shipyard owners, the largest shipyards, and it is also to say no to all the workers who, through a labour coalition, reached a consensus and decided to support their employers and make the same request. Why? Because, in 1993, there were 12,000 workers in Canada's shipyards. There are barely 3,000 now. Two great shipyards are facing closure.

When the Minister of Industry says there is an overcapacity worldwide, I suggest he read the London Journal of Commerce , which says that demand has revived and that, at present, Canadian shipyards, like the English shipyards, are capable of entering this field.

I address my remarks to the members of the Canadian Alliance, who think there are grants where there are none. There are no grants, but tax measures and a program of loans with automatic pay back like the one they have had in the U.S. since 1938. The American government has not lost one cent in a similar program.

As for the tax measures, they come after construction. When people are put to work, revenues, taxes and the GST enable the federal government and the provincial governments to recover their costs. All those who wanted to create “jobs, jobs, jobs” have their chance now. We know that second reading deals with the principles of a bill, and the purpose of this bill is to help shipbuilding.

I close by saying that a vote against this bill is a blow to the shipbuilding industry.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I want to thank all hon. members for co-operating in the debate tonight and moving it right along. I think members will see that if people are speaking extemporaneously from their hearts, the debate is much more meaningful and works well.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and the recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, March 29 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.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on February 22 I asked the Prime Minister why it was that the U.S. energy secretary could find 17 things to do to help Americans with respect to the energy crisis but that he could not think of one thing to help Canadians.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, who is the brother of the former Liberal Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, responded. In his response, as to whether or not the government had any kind of action plan to defend the Canadian economy from the OPEC oil cartel, he was so confused, so uptight and so upset that his brother was beaten by the NDP that he made an error. I will quote from Hansard . He said:

—when the NDP government was in power in Ontario and it raised the Ontario excise tax on fuel twice, taking it from 10.9 cents to 14.3 cents. As well, it increased the provincial excise tax on gasoline twice, taking it from 11.3 cents to 14.7 cents.

That would make the provincial tax on fuel in Ontario 29 cents. It is of course only 14.7 cents in total. Whereas the federal excise tax is 10 cents and the GST is about 4.9 cents right now. There are actually more taxes applied to oil in Ontario than in any other province.

The supplementary question I asked was related to putting forward an action plan to protect Canadians and the economy from soaring energy prices. Rather than getting a response from the secretary of state, I received a response from the Minister of Natural Resources who avoided the question entirely as did the secretary of state. He said:

—to set the record clear...Canada is not a member of OPEC and we do not support that approach in the marketplace.

This had nothing to do with my question.

I wanted to know the government's plan. The U.S.A., the land of free enterprise and capitalism, is establishing a 17 point action plan to defend its economy and its consumers from the OPEC oil cartel price fixing situation with respect to energy. Canada has no such plan and no such action.

I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him if he had a plan. If he did not have a plan, I wanted to suggest one to him. He called the provinces and the major stakeholders in the energy business to an energy summit. At the energy summit he locks the door, caps the energy prices and says, “Let us find a solution before I unlock the door”.

I have some suggestions. Have his officials examine suspending the GST until the price of energy declines. He could look at an emergency fund for low income families who are under pressure with respect to the high costs of home heating fuel. He could look at a low interest loan to help truckers and small business through this high price energy situation. He could examine regulating the industry as has been done in other parts of the world. He could undertake to facilitate an energy conservation component. He could toughen up the Competition Act.

These are suggestions that his energy summit should be undertaking to review. Instead we had the frivolous inane responses from two ministers which had no bearing or relationship to the questions that were asked.

I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight, what is the government's action plan to defend the Canadian consumer and the Canadian economy from the OPEC oil cartel price fixing situation as it applies to energy?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I know when the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre speaks on this issue he speaks from his heart. He has good intentions to try to do the right thing not just for his constituents and the people in Saskatchewan but for all Canadians.

This is indeed a problem that we are faced with today. Sometimes we have to be responsible in what we say and how we respond.

The member referred to the 17 point action plan and what the government was doing. He referred to regulations as well. Let me point out very clearly that this issue has not just come to the forefront today. I remind the member and everyone in the House tonight that 47 Liberal members of parliament took on this issue quite some time back. They exhausted the research and brought the data forward. One of their main recommendations was to have an extensive study. That is why the Conference Board of Canada has been selected to address this issue.

As the ministers have pointed out in the past in their responses to the questions in the House of Commons, the Government of Canada is greatly concerned with this issue for businesses and consumers. The price of gasoline is not set by government; we all know that. It is set by competitive market forces internationally, depending of course on demand. Many factors influence the price factor, how it is produced and how it is brought to market.

Let me point out three things the government has done. First, Canada has joined its partners in the International Energy Agency in calling upon the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other crude oil suppliers to increase oil production in order to better balance global supply and demand.

Second, the federal government has contacted the provincial governments to determine what actions are being taken there since, I stress again as I have in the past, they have the authority to regulate prices at the pump should they wish to based on Canada's constitution.

Last, as I mentioned earlier, we have asked the Conference Board of Canada to do an extensive study on this issue. This is an inclusive process. It is not exclusive. We want to engage in this discussion and the findings, not disengage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.)