Debates of March 11th, 2009

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-2. I particularly want to acknowledge the tireless work of two members from the New Democrats.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, of course, is a very familiar voice in this House and has called consistently over the years that I have been here for a shipbuilding policy. The reason we are speaking today in this House is because both the Conservatives and the Liberals have failed on that account.

I also want to particularly acknowledge the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It is with his very good work that we are here today to oppose vehemently the inclusion of shipbuilding in Bill C-2.

I want to turn to some of the work that the member—

I was going to say “the minister”. That would be an improvement, if we had here a minister from Burnaby—New Westminster.

I want to refer to some of the work that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done in connection with identifying some of the issues around shipbuilding. When he tabled a dissenting opinion, what he said was that Canada's shipbuilding industry is not operating anywhere near its maximum capacity and lacks support from the federal government.

Canada is the only major seafaring nation without a strategic plan for its shipbuilding industry. Unlike Canada, Norway has used its period of tariff protection to invest heavily in an expanded shipbuilding industry, making it competitive and efficient. It was thus able to phase out its government subsidies by the year 2000.

Because the shipbuilding industry has been worn away for so long by a lack of interest from the federal government, by the time the tariffs are dropped in 15 years, if no aggressive policy is put in place, there will be little left in Canada other than foreign shipbuilding firms.

The major concern, of course, is that this trade bill reduces tariffs on ships from 25% to zero over a period of 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of products, and nothing happens for the first three years.

Why does it matter?

I want to draw members' attention to a news release from 2007 that was titled, “No celebrations Friday for BC shipyard workers”. It talks about the fact that BC chose to build ferries in Germany. What we see is not only the fact that we could have had the capability to do it here, but as this particular article states,

While BC Ferries holds a $60,000 party in Germany for 3,000 people on Friday, there will be no celebrating the launch of the first of three German-built Super-C Class ferries that have cost the province 3,500 direct and indirect jobs and the loss of $542 million in investment, says the BC Shipyard General Workers' Federation.

By investing in shipyards in this country, we not only create direct and indirect jobs, we not only generate significant amounts of dollars in new investment, but what we always fail to calculate when we are looking at costs of shipbuilding are the returns to government. Those workers pay taxes, and successful businesses pay taxes. That needs to be factored into any kind of equation when we are talking about support to our shipbuilding industry.

When the committee was hearing testimony on this, there were a couple of industry people who came forward and talked about the importance of shipbuilding and why we should exempt shipbuilding from this particular agreement.

George MacPherson, the president of the B.C. Shipyard General Workers' Federation, at the standing committee on trade, on March 3, 2009, said,

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion.

Andrew McArthur, from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said,

The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government that we do not carve industries out. We raise the question of the Jones Act in the U.S., which was carved out from NAFTA. We are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans. The Americans have free access to our market. So industries do get carved out. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

So we have industry and labour arguing for this.

I want to touch on a couple of companies on Vancouver Island.

In my very own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have the Nanaimo Shipyard Group. This shipyard has been in business since 1930 and has been in the same location, in the Newcastle Channel. It has over 10,000 square feet of covered area. This company mainly carries out refit and maintenance on DND, Coast Guard, and BC Ferry Corporation vessels. It also carries out work on deep-sea cargo vessels, fishing vessels, tug and barge fleets, yachts, fish farming service vessels and other coastal vessels. We can see that it has a wide range of experience in terms of the kinds of repairs it does.

Point Hope shipyard in beautiful Victoria was first established in 1873. Some have said it was the first shipyard in B.C. In fact, the ways were of wooden construction. It has a very significant history. It had written a letter to a number of ministers and talked about its long history, but it also pointed out their capabilities. It said:

Point Hope's capabilities extend to the construction of complete steel and aluminum vessels up to 1,500 tons and 60 meters in length.

It went on to talk about the fact that it was ISO certified. It was also applying for additional ISO certifications so that it would meet environmental standards. It said:

We are a key participant in Canada's defence and industrial marine sector providing significant employment and revitalization in the core of the City of Victoria. Point Hope is a success story and a model for the industry and has the capabilities and resources to continue to grow and expand.

We should be standing up for our shipyards. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster says that we should stand up for Canada. The shipyards and labour have some solutions. The Nanaimo shipyard has written to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates saying that it is the owner-operator of a small to medium-sized enterprise engaged in shipbuilding and repair. It employs approximately 100 to 150 people in four locations, Halifax, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Victoria.

The shipyard talks about the fact that so many of the small and medium-sized enterprises have either gone bankrupt or been forced out of the industry. It has asked why the Government of Canada, in the context of a larger shipbuilding strategy, does not have a policy that carves out some work for the small and medium-sized enterprises. It has pointed to the example of what happens in the United States.

The United States has something called a small business administration program. I will not go through all of the details on this, but it is a really good example of how the U.S. government has created categories for contract opportunities reserved exclusively for small and medium-sized businesses. There is a whole procedure that small and medium-sized businesses can access.

In case members do not think there is not widespread support from shipyard workers in industry, I want to quote from some letters.

One letter is from the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia, dated March 11, 2009. This is written to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but it feels so passionately about this that it wanted to ensure some of its words were said in the House. It says:

The Shipyard General Workers Federation represents approximately 2,000 skilled members who work in the shipyards, marine manufacturing and supply industries, and in the metal fabrication shops in British Columbia's coastal communities.

In its letter, it is requesting that, at the very least, the industry should be exempted from EFTA. It says:

We urge the government to recognize and act in the interest of this vital and strategic sector and develop a comprehensive industrial strategy that has as its' objective the long term stability and viability of a shipbuilding and marine fabrication industry on both the East and West coasts.

In the Pacific Northwest, which includes Victoria and Nanaimo, we know that between the major retrofits that used to be available through Point Hope and some of the other shipyards, we also have a significant number of small pleasure craft. I do not have the exact numbers, but it has been rumoured that in the whole base, including Washington and Oregon, there is up to a million small pleasure craft. When we are talking about a shipbuilding industry, we are not only talking about large-vessel building. We are also talking about the smaller pleasure craft. There is a whole range of abilities there.

A national shipbuilding strategy needs to look at that range of abilities. The fact that we have the longest coastline in the entire world, that we literally do go from coast to coast to coast, could be a significant economic driver in many of our communities. It used to be.

In the words of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, we need to remember shipbuilding. It was one of the founding industries in our country. When I talk about coast to coast to coast, I am not ignoring the inland waterways, which the member for Welland rightly brought up. However, I want to focus on the west coast for now.

We have the ability to rebuild that industry. We still have infrastructure in place. I urge the members in the House to not support this bill, carve out shipbuilding and develop that national shipbuilding strategy.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan because I know she believes very passionately about this issue. She is from a shipbuilding community.

As she was speaking, I was thinking of the ferries going back and forth between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo and from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. She is right on when she talks about the travesty of B.C. ferries being built in Germany, and the celebration over there. There was no celebration in B.C., because B.C. workers, very skilled experienced workers, were out of jobs.

One of the most important elements we are debating today is the need for a shipbuilding strategy across the country that incorporates the elements of training a younger generation.

In terms of our context on the west coast, B.C. ferries is so much a critical part of our transportation system. Without it, we would not exist in our coastal community.

Could she talk about what that means in terms of her community and how it would generate economic activity if we had a national shipbuilding program, if it were carved out, and a strategy to train a new generation in this time-honoured skill of shipbuilding in the Nanaimo area?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, my riding is heavily dependent on ferries. We have ferries that go from Nanaimo over to Vancouver, but we also have ferries that go to the smaller islands, Thetis, Kuper, Gabriola. It is the heart of our community. I am very proud of the fact that Nanaimo Shipyard still continues to exist in downtown Nanaimo.

We need to ensure that Nanaimo Shipyard continues to exist. We need to ensure that, first, there is a procurement strategy, a buy Canada strategy, that would ensure shipyards, like Nanaimo Shipyard, have access. We are watching these smaller shipyards being squeezed out of the bidding game because of the way that some of these procurement contracts are being bundled. That is one aspect of it.

The second aspect is it heartbreaking to watch ferries being built overseas. We have a highly trained, highly skilled workforce in British Columbia. The other day I referred to Jim Sinclair from the B.C. Federation of Labour, when I talked about the deindustrialization of the province of B.C. I talked about this in the forestry context, but we can see this in the context of shipbuilding as well.

I would argue that there needs to be an investment in shipbuilding. There needs to be an investment in maintaining that infrastructure. There needs to be an investment in the skills and the training to ensure we can attract new workers into the industry. We need to set some goals and targets to say that we will take our place in the world as a very proud shipbuilding nation. We have the capabilities to do that.

We need to exclude shipbuilding from this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, as I always do, I listened with a lot of interest to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She brings good sense and practicalities to the House. It is important to her voice.

I found it particularly interesting when she talked about the B.C. marine workers. The B.C. marine workers are saying that the government should carve shipbuilding out of this agreement. They see this as a shipbuilding sellout.

We also had a softwood lumber sellout that cost thousands of jobs in British Columbia. The B.C. Conservatives voted for the softwood sellout. Now they are trying to push through the shipbuilding sellout.

My question for the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan would be this. With these B.C. Conservatives simply wanting to sell out British Columbia every chance they get, what are they really good for?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think there was a song that said “absolutely nothing”.

I appreciate the member raising the issue of the softwood sellout. Not only is my riding a forestry one, but it used to be a strong shipbuilding one. We have seen that industry eroded.

I spoke earlier about the deindustrialization of British Columbia. This is just another example of it. What we have is a failed forestry policy, as one saw mill and one pulp and paper mill after another closes or goes into curtailment. Particularly in coastal British Columbia, we are seeing that deindustrialization around forestry. Now we are going to watch the same thing happen with shipbuilding.

If we care about our industrial base in the country, we need to invest in it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-2. First, let me pay tribute to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for carrying this debate on behalf of our party.

I come from a shipbuilding province, but I do not want to be parochial about this. We are a shipbuilding nation. My part of the country has been building ships for hundreds and hundreds of years for the fishing industry, going back 400 and 500 years.

We are building ships now. We have a modern shipyard in Marystown that is capable of terrific work. It was selected, in fact, for the joint supply ships for the Canadian navy, one of the two final bidders that were ready to roll and go to build these ships. What happened? At the last minute, or 72 hours before the election was called, the government cancelled the contract. The Canadian navy was about to issue a contract that was worth some $2.5 billion, which would have provided work, if Marystown was the successful bidder, and lot of people in my neck of the woods had every reason to believe that it would have been, to build those ships for six, eight or ten years of work and another fifteen or twenty years to provide the maintenance of them.

While Newfoundland and Labrador is part of the historic fishing, maritime, shipbuilding, boat building nation, we cannot forget that shipbuilding is a modern 21st century industry today. It is not part of the rust belt. Yes, ships are built of iron and steel, but they are also built with the most modern telecommunications and navigation facilities. They are built to rigorous standards. It is an industry of the future, requiring the highest degree of skill, technology and knowledge. It is a knowledge-based industry as well as part of the industrial base of our country.

It is something that requires the support of government to keep us in the game. What has happened is that other countries such as Norway have done that for their industry, for their people, for their prosperity and for their participation in the future of industry in the world, but we have not done that for ours. That is the reason why this should be out of this deal.

There are other problems with this deal too. The premier of my province has mentioned some of them. We are not using this opportunity to negotiate a free trade agreement to ensure that we remove the tariff, for example, from shrimp, which has been crippling the shrimp industry in the east coast for many years. This non-tariff barrier is being promoted now in the European Union by an attempt to ban seal products from a humane, controlled industry in the east coast.

We see no effort by the Government of the Canada to use these negotiations as an opportunity to extend our fishing jurisdiction outside the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We still have to deal with an ineffective regime there.

Therefore, there other disappointments, but the big one, for which we are looking for support from both sides of the House, is our shipbuilding industry. We are trying to get some sense into the government, but we are also hoping that others on this side of the House will support our efforts. We are looking to the Bloc Québécois members who may be supportive, but we are also looking to the Liberals. So far I have not heard the Liberals participating in this debate and saying how they feel about this.

That was not always the case. I have in my hand a report that was produced, with the support of Brian Tobin, a former premier of Newfoundland and former industry minister. It is called “Breaking Through: The Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”. This report came out with a whole series of recommendations produced through a consultation process led by a number of individuals called the National Partnership Project Committee. Part of that was the president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Peter Cairns, Les Holloway, the executive director of the Marine Workers Federation, Philippe Tremblay from the Fédération de la métallurgie CSN and Peter Woodward from the Woodward Group of Companies. They made a very good presentation with a lot of recommendations for the shipbuilding industry, which would have assisted this industry. However, we have not seen those recommendations implemented.

I would ask the Liberals, both nationally and from my own province, to support the amendment that we put forward because it would be important, not only to our own province of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the whole country. We have heard of the importance of shipbuilding on the west coast. We know it is important in the Thunder Bay area and in the province of Quebec. We see shipyards struggling to maintain their place in the modern world.

One important recommendation for this shipbuilding project was to ask the Government of Canada to eliminate the peaks and valleys of procurement for the navy and the Coast Guard through more effective forward planning and thereby keeping order books and employment levels more consistent over the long term.

That is extremely important because we do need to maintain a significant plan and a significant capital investment. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen a couple of weeks ago on the estimated demands and needs for the navy, it stated:

One area that could provide significant employment for domestic firms in the coming decades is federal shipbuilding. With the navy's warships and Coast Guard vessels rusting out and in need of replacement, there is an estimated $40 billion to $60 billion worth of work over the next 20 years.

Where this work will take place is the question marine workers across the country are asking. With the cancellation of the joint supply ships project back in August, concerns were being raised that the government had plans to go overseas, to go offshore. It went through a tendering process and then it gave up on it.

Now we see the government supplying the Canadian Forces without contracts. It is buying helicopters from the United States without any contracts. There is not even an opportunity for a competitive bidding process. That is shocking. The government acquired C-17s and C-130J transport planes from the U.S. with no contracts and no competitive bidding.

There is a concern that the new search and rescue aircraft will go to a non-competitive bid. Canadian companies have no opportunity to participate because the Canadian Forces, apparently, have their eye on a particular Italian plane manufactured in the U.S. and there does not seem to be any plans to even have a competitive bid for that.

What is going on? Have we lost our way? Every country in the world, when it comes to procurement for their army, navy and air force, look to their domestic industries, except Canada. What is wrong with us? Is there something that I do not know about? Maybe members opposite could tell us what is wrong with us. What is it about us that we cannot build our own ships to ply the seas and look after our air forces, transport and so on? Maybe members opposite have the answers. Maybe there is something going on that I do not know about, but we seem to have lost our way.

For some reason, a bunch of Liberals seem to be going along with the government. I do not understand that. The shipbuilding industry is a modern, 21st century industry in which we should be participating. Why we are not doing so, is absolutely beyond me.

In the minute I have left, I would ask members opposite to get up on their feet during questions and comments and explain to the House and to Canadians why they are not protecting, supporting and expanding the ship industry in Canada. Perhaps some of the Liberals could tell us why they do not care either.

What is the plan for the $40 billion to $60 billion that will be spent by the government alone on the shipbuilding industry over the next coming decade? That could make a big difference to the economy of parts of this country, mostly coastal areas that have been struggling over the past many years for all sorts of reasons, some having to do with the fishery. Why is it that we cannot ensure that this kind of work is being done in this country?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I want to support the point the member made about giving Canadian companies the right to bid on the search and rescue planes. I just want to make another point in that respect, which is that we definitely need those planes.

As members know, I have been pushing for those planes for years and the contract is finally going out, which is good, and I applaud the government for that. However, there is still no commitment to put any planes north of 60. I just came from committee a few minutes ago where the government said that it was based on the fact that there were not as many incidents. It is basing it on risk management.

There is more risk in the north. One is more likely to freeze to death. We need the high tech equipment more quickly. There is no reason those planes should be down near our southern border. Down south there are a lot of other types of people and planes and more chance of rescue. I cannot agree with the government on that point and I will continue to make that point.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments on the shipbuilding industry and how the Liberal Party is working hard to help that happen. I do happen to agree with him on the air search and rescue. There does need to be a level of competency and a quick response.

The same kind of commitment to building that he is talking about in the aerospace industry needs to be applied to the shipbuilding industry. That is something on which we are looking for their support and we hope we will get it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a number of comments over the last little while and I thank my colleagues for that. We have now heard from our colleague from the east coast, our colleague from the west coast, and I myself earlier who lives in the central part of this country, about shipbuilding. All of us engage with our communities and our residences around shipbuilding.

I have a question for my hon. colleague from St. John's East. What sort of impact do we see happening, especially in a place like Marystown?

I had the good pleasure to visit the yard in Marystown the last time I was in Newfoundland. I congratulate my colleague for his representation here and on the beauty of Newfoundland. What does it mean to Marystown and those workers in that community if this shipbuilding industry is carved out from EFTA? What will it mean for them, for those workers, for the community and for Newfoundland in general?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question and it applies to other shipyards as well, of course, but in particular in the Burin Peninsula, the shipyard in Marystown has been there. As most people, who know about that industry, know, shipyards often lurch from contract to contract with gaps in between.

We saw, for example, a fully occupied workforce in Marystown but once the contract was gone they all disappeared to find work somewhere else. They go off to Alberta or to New Brunswick, wherever there is a project, and getting a workforce back together for a contract is sometimes difficult to do.

A long term contract, such as the joint supply ships, would have given the industry a steady workforce for a long period of time, which would make a world of difference not only to those individual workers but for the whole Burin Peninsula and that whole community. That is the importance of having the kind of ongoing, planned procurement approach that we are calling for here today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador for a very instructive speech. I learned a great deal.

Perhaps the member could help us answer one question. At what point in Canadian history does he think we made this conscious choice to abandon the shipbuilding industry as some smokestack industry that we no longer want any part of?

In my own union alone, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, we used to have 35,000 members who worked for the Burrard Dry Dock Company in Vancouver alone and produced one ship a week in support of the convoy to keep Great Britain alive during the second world war. We were building a ship a week with 35,000 members of my union.

At what point and by what pretzel reasoning did they abandon that kind of domination of the industry and forego it to other countries?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, maybe it has something to do with this synchronized problem that we have in the world, that all of a sudden the ideology overtook the government of free enterprise, no controls, no support of its own industry, just let it go loose and see what happens, laisssez-faire, descended in a synchronized way--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the work he has done on this trade deal, the Canada-European free trade agreement, and the many free trade agreements that the present government and previous Liberal government have inflicted on the people and communities of Canada.

I say inflicted because I and members of my caucus have profound concerns about the CEFTA as we did with the first Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the Canada-Colombian Free Trade Agreement, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Korean free trade agreement and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which is not secure, will not create prosperity and is far from being a partnership. It is, indeed, a one-sided proposal that will compromise Canada's sovereignty with regard to water, airline safety and our independence in terms of foreign policy, culture and technological products.

The Canada-European free trade agreement, conceived by Jean Chrétien more than nine years ago, advanced by Liberal-Conservative trade minister, David Emerson, and now reintroduced by the current trade minister, presents a profound concern for Canada's agriculture and shipbuilding industries.

Evidence provided during industry committee hearings clearly demonstrated a key concern with the CEFTA related to the treatment of Canada's shipbuilding industry, which was abandoned by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Canada has the longest coastline in the world and yet it has no strategy for our shipbuilding industry. When the tariffs in the CEFTA come down in 15 years, Canada's industry will be unable to cope with Norwegian competition. The Canada-European free trade agreement is yet another of the Conservative government's hastily concluded bilateral trade agreements and highlights its piecemeal approach to trade that lacks a coherent, fair trade vision and policy.

Canadians are entitled to expect their government to support Canadian jobs. That point was made by Andrew McArthur, a member of the board of directors of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, and the CAW, which made its case before the committee. It said that the shipbuilding sector must be excluded from this agreement and that the federal government should immediately help put together a structured financing facility and an accelerated capital cost allowance for the industry.

In addition to this testimony, was the concern expressed by Mary Keith, spokeswoman for the Irving shipbuilding conglomerate, about the Canada-European free trade agreement. She said:

...is a devastating blow for Canadian shipbuilders and marine service sectors.

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

That is at the heart of the efforts made by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to amend Bill C-2 at report stage. The shipbuilding industry is at a critical point.

As was pointed out by Mr. Andrew McArthur and Mr. George MacPherson at the international trade committee on March 3, they said:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion. Under the proposed FTAs with Norway, Iceland and the planned FTA with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government plan is an absolute outrage.

Imagine that, $40 billion and it will not benefit Canadian workers.

The position of the association from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out from the EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government that it does not carve industries out. We have mentioned the fact that the Jones act in the U.S. was carved out from NAFTA and now we are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans but the Americans have free access to our market. So industries do not get carved out.

Unfortunately, and apparently, that only happens in the United States.

New Democrats have proposed that Bill C-2 be redrafted by the government to exclude shipbuilding. We hope the Liberals from Atlantic Canada will see the wisdom of this amendment and support the hard-working men and women across the country who build the ships.

Bill C-2 simply must change. This is not, as I have already indicated, the first time that a Liberal-Conservative trade deal has left Canadian workers and industries in ashes. We have seen it over and over again in communities like mine, in London, Ontario, and the smaller centres of southwestern Ontario. Free trade agreements, be they the FTA, NAFTA, or the Korean free trade agreement, have robbed families of their livelihood and taken away their future.

NAFTA was supposed to bring prosperity to Canada. Instead, we have seen industry after industry abandon the workers who made them successful and the communities that paid for the infrastructure that allowed them to prosper. They have abandoned them in favour of jurisdictions that sacrifice environmental and safety standards and permit their employees to earn only substandard wages. They have done that despite the fact that Canadian workers are the best and most skilled in the world.

For example, a detailed study of productivity levels in North American auto assembly confirms that Canadian auto factories are the most efficient on the continent. The Harbour Report, the leading survey of auto productivity, indicates that average labour productivity is more than 11% higher in Canadian auto assembly plants than in U.S. plants and about 35% better than in Mexican plants. I dare say that is true of shipbuilders, too.

The Navistar truck plant in Chatham and the Sterling truck plant in St. Thomas are two tragic examples of the exodus of profitable and efficient plants that have completely closed down. They closed at a tremendous cost to families and communities. I have met with the workers from those plants and their families. The consequences of those job losses are devastating, because hopes, opportunities, dreams and futures are destroyed.

NAFTA is not the only trade deal that threatens our communities. The government is still in negotiations with South Korea to put in place a free trade deal that is profoundly unbalanced. It tolerates a trade deficit of over $3 billion at a cost of thousands of jobs. Korea has been allowed to keep its domestic markets closed to Canadian vehicles, and the promises by Koreans to remove non-tariff barriers are unenforceable.

In 2005, Canada imported $5.4 billion in goods from Korea, while it exported only $2.8 billion. Sixty-seven per cent of that trade deficit was automotive. Canada imported 129,376 light-duty vehicles with virtually no reciprocal sales of vehicles from Canada. This is not free trade nor fair trade. It is the kind of trade deal, like the FTA, NAFTA, the Colombia trade agreement, the MAI and the SPP, that robs our families and communities of jobs.

I have a couple of letters that I want to quote from. They are from people who are very concerned about this trade deal.

The first letter is from Robert Vance, who writes that he is very concerned and disheartened. He is a shipyard worker. He writes:

It is shameful to think that although other countries including those involved in the European free trade agreement strongly support their shipbuilding industry, while we as Canadians do not.

One of the most surprising things to me as a shipyard workers is that all stakeholders in the industry including owners, operators and unions from coast-to-coast have emphasized the need for this support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party of Canada did not feel it necessary to support these workers and backed up the Conservatives, instead.

It is up to the government and all parliamentarians to protect Canadian jobs and industries. That includes agriculture and it includes shipbuilding, as well as those in manufacturing and the auto sector. We must protect Canadian jobs and industries for the sake of our communities, for the sake of our workers, for the sake of this country.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member pushed the fact that we need to carve the shipbuilding industry out of the trade agreement.

We know what it means to rush into a trade agreement. We only have to look at what happened with the softwood lumber agreement.

In my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing we are in the process of retrofitting a ship, so I know what it takes. In order to retrofit that boat, we are going to need skilled labour, such as electricians, plumbers and technologists, not just people who actually build boats.

We have a shortage of skilled labour. I wonder if the member could elaborate on how Canada could lose a lot of opportunities to get new skilled labour online.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. These new industries require all kinds of talented tradespeople. Unfortunately, we are falling behind in terms of skilled tradespeople.

The current crisis with employment insurance underscores that, inasmuch as in order to qualify for employment insurance, people must have a certain number of hours and many people cannot possibly manage to get those hours. At the same time, they are being shut out of the skills training associated with employment insurance. It is a double whammy. They do not qualify for EI and they cannot support their families. They need the skills training to get the jobs that would allow them to support their families, but they cannot get that either because they cannot access the employment insurance that should be available.

Only 40% of the people who contribute to employment insurance in this country are able to enjoy that benefit. What about the other 60%? That is 60% of Canadians who are hard-working, who simply need a government that understands that some training would help them to find those all-important jobs.

If we supported our manufacturing and shipbuilding industries, we could put those young skilled tradespeople to work.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, although my hon. colleagues does not live near a lake or a river in London, nor does she have a shipyard in her riding, shipyards and shipbuilding are high tech operations. Looking at a bridge on a new ship today one would think one was in the Apollo spacecraft that went to the moon. That is how advanced they have become. It is not an old wheelhouse with a big wheel that someone has to turn four times to make the ship move. It is so advanced and high tech.

Does my colleague from London—Fanshawe see opportunities for other businesses and industries in her riding of London to outfit those ships? It is similar to the auto industry. There is an assembly plant, but feeder plants are needed to feed the materials which eventually will make up the ship. A shipyard is a place of assembly. Does the member see opportunities in a place like London to help build ships?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed London is on the Thames River and we are very proud to have Prevost which is a naval institution. We are very happy about that connection, be it a long distance to the sea.

As I indicated in my remarks, we have very productive workers. In addition, we have the University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. They are able to help us with providing the research and development and the workers of the future.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:36 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Replacement Workers

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should introduce in the House, no later than October 15, 2009, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers in labour disputes falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government while at the same time ensuring that essential services are maintained.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move Bloc Québécois motion M-294, which states the desire for the government to introduce in the House, no later than October 15, 2009, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers in labour disputes falling under the jurisdiction of the said code while at the same time ensuring that essential services are maintained.

More precisely, the code governs collective bargaining in federally regulated undertakings: interprovincial transportation, be it by air, land or water; telecommunications via radio, television or mail; banks; longshoring; grain handling and other sectors under federal jurisdiction.

Before addressing the fundamental issue, I would be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous efforts of my colleagues from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and Gatineau who, ever since their arrival in the House of Commons, have spared no effort to defend the rights of workers in Quebec and Canada.

Along with the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I have agreed to take on the challenge of convincing as many Liberals and Conservatives as possible to support this initiative. I must also mention the contributions of several other Bloc Québécois members who are concerned about the situation of Quebec's and Canada's workers.

Quebec and British Columbia have already passed provisions totally banning the use of replacement workers. These provisions prevent employers from having employees cross their own union's picket line. Approximately 7% of Quebec workers come under the Canada Labour Code. Quebec has seen a major decrease in the number of labour conflicts since its legislation was passed in August 1977. The number of conflicts dropped considerably, from 293 in 1976 to 51 in 2007.

According to figures published by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the results are even more striking if we look at the number of days of work lost in work stoppages by workers covered by the Quebec Labour Code. It is markedly lower than the average number of days of work lost by workers covered by the Canadian code.

The practice in Quebec in the past 30 years illustrates how advantageous it would be to introduce such legislation. There are many benefits to anti-scab legislation. One the one hand, it encourages industrial peace by avoiding confrontations between strikers and replacement workers. On the other hand, it makes employers realize the advantages of settling conflicts by negotiation rather than strike or lockout. In 2005-06, 97% of collective agreements under federal jurisdiction were signed without a work stoppage.

Hon. members need to understand that legislative changes to the Canada Labour Code in 1999 have had dissuasive effects on the use of strikebreakers. We feel, however, that as long as this is not absolutely banned by legislation, while of course ensuring the maintenance of essential services, we will continue to see more and more days lost to strikes and will never succeed in putting an end to the existence of the two categories of workers in Quebec: those who benefit from this right under the Quebec Labour Code and the rest, who work in federally regulated businesses governed by the Canada Labour Code, and are threatened by the use of scab workers.

Anti-scab legislation constitutes the foundation for establishing a fair balance of power between employer and employee. Anti-scab legislation would be good for workers everywhere, in Quebec and in the other provinces and territories.

If a majority of the House of Commons votes for this bill, this will be an opportunity for witnesses from all walks of life to express their views right here in this institution and they will all have the opportunity to contribute to a debate that can only be beneficial to labour relations.

There is a greater need than ever to prohibit the hiring of replacement workers during a labour dispute.

Here is why: to reduce picket-line violence; foster a fair balance in the negotiations between employers and employees; reduce the number of legal proceedings that arise during strikes and lockouts; and mitigate the bitterness felt by employees when they return to work.

There is also a very broad consensus among different unions about the importance of anti-scab legislation. It is essential in the current workplace because it provides greater transparency in case of labour disputes. This bill will not entail any expenditures for the government. When we make workers the focus of our actions, we quickly realize the negative and harmful effects of a labour dispute. I am referring to a reduction in the purchasing power of workers directly or indirectly involved in the dispute. Another problem is that households affected by the dispute tend to go into debt. In some cases, disputes can cause social problems, as well as stress-related psychological problems.

In a minority government situation, every vote counts. I urge my colleagues to support this motion. During the last session of Parliament, the Conservative government, unable to marshal any real arguments, hid behind exaggerated and unrealistic scenarios. For 30 years, Quebec has had a law prohibiting replacement workers, and nothing terrible has happened. Workers who go on strike take no pleasure in doing so and understand the impact of what they are doing.

With regard to essential services, the Canada Labour Code already includes provisions that require both the employer and unionized employees to continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. The Conservative government makes a point of ignoring these provisions, preferring to use scare tactics about the consequences of a bill prohibiting the use of replacement workers.

I would remind this House that the member for Jonquière—Alma, who came up with all sorts of irrational arguments to condemn the Bloc Québécois bill, had supported a bill prohibiting replacement workers on November 5, 1990. The bill in question, Bill C-201, was introduced by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and he agreed with prohibiting the use of strikebreakers.

In 2007, the Liberals, who had supported the bill in principle at second reading, finally did an about-face, saying that the bill would not have maintained essential services. Yet the Canada Labour Code already includes provisions requiring the employer and unionized employees to maintain these activities.

During the last session of Parliament, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and leader of the opposition, who, true to Liberal form, was straddling the fence, first voted for Bill C-257 at second reading, then voted against it at the report stage. I want to remind the House that the purpose of this bill was to prohibit replacement workers in disputes involving employees governed by the Canada Labour Code. But in a new twist, at a January 2009 press conference with the FTQ president Michel Arsenault, the Liberal leader came out against strikebreakers. In his statement, he said:

I am against scabs. I told Mr. Arsenault about how, when I was young, I witnessed scabs crossing the picket lines and I understood workers' anger and resentment toward them. But we have to protect essential services, such as public transit. I am not against an anti-scab law, but I want a well-written law that covers all the bases. We found that the Bloc bill was not the best way to deal with a complex situation.

Now that the legislation specifies the importance of maintaining essential services, we will see whether the new Liberal leader was being sincere. We will see whether he can resist the pressure from Bay Street this time. Until I see it happen, I will have my doubts.

I realize that progress in terms of labour relations legislation does not come without some upheaval and adaptation. But in Quebec, it did not take long for all of the parties involved to see that there was something in it for everyone.

We have reached a consensus, and nobody wants to go back to the way things were. When everyone knows the rules, when rights and powers are clearly identified, negotiations become far more efficient. We are talking about what is in workers' and employers' best interest. When their needs are met, everyone prospers.

I would like to thank the members of this House, and I firmly believe that we have reached a level of maturity that will allow us to present innovative amendments that respect workers and businesses in Quebec and Canada.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I have a question and a comment for the hon. member.

How would she describe an essential service and is she aware that in Quebec has a labour code that sets out what might be a public service that is essential? It has a board, the Essential Services Council, that tries to deal with it. There are numerous applications that are made to the board to make that decision.

First, there are differences between provincial essential services and federal essential services. What does she see those differences to be? Second, how would she define essential services? Third, how would she expect that to be resolved? Section 87.4 is very narrow to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public and it engenders a number of applications. Would she expect the number of applications now made under section 87.4 to go up and would it take a considerable period of time to resolve them?

If she could answer those questions, I would appreciate it.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague with whom I used to serve on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The Canada Labour Code, which already contains some provisions, can answer in part his question on essential services. However, in Quebec, we have two laws and a mechanism for rendering a decision that come into play.

The motion moved mentions maintaining essential services. Just now, I listed the services that we would like the legislation to cover.

I did not follow the member's third question. However, at any rate, we wish to assure the House that essential services will be maintained.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the anti-scab legislation was introduced in Quebec in 1977, I was part of the process because of my profession. I can tell you that I witnessed the evolution, the change in labour relations and negotiations during strikes and lockouts. Today, as my colleague pointed out, labour relations in Quebec continue to improve.

I have a question for my colleague. What is the Quebec business community reaction to the anti-scab legislation?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of how things have evolved over the past 30 years, as I said at the end of my speech, I know that employees, unions and employers have all benefited from Quebec's legislation. The Conseil du patronat du Québec supports it.

At this point, we should look to Quebec for the level of maturity in labour relations that can be reached through innovation. Right now, all parliamentarians have an opportunity to hear from all of the stakeholders. We have to recognize that when negotiations take place between equals and the parties find that balance, we have a win-win scenario for all of the parties governed by the legislation.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this motion.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code contains the fundamental principles in which labour relations in Canada are governed. It is very important legislation designed to provide stability to Canada's industrial relations.

Motion No. 294 calls for amendments to specific parts of part I in isolation from the other parts of the Canada Labour Code. Given the importance and the careful balance of the code and how that balance was arrived at, to take one portion in isolation of the other and try to amend it would upset the balance.

I ask hon. members of the House not to support this motion. I believe changes made to the code in this manner will disrupt the generally positive labour relations environment in our federal jurisdiction today.

At this time of Canadian and global economic instability, one has to question the appropriateness of making changes to the code that would favour one party over another. In addition, a ban on replacement workers could be negatively perceived by potential investors to Canada and disrupt the delicate balance of bargaining power that parties in the federal jurisdiction currently have. This could also lead to a more adversarial labour relations engagement on the basis which I discussed earlier with the member.

Canadians want their government to act responsibly and help protect the economy. We are helping to ensure that Canadian businesses and families have the security they need to weather the economic storm and come out of it stronger than ever.

There is an important point at stake here that we must consider. I believe the proposals contained in the motion before us today would weaken the foundations for positive labour relations in Canada.

Industrial relations legislation seeks to balance the competing interests of employers and employees as represented by their trade unions. The issue of replacement workers remains a contentious one. It is commonly accepted by labour relations experts that the employer's, particularly in a federal context, countervailing power to the union's right to strike is not so much the right to lock-out as their right to try to continue to operate during a work stoppage. We have a third party involved, and that is members of the public, whose interests need to be looked at as well.

It should be noted that, in the majority of cases, federal jurisdiction employers do not keep their operations functioning by employing external replacement workers. More often, management, supervisory personnel and other non-unionized personnel are assigned to take the place of striking workers.

The current provisions in the Canada Labour Code were introduced in 1999 after a valuable period of stakeholder consultation and a very extensive consultation of all the players. The question of banning replacement workers was a central issue at that time as well, and it was thoroughly examined.

What the stakeholder consultations determined was that there was simply no consensus on this issue. The decision at that time was to enact a provision that allowed for the hiring of replacement workers but banned their use for the purposes of breaking a union.

More consultations were also conducted recently with labour and business stakeholders on this very same issue. Just a few weeks ago, a study on the impact of work stoppage in the federally regulated private sector was made public and again stakeholders did not reach consensus on the issue of replacement workers.

The current provision with respect to replacement workers puts clear limits on the use of replacement workers during legal strikes or lockouts. It represents a practical compromise and a middle ground between unions that seek a complete ban on the use of replacement workers and employers that want personnel so they can continue operating.

In speaking to some of the stakeholders, it was obvious that there was a give and take in not only arriving at a decision on this issue, but on other issues as well that resulted in what we see as part I. To take out only one or two portions and deal with them in isolation to the whole picture will certainly upset the balance that the parties strived so hard to achieve.

It is our role to provide employers and employees with a labour relations environment in which they can manage their own relationships within the framework of the law. That is what the government is doing. It is assisting labour and management in the constructive settlement of disputes, and the evidence is convincing. Year after year, over 90% of the disputes in the federal jurisdiction are settled without a work stoppage, often without the assistance of federal government mediators.

It is also important to remember it is not just the federal jurisdiction that has decided not to impose a complete ban on replacement workers. There is considerable variability among provincial jurisdictions. Again, this is a reflection that the proposed approach that is contained in the motion is not as straightforward as the hon. member may suggest.

Only two of the provinces and territories in Canada have labour legislation that restricts the rights of employers to use replacement workers during a work stoppage. They are Quebec and British Columbia. Obviously the other provinces have determined that this part of the legislation is not in the best interests of the collective bargaining process or else they would have already implemented such provisions. Many of them have already considered this issue and have decided not to legislate a ban.

Labour program data further indicates that both Quebec and British Columbia continue to experience long work stoppages, notwithstanding any anti-replacement worker legislation. For the period 2006-08, the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 52 days and in British Columbia 55.4 days, while in the federal jurisdiction, the average duration of a work stoppage was 49.2 days.

Also, a number of complaints concerning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages are filed each year in both Quebec and British Columbia. In 2007-08, 25 complaints were filed in each province respectively. Of the 25 complaints filed in Quebec, 10 were upheld by the provincial labour board. In British Columbia, five of the 25 complaints were upheld. This suggests that even if there were a legislative ban on replacement workers under the federal code, it would not resolve these controversial issues.

In addition, a number of independent university studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during work stoppages may be associated with more frequent and longer strikes. Other studies concluded that there is no evidence that a legislative ban had an impact either way on strike activity. Furthermore, a comparison of wage settlements in all jurisdictions, including those that do not have replacement worker legislation, indicates that there does not appear to be any link between the type of replacement worker provisions and the wage settlement for workers.

The issues are far greater than just the two that the member has raised. In order to resolve work stoppages, a different point of view must be taken. There must be a new way taken, but it is not the way that the motion would suggest.

When all of this information is taken into account, in the end there is no evidence to support that the position of prohibiting the use of replacement workers would lead to better labour relations or better economic conditions. That is just not so.

In conclusion, I believe the best approach to this issue is one that preserves a delicate balance which currently exists in part I of the Canada Labour Code. We cannot expect any benefit from this amendment. On the contrary, this motion risks creating instability in the labour relations climate at a time that the economy can least afford it and least needs it.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to consider the entire legislative spectrum in the broad interests of all Canadians. The motion does not address those responsibilities. I am asking members of the House not to support it.