Debates of March 6th, 2009

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the trade committee. He is still learning about trade, but I am sure over time he will get up to speed.

I need to correct one thing with respect to his comments about the European Union. The European Union recently signed an EPA with CARICOM, the Caribbean countries. The Caribbean legislature said it was not good enough and made some changes, and the E.U. is now moving to ratify that agreement.

So the issue with the NDP is not trade agreements. We favour fair trade, not Bush unregulated free trade but fair trade agreements. We are strong promoters of that. We take issue with bad trade agreements.

The Liberal caucus has admitted that it made a monumental mistake by supporting the softwood sellout. Northern Ontario and northern Manitoba reacted by throwing the Liberals out of every single seat in those areas because they made that mistake.

Now we have the shipbuilding sellout, and some hon. members in the Liberal caucus are saying they are going to support the amendment. People from British Columbia and Nova Scotia know they have to vote in the interests of their shipyard workers.

I am simply asking the member to listen to members of his caucus who are saying they need to stand up for shipyard workers.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know one liberalizing trade agreement or one free trade agreement that the NDP has ever supported.

The fact is that NAFTA and the FTA have created remarkable wealth for Canada.

The NDP should be less ideological and more economically competent and modernize its economic thinking. The fact is that social democrat parties around the world have come forward. We just need to look at the British Labour Party. Countries like Sweden have been able to embrace social progress and economic literacy. The NDP is the only social democrat party in the world that still clings to the globophobic, socialist Luddite myths of the past.

It is time for the NDP to modernize its policies and maybe at some point, 20, 30, or 40 years in the future, be a reasonable alternative for Canadians.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the NDP's amendments to Bill C-2.

The Bloc Québécois' agenda is to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Overall, the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association is a good one, and the Bloc Québécois will support it because it will liberalize trade of non-agricultural goods with that part of the world. Quebec will likely benefit.

For example, Switzerland has a flourishing brand name pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of our imports from there. Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to penetrate the American market may consider making prescription drugs here. It is no secret that Quebec's pool of skilled researchers and favourable tax system make it a premier destination for brand name drug companies.

A free trade agreement that facilitates trade between a company and its subsidiaries could promote new investment in Quebec's pharmaceutical sector. And then there is Norway, where nickel accounts for 80% of our exports. The largest mine in Canada, third largest in the world, is owned by a Swiss company, Xstrata, and is in Quebec's Ungava region.

Aluminum is our top export to Iceland, and aluminum production is concentrated in Quebec.

This agreement does not have the same flaws as some previous agreements. NAFTA, the agreement with Costa Rica and the agreement with Chile all contain a bad chapter on investments that gives corporations the right to take a government to court if it adopts measures that reduce their profits. There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This agreement covers only goods, not services. Nothing would force us, therefore, to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not covered. Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very strong, secretive banking system, or Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity.

The same thing is true for government procurement. The government is perfectly free to prefer Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on government procurement. It would obviously be pretty ridiculous for the government to give itself a certain amount of latitude and then decide not to use it. We therefore want the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of Canadian goods and services, to prefer Canadian suppliers and show some concern for the spinoff effects of its procurement. And it has the right to do so.

In the area of agriculture, Bill C-2 also allows for implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements in addition to the free trade agreement with those countries.

Those agreements, which are no threat to supply management, will have no great impact on agriculture in Quebec. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. The tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. That is what we have been calling for all along, and what the Conservative Party usually refuses to recognize.

In fact, it is mainly the west that will benefit from the agricultural agreements because they provide for freer trade in certain grains, but the impact will not be significant.

As for shipbuilding, we need a real policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry as soon as possible. Like many people, we have some concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will start gradually decreasing in three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years.

However, our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completed abandoned ours.

If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards would likely disappear. But for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, the world's foremost waterway.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. A policy to support our shipyards is urgently needed.

Moreover, this is the only recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the free trade agreement between Canada and the EFTA. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic and deputy critic, which reads as follows:

...the Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

That is the only recommendation in the report. The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards. We expect the government to give up its bad policy, and we call on it to table a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry. Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this free trade agreement is a good agreement. The problem is shipyards. We call on the government to table a real policy by the end of the year to help shipyards become competitive. However, we cannot afford to jeopardize this free trade agreement, which is good for Quebec.

The real issue for the Bloc Québécois, and what it has always called for, is a free trade agreement with the European Union. Bill C-2, a free trade agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, is good, but we have to recognize that it is limited. Together, these countries have a population of only 12 million people and account for roughly 1% of Canadian exports. The real issue is the European Union, with its 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. The European Union is the world's leading economic power.

Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which buys more than 85% of our exports. The American economic slowdown, coupled with the surge in value of Canada's petrodollar against the U.S. dollar, reminds us that this dependence undermines our economy. Quebec has lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the Conservatives came to power, with their laissez-faire doctrine.

To diversify as we must do, the priority should not be given to China or India, countries from which we import, respectively, eight and six times more than we export to them. The European Union is an essential trading partner if we want to diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the United States. What is more, the fact that Canada has not signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes how competitive our companies are on the European market. With the rise in value of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to skip over Canada and open subsidiaries directly in the United States. Canada's share of direct European investments in North America went from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004.

Add to that the fact that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement since 2000. Consequently, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec.

Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. 77% of the people who work for French companies in Canada are from Quebec, as are 37% of those who work for U.K. companies here and 35% of those who work for German companies here. In contrast, just 20% of people working for U.S. companies in Canada are Quebeckers. The Government of Quebec has been working with companies since the Quiet Revolution, and that is a major advantage when it comes time to seek out European investment. We have everything we need to become the bridgehead for European investment in America.

For the Bloc Québécois, this free trade agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland is a first step. We cannot not sign it. The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, the NDP, runs the risk of jeopardizing this agreement. The Bloc Québécois will oppose the NDP motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the Bloc has indicated it will not support the motion, because the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is a very strong advocate for shipbuilding in this country. In fact, he is co-chair of the shipbuilding caucus, which he and I started. That caucus has representation from all parties, including representation from the Senate, as well as shipowners, shipbuilders, labour and some civic personnel across the country.

He would know that trade deals in themselves are good when they are fair and balanced on both sides. The problem is, as he knows, that the declining tariff over 15 years could seriously jeopardize the yard in his own province. In the province of Quebec the Davie yard may lose the ability in the very near future to perform shipbuilding work.

I wonder how the Bloc squares that circle. Is the Bloc willing to sacrifice those shipyard workers for other aspects of the economy?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows well enough that the Bloc Québécois would never sacrifice one job in Quebec, never. That is why we were hoping that the New Democratic Party would take off its blinders a bit and participate in creating a real policy, a strategy to develop shipyards. That is what is needed. We should not be discussing the NDP amendments. In this House we should be discussing an assistance program for shipyards. That is what would allow them to be competitive, and that is what Davie Shipyards needs. That is the reality. Once again, the NDP refuses to see the reality. They have moved on to something else. An agreement will be made and we should discuss a real assistance program and work together, with the government, on this program.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is just my point. If the Davie yard is unable to compete in the shipbuilding industry because of a heavily subsidized industry in Norway--which it does not subsidize anymore; Norway has got it right and has got it down pat--but if that industry is unable to compete, is the member asking that Quebec and Canadian dollars go to assist an industry that may not be able to compete in the long run?

We are saying that if the United States of America since 1924 has exempted shipbuilding marine services from any free trade deal that it has ever signed, and the U.S. is our largest trading partner, should Canada not follow suit? We have nothing against the EFTA countries. What we are saying is that this particular aspect of the deal should be set aside so that our yards, our workers and companies across the country will be able to do that job in the future.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this member's problem is that he should be getting legal advice. The NDP's amendment would only serve to put an end to this free trade agreement and that is not the goal. The NDP should have done this work before. If they did not do it, that is their problem. However, as we are talking, we are hoping that the free trade agreement will be put in place and that we will work immediately towards a policy to help shipyards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to debate the motion of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster to get the amendments removed from this deal.

First, I want to respond to my colleague from the Bloc. He suggests that if we carve out the shipbuilding aspect of the deal, then the deal will fall apart. It does not have to fall apart. Norway has said very clearly that it will not sign the EFTA deal if shipbuilding is not part of the package. Why would Norway hinge the entire deal on one aspect of our economy? What is in it that it wants so badly?

Let me explain exactly what Norway wants. Norway heavily subsidized its marine industry in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, and North Sea oil. It has an awful lot of offshore supply vessels and it would love to put them in Canadian waters and yards. That is why this deal is so contingent upon it. That is why Norway is focusing on it. Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland do not care about the shipbuilding concern because it is not a major player in their economy, but that is what Norway wants.

The declining scale of the tariff may indeed jeopardize our ability to build and repair vessels in our country. The NDP is the only party with an official critic for shipbuilding. We know this is a very integral and strategic part of our economy, and it can have a fabulous future.

Let me go back a bit. In 2003 I asked John Manley, the then minister of finance, a direct question about shipbuilding. He stood in the House and said that, in his mind, shipbuilding was a sunset industry. That hurt and it was not a very nice thing to say. Thousands of shipyard workers and their families were extremely disappointed that the minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, looked at shipbuilding as a sunset industry. In other words, pound sand and go away. We are moving on to other things. We are very fearful, not just about EFTA, but that we will sacrifice the shipyards for other aspects of the economy.

The next trade deal to be talked about is with Korea, which desperately wants not only the auto sector, but the shipbuilding sector included in those trade talks.

We should ask ourselves why Canada would so willingly, on bended knee, give away this industry for other trade deals of the economy. I honestly believe there are still some Conservatives today, probably some Liberals and a few bureaucrats, who look at this industry as a sunset industry. They look at those hard-hat guys in Halifax, who I was with last week and the week before, and the hard-hat guys in Vancouver. They are arc welders who bend metal and do all kinds of things. They wear coveralls. They get dirty every day. They make a decent wage and look after their families. The bureaucrats who sit in ivory towers look at them with disdain and disgust. That has to stop now.

If this is such a great deal, all we ask the Conservatives to do is carve shipbuilding out of that package and the can have their deal. This is not unprecedented. We are not the only country to do this.

I also remind the Conservatives, when they were Reformers, they opposed supply management. Supply management was not part of their platform. When they became Conservatives and received a tremendous amount of pressure from the farm sector in Canada, they decided to support supply management. When the Conservatives go into these trade deals at WTO and the Doha rounds, et cetera, they say that supply management should not be touched. They already admit that some sectors of our society require protections.

I remind the House, 80% of our trade in Canada is with the United States of America. Ever since 1924, every FTA that America has signed has excluded shipbuilding and marine services from those trade deals. In the 1988 free trade deal that Canada signed with the United States, under the Jones Act of the United States, it was exempted.

That was accepted by the Conservatives of that time as an acceptable argument to protect the industry in the United States. However, we did not do the quid pro quo here in Canada. We just opened it up. Whatever the Americans wanted, they got. Why are our negotiators, be they Conservative or Liberal, consistently so weak, so ineffectual and so unwilling to stand up for working families, our companies and our country.

I simply do not understand why we would be so willing to give away an industry which can provide high-paying jobs in our country, an extremely high tech sector. From mineral resources to our mining companies to high tech, we could be employing, and we should be employing, thousands of workers from coast to coast to coast. We should be building the ships and the rigs in our country, which we so desperately need.

We are now down to five major yards in the country plus a bunch of smaller ones. We have the Victoria yards, the Welland yards, the Davie yards, the Halifax yards and the Marystown yards. We used to have one in Saint John, New Brunswick, which built the frigates, one of the most modern yards in the world. What happened after we built the frigates? We let it die. We gave it $55 million to shut it down. We gave it millions of dollars to upgrade the yard, then we gave it millions of dollars to shut it down.

This is the attitude that prevails in this place. We should not, under any circumstances, be sacrificing this very vital and strategic industry for other aspects of the economy. We know this is exactly what has happened.

We need $22 billion worth of work just on domestic procurement in our country: the JSS support ship vessel contracts, the Coast Guard, the Laker Fleet and our ferries, every one of those vessels can and should be built in Canada.

What is the attitude of the government, from Liberals to Conservatives? It is the same thing: “Yes, we are going to build ships in Canada”. I keep hearing that over and over and over again.

What do we get? We get the canoe budget out of the recent budget. Instead of $22 billion allocated over 20 years, we get $175 million for smaller vessels, such as hovercrafts. That is important, do not get me wrong, but we needed $22 billion allocated over 20 years and much more after that.

The government promised us in 2006 that it would build three armed icebreakers for the north. What happened to that promise? Another broken Conservative promise where it did not get the job done.

What did it promise recently? It was going to build a brand new icebreaker, called the Diefenbaker. I have no problem with an icebreaker called Diefenbaker. It would be a good name for the ship, but where is the allocation of funds for that ship? Who is going to build it?

If we allow these yards to decimate and get creamed by these trade deals, what yard is going to have the capacity in the future to build ships? Unless we are willing, as my Bloc colleague says, to heavily subsidize the industry, it would be particularly hard to do that.

We do not have to heavily subsidize yards. In 2001, minister of industry Brian Tobin said very clearly that we needed to have a comprehensive policy for shipbuilding in Canada. The management, the owners, all of them went across the country and prepared a report called “Breaking Through”. In that report were very specific recommendations to assist the industry.

Since 2001, that report as been sitting on the minister's desk and it still has not been actioned on after eight years. Why? Eight years for five basic recommendations that would have assisted this industry. Nothing.

It is most unfortunate that previous Liberals and current Conservatives are using this industry as a pawn for other circumstances. We implore those people. The NDP are not against trade deals. We do not want to close doors. We want to open them, but we do not, under any circumstances, want to close the door our shipbuilding industry. It is too important and it is too vital.

Those workers, the thousands of them who could be employed, deserve to build Canadian ships in Canadian yards, using Canadian taxpayers by Canadian owners. This is how we upgrade our economy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without question that of all members of Parliament who have been through this place in the last decade, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is the greatest champion of the shipbuilding industry, and members would be wise to pay some heed to his words of caution.

What he is presenting today, in such passionate tones, is something we all need to understand in terms of manufacturing in general. When it is destroyed, it is so much more difficult to build back again. It is not, “Do not worry, we'll let it go by the wayside now and we'll replenish it later on”. We hear this from Liberals right now. These things take decades and decades to be built up, but can be destroyed in a very short amount of time.

When a shipbuilding yard, especially of a sizable nature, loses consistent business over time and has a government, and successive governments, design policies that undermine and undercut its ability to employ people, how much more difficult is it to regenerate the energy, the interest and the enthusiasm around its yard when orders do show up, hopefully some time in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raises a crucial point. The fact is these highly skilled workers will not wait around for the government to make up its mind. They have to feed and look after their families. They will move on to other sectors.

When the Saint John yard in New Brunswick shut down, a lot of the workers went to the United States. They are still there working in American yards when they should be working here. Shipowners and shipbuilders need long lead times to get the yards up and running and to obtain the skilled trades they need to build the vessels. It is not something that turns on a dime.

At the end of day, all we are really asking the government to do is pay half as much attention to the shipbuilding industry as it does to the aerospace industry. If it did that, the yards would not need subsidies. We need concrete investments that allow the owners and builders to hire workers to get the job done, as my Conservative colleagues so fondly like to remind us each time they speak.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a broken promise and I am sure he is aware of a few more that he could outline. I would like him to do that.

He specifically mentioned the icebreaker. The Prime Minister's first promise to the north was three armed icebreakers. That vanished for a few years, but after we pushed and pushed, the government finally agreed to build one. As the member says, we have no idea when that will happen and it will go to the Coast Guard, not the navy.

There were ice-strengthened supply ships promised to help support the north, another broken promise. Those are completely gone.

What about ships that can go through 18 feet of ice in the north? The government has decided to build patrol boats that can go through one metre of ice. There are a lot of problems and I am sure the member has some other broken promises that are favourites of his.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we switch to veterans for one second, there is a myriad of broken promises. However, I will stick to the subject at hand.

My hon. colleague from the great Yukon, a place I used to call home, is absolutely correct. The north is getting a lot of attention these days, and rightfully so, but what the north requires are capable vessels. The Coast Guard requires these vessels.

We heard countless times from previous Liberals and the current Conservative government that they would get these contracts out for the patrol vessels for the midshore Coast Guard. However, we still have not seen those.

Domestic recruitment is just one tool in the tool box of shipbuilding in the country. We need to heed the recommendations of the “Breaking Through” document. We have to ensure that we do not sacrifice this industry in other trade deals because the United States knows the importance of shipbuilding and marine services in that country. We in Canada should be doing the same.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue again and it is a pleasure to follow my colleague who has worked so many years in these halls on the issue of shipbuilding, officially through the transcripts of Hansard and also in the background yelling “What about shipbuilding?”

That is a common phrase, and one of the things that I have seen over the years, and I have been here since 2002, coming from an industrial automotive area, is really a lack of policy for sectoral strategies. One of the things that separates our party from other parties in this House is the belief that the government does not have to always be involved in the actual industry but should set out some conditions and some structures that make it prosper and compete, similar to other countries. That is not done in this country.

The philosophy of the Liberals and Conservatives over the last number of years has been to just lower corporate taxes and then industries will thrive. Whereas in other countries, there have been successful models. In Norway, which is one of the concerns we have with regard to the trade agreement that we are talking about today, it has been able to develop a very competitive shipbuilding industry through a sectoral strategy. That is one of the reasons Norway will have a successful penetration into the Canadian market after years of government assistance and structures.

It is important to note, as we look at the current economic issues that our country is facing, that we are continuing, and I think Canadians will be shocked to hear this, with the Liberals and Conservatives passing this budget, to beat out a path of corporate tax cuts.

Right now, with the deficit and the debt and all the borrowing that we are going to do, we are actually going to be borrowing more money to give it to the corporations and actually have to pay more interest on that. We do not even have the money for those tax cuts right now, but we are going to continue to do that. That does not make any sense when we look at what the government has been doing. Basically, the Conservatives have been on the side of the banking sector, quite explicitly. The banks are bringing in profits right now, and they are not even doing the things they have been asked to do by the government and other Canadians, which is to extend credit.

I would just point to the automotive sector, for example, where right now we have people who want to borrow to buy a new vehicle or lease a vehicle, and they cannot do that. The bank rates are just absolutely unacceptable. They are anywhere between 7% to 11%. That prevents people from getting into a new vehicle and keeping a Canadian at work, or it gouges them as consumers which is totally unacceptable. The banks are the only ones actually making money on automobiles right now. That is not acceptable.

What we are hoping to see here is a sectoral strategy evolve that involves our industrial bases. That includes the issue of shipbuilding. As my colleague has noted, it is not only important for a manufacturing base, it is also important for this country from a national security perspective. That is why the United States has policies set in place. We have not challenged those policies because in some respects we have actually accepted the fact that the Americans are going to have some procurement for their own interest in terms of a defence policy. That is something we have agreed to in terms of understanding.

I will point to a good example, a classic, with regard to the Navistar truck plant, where right now the government has provided a $300 million contract to Navistar, which has a plant in Texas, but it also has a plant in Chatham, Ontario. We are actually allowing Navistar to produce these military trucks in Texas when retooling was only $800,000 in Chatham. So we are going to fire all those workers and send them home. It is actually going to cost us around $17 million to $19 million in employment insurance instead of retooling that truck plant.

I am sure they would understand in the United States that Canadians would want to build their military trucks, themselves, for their men and women serving here in our country and also abroad. They would understand that, just like we understand that they would likely do the same for those in Texas, where they would not actually send the procurement here. It does not make any sense when we look at the economic conditions that are facing us right now.

There has been a lot of debate in this chamber and also in the United States about some of these policies. There was a lot of discussion about the United States having a buy America clause as part of its overall stimulus package, but the reality is whether or not that is in fact in that act, unless it is actually disclaimed, it actually counts no matter what because it is part of the American policy going back to the amendments made on separate legislation.

We can protest and say what we want, but the reality is it stays in the actual package because it goes down to the state funding level where those officials have no jurisdictional accountability for the trade agreements or it goes to the municipal level and the same thing happens. So, the Americans can make those choices. We never in the past have contested that and a broader discussion needs to be had.

The Liberal Party has been attacking us saying that we are going to create some type of a trade war, but for heaven's sake, what would happen if we actually had a buy Canadian policy in place? We could then go to the United States and start talking about a buy North American policy. It would lead to a great engagement on those issues. But we do not have anything here. We just send it and let it go. We have a trade deficit this year. That is one of the reasons. It is because we have lost our manufacturing base and we do not do anything to support it in terms of public policy.

That is what is really nice about shipbuilding. I had the opportunity to go to Halifax and tour the Irving yards where I talked to the men and women working there. I know the Conservatives encourage labour mobility if workers cannot find work there. Labour mobility means that men and women, instead of working on policies that actually protect those communities and grow those opportunities, can go somewhere else for a couple of months and leave their family behind, and that is okay. Well sometimes we have to do that in life and we all understand those things, but that should not be the public policy.

To have strong communities, we need people who are taking their kids to soccer games and hockey games. They are the parents who can go home every single night and see their kids, and can help grow their community, to volunteer, and to have an attachment to their neighbourhood. It lowers crime. It improves the social values of the community. We should not be saying public policy-wise that “Well, you know what, if you don't like it, then we're going to help you get on a plane to stay in a camp somewhere else, bunk up with a bunch of people and that's the best thing we can do for you”. Then come back later on and say, “ And by the way, you have to find another job two months later somewhere else in this country or some other country”.

That is not right and that is what is happening in regard to some of the workers in Halifax where the skilled trades are short of work. There has been an insinuation that we do not have the capacity to do some of these things, but we can build that capacity. It is quite easy to do so.

I always thought the closing of the Collingwood shipbuilding facility was a step back. In the Great Lakes, where I come from, it used to be a thriving shipbuilding industry and that is gone these days. The ones that are left are small and not as significant as they used to be. I would like to see us go forward. We need a big turnover in Great Lakes shipping cargo fleets soon. So why not be part of that building process? Why not have some of those work skills happening here?

I know that my colleague noted the military procurements that have disappeared and vanished. Those are great opportunities to build the private and public sector elements necessary for the infrastructure investment to make it worthwhile. There is a pent-up need for that right now.

I hope that the proposed amendment passes. It would carve out the shipbuilding element. It would be sent back to committee to be worked on. Hopefully, we could go forward with something that is good for Canadians. It is not just the New Democrats saying this. I want to read into the record a couple of quotes. The first is from Andrew McArthur, representing the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. He 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 we do not carve industries out. We raise the question the Jones Act in the U.S. 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.

It is important to recognize that what we are asking for is very much a common practice, but it is also something that could give us a negotiable stance when dealing with other trading countries. New Democrats do believe in trade. We just want fair trade. Part of fair trade is making sure we are open and going to discuss these issues even if they are very difficult, but at the same time we will also strategically do that as we look at the industries. Most countries do that. I think we should too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague, the NDP industry critic, has a breadth of knowledge on all aspects of the manufacturing sector in Canada. He is also right when he talks about the domestic procurement in terms of the lakers and so on that need to be built and should be built here in Canada.

The member knows very well that Canada has the world's largest coastline. If we continue down this path, there may be a few more yards that close down. Britain builds its military vessels, China builds its military vessels, the U.S. builds its military vessels, Italy builds its military vessels, and so on. But with trade deals like this one and lack of action by the government, Canada may not be able to have the capacity in the future even to build our own Coast Guard or naval fleet. Would that not be a sad, sad day in Canada when we lose the ability to build our own domestic procurement for vessels that we so desperately need in Canada? I would like my hon. colleague from Windsor to respond to that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being able to respond to both domestic and external threats and having the structures in place to be able to handle that capacity are really important parts of a country's strategy. It is interesting that even at the best of times, as we have procurements outside of this country, we also become more vulnerable to timelines.

We are not only just vulnerable to the timelines and the manufacturer that we are buying from. Another country could jump the line on us, get the procurement that we had sought because their capacity had not been expanded and they were based on a business model over a series of years. They could jump the queue on Canada and get some of the vehicles, ships or whatever else we might be purchasing as a preference.

We have a strategic disadvantage there. It is important to recognize that this is also very much the psychological aspect of a nation being able to control its own destiny and for people to be a part of that. I will talk about the Navistar experience again. The people in the Chatham, Essex County and Kent County area want to be part of the people who assemble the vehicles that protect our nation and serve the people here and abroad. They want to be the men and women who do that. They obviously want jobs, as we all do, but they also want to be part of the process to defend our nation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the trade aspect of this legislation. It has been suggested before that certain industries get used as bargaining chips when Canada hits the trade negotiation table, whether it is with Europeans or the Americans. Certain industries are protected and other industries are not. Certain industries are accounted for and other ones are not.

As my hon. colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned, we see that the Americans, when negotiating with Canada, had all sorts of protections built around the safeguards of their shipbuilding industry. The Canadian negotiators accepted that and found that to be reasonable. We still negotiated with them, whereas on the Canadian side of the table, we presented no such similar measures to protect our own industry.

Not accounting for the same things that our allies are doing in the same negotiations seems to be a perpetual condition within Canada's bargaining position in international agreements. We see it here again. I wonder if the member can account for this strange lapse in judgment or national interest that is presented by Canadians over and over again.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if our negotiators have a poor self-esteem when they go into these negotiations, but it seems to be a common thing. I think it really goes to the philosophical element that we have had in the last 10 to 20 years in this country: if we just lower corporate taxes, everything will be okay and everything will be fine.

How well has it worked right now, when we have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in five years? Right now, we are actually borrowing money to pay for corporate tax cuts. That is what we are doing right now. We are going to borrow that money, incur the debt, and give the banks and oil companies, that are making profits right now, more of the money that our children will have to pay back.

It does not make any sense. All the taxpayers out there should be really upset about this fraudulent practice. Money should be reinvested back into purchasing assets that are going to recoup some value for taxpayers. Those could be ships that are going to serve our men and women, and protect our navy and coastlines.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have about four minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the principle of this debate before the House today is looking at an international trade agreement in its full aspects and zeroing in on one aspect of that agreement that needs greater consideration by the House.

It seems that the men and women who are involved in the shipbuilding industries of Canada would thank the members of this place to give it that due consideration. While our negotiators went forward and tasked this agreement together, which has many aspects, this one piece, and we have seen it as a precedent in agreements before, that the piece around the shipbuilding industry internationally is often protected on a national basis.

This speaks to a lack of a national dream or a national vision that the present government and previous governments have failed to express. When we lose sight of where we want the country to be in years to come, we simply allow that famous invisible hand to come in and adjust, manipulate and allow things to go where they will. Sometimes that works out but in some cases it does not.

When we look at an industry like the shipbuilding industry, which requires enormous amounts of investment and expertise that is not widespread, when we lose the people who know exactly what they are doing around a shipyard, they are so much harder to get back.

As every member of the House can attest, when any kind of announcement of a new company coming into any of our constituencies, particularly on value added and manufacturing, we celebrate the 25, 50 or 100 jobs. We think it is fantastic because it is good news and it so difficult to do.

We have witnessed over the last number of years, as the hon. member quoted, 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost. Some of them have been replaced by much lower paying jobs and very much less in value added jobs. There are members who are sitting in the House today who have witnessed that firsthand in their constituencies and who understand politically and economically how difficult it is to recover an industry once lost, how difficult it is to pull back the skilled workers, to re-encourage the investment and to bring the sense of optimism required to build those jobs in their constituencies and across this great country.

To lose those jobs and to simply say that it is part of an agreement that we need to sign on to and there is no consideration otherwise, is patently false. We have seen our trading partners do this with us time and time again. They identify key industries, as the Americans have done on shipbuilding and as the Europeans will do on shipbuilding in many circumstances, and say that those are unique industries that require government protection.

It seems that, regardless of the industry at this point, we have a government refusing to implement any kind of a national strategy. On the auto industry, for example, for years the New Democrats have called for an independent auto strategy to be built with the manufacturers and the labourers to design where the auto industry will be in years to come. Instead, we have the laissez-faire attitude of telling us not to worry and that everything will be fine. Well, it is not fine. It is simply not fine for the government to say that we are doing better comparatively than the others. We are doing terribly and it will only get worse.

The economic indicator that the government can point to right now says that things are looking up. It is high time that the government actually fulfilled its role and set the rules of the game and the parameters through things like trade policy and industrial strategies that give Canadians that renewed sense of hope. A penny on the GST is not doing it. Canadians know that because of the pink slips sitting in their mailboxes. They know that because they are not able to tell their families not too worry, that they know they are going through rough times but things will improve.

On this amendment, we can do something. We can express some future vision for our country. We can make an industry viable again and make it possible for Canadians to celebrate the actions of this place, rather than bemoan the lack of leadership they see from the benches of the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt at this point to tell the member he will have six minutes remaining when the House returns to this item.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

moved that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-273, affectionately known as the right to repair and affectionately because it would bring in a set of rules that would be very appropriate for this country to have. It deals with the aftermarket situation with regard to fixing automobiles and repairing them. It is an environmental issue, a consumer issue and a safety issue.

The bill seeks to make some changes to the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I want to read into the record some elements that are very important. However, before I do that, it is important to outline that I have been working on this bill for a couple of years. It is not a bill that just came out of the blue. It has been dealt with in terms of hearing from people across the country, ensuring the issue was something that needed addressing and ensuring there would be a required element of Parliament to move on the bill. I hope all members will look at this bill and the merit of it and endorse bringing it to committee for study and further work.

When I think about this bill and one of the key elements of it, I think of Nancy Suranyi. I went to her garage in Namao, Alberta, and that facility really showed another level to this. It is not only just about making sure consumers have the right to choose, but I found the public safety element very significant. In this facility, which requires this bill to move forward, there is everything, not only with regard to just vehicles for personal recreational use but also school buses and other types of public service vehicles where safety is required.

What is the consumer's right to a repair bill? The vehicle manufacturers are restricting access to tools, training and software to the aftermarket industry due to the increased sophistication of today's vehicles. It is gradually becoming more difficult for independent repair facilities to access the information and develop the skills required to service vehicles. By resolving some of this information for dealership networks, vehicle manufacturers are putting the aftermarket industry at an unfair disadvantage. The aftermarket market has made significant efforts in recent years to negotiate with vehicle manufacturers in order to find a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the majority of vehicle manufacturers in Canada are unwilling to negotiate an industry-led solution and have little impetus to do so. The AIA has exhausted industry-led solutions and is now requesting the Government of Canada to intervene in order to restore the balance between the dealership network and the independent repair facilities.

It is important to note that the intent here, especially if we look at other parliamentary action we are taking, is to help the dealers as well. One of the things we are requesting is to pursue a new vehicle purchasing and procurement policy as part of a stimulus package to get more automobiles on the road that are more modern and will actually help the dealers. Therefore, this is very much done in balance.

What is the problem? Vehicle manufacturers are restricting access to the tools, training and diagnostic and repair codes to independent installers, preventing them from repairing late model vehicles. This effectively eliminates choice.

Over 18 million vehicles are on the road in Canada today and approximately 59% of them are equipped with onboard diagnostic capabilities, referred to as OBD-II. The ratio will increase over time. The number of vehicle components monitored by the OBD-II will also continue to increase. The tools and the software required to access the computer control units on vehicles have become increasingly proprietary. Vehicle design processes are also more sophisticated. The use of exotic materials and the changes in welding and assembly technologies make it necessary for independent repair shops to access factory specific training and tools. Consumer choice is evaporating and the impact of growing dealer monopoly is significant.

Fewer choices mean higher repair costs and many repairs will be delayed or ignored altogether, putting highway safety at risk and increasing the risk of poor quality emissions. Also, fewer choices mean lower productivity. The existing dealer network does not have the capacity to repair all vehicles on the road today. This means longer waiting times and increased travel distances for consumers, especially in rural communities.

Fewer choices mean instability. Independent repair facilities are primarily small enterprises found across Canada and many are located in small towns and rural areas. If this problem is not solved, many small businesses may be forced out of business within the next five years.

Fewer choices mean that emission standards for vehicles will not be maintained, leading to more pollution and contributing to other environmental problems.

Fewer choices endanger public safety because the safety mechanisms and the functions on the vehicle will be at risk of not being properly maintained, putting not only drivers and passengers at risk but also pedestrians and property owners.

It is important to note that this is a situation unique to Canada. I live very close to the border. When I walk down the front steps of my house and look to the left I can see Detroit, Michigan. It is literally two miles away. The river is two miles wide. Ironically, I could get my car repaired at an independent garage in Detroit within a matter of minutes and yet I could not do the same in Canada. What is also ironic is the fact that the repair technician working on my vehicle in the United States could have less training than a repair technician in Canada because Canada has some of the highest qualification requirements. Our technicians get their training in independent garages.

I want to thank Danielle Grech, Andre Chamberlain and Daniel Clement who attended the press conference here. These technicians had never done a public press conference before and, despite that, came to the nation's capital and took part in the public forum. They talked about the fact that even though they were professionally trained, they found it difficult to service people's vehicles. They talked about the fact that they had gone to school and received the necessary training and met the necessary requirements, but because of technical problems related to an industry that could not find consensus, they were not able to compete in a fair and open process.

What is at stake here is the thousands of people who are affected by this industry. They know they will see diminished opportunities, not because of competition or because of other issues, but because they do not have the ability to be in a market that allows them to do so, which is why Canada needs to change this.

The U.S. environmental protection act requires the manufacturer to provide this kind of information.

I want to ensure all members in the House understand that I am not asking for something free. The legislation would require a fair payment system. We want to protect intellectual property. We want to ensure these things will be maintained. There is a clear effort from the groups supporting the bill to have a basic set of principles that will be accountable.

In the United States, people can easily download any of the software they need for a vehicle with just a credit card purchase. In Canada, a vehicle in an independent shop would need to be towed to a dealership because independent shops cannot simply download a simple program.

Vehicles now have increased computerization that require more of this type of atmosphere. Things like tire pressure could be affected in terms of whether a vehicle can be serviced at a particular facility or not.

The bill has been looked at through a lot of different lenses. I want to read some of names of the organizations that are supporting the bill: the Retail Council of Canada; Pollution Probe; the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; Corporation des Carrossiers Professionnels du Québec; the Canadian Independent Automotive Association; the Barrie Automotive Repair Association; the Grey Bruce Independent Automotive Repair Association; Association des marchands de véhicules d'occasion du Québec; the Ontario Tire Dealers Association; Motorist Assurance Program; Automotive Oil Change Association; Atlantic Tire Dealers Association; Independent Garage Operators Association; Western Canada Tire Dealers Association and the Windsor Professional Automotive Repair Association. The list also includes associations in Kawartha, Sudbury, and western Canada.

I would be remiss if I did not thank John Sawatsky and Dave Santing from my local riding who have been pushing this issue and have been doing some very good work in terms of public policy.

The bill is not just about being fair to consumers, it is also about public safety. Repairs to municipal vehicles, ambulances and regular vehicles are being done In Dave's garage, in my riding. To keep his business going, he specializes in certain vehicles, as well as regular vehicles in order for him to make ends meet. It is important to note that not all car companies are like this but some are better than others.

I would note that General Motors is not opposing this bill and is one of the better companies that has provided information about this. There needs to be a clear accountability system. People need to access some of these programs, services and tools.

I spoke with Nancy Suranyi in Edmonton, Alberta. She had recently sent a team of employees to the United States to get the training, qualifications and equipment because they were not available here. There is a grey market aspect. Companies would love to train Canadians on their own soil. That is part of what is necessary to make sure we have a modernized fleet and will continue to see the issues addressed.

One of the issues is emissions. In Ontario there are a number of different clean air and drive programs. We need to make sure that small and medium size businesses are certified as well so that greenhouse gas emissions are lowered. A lot of vehicles will stay on the road for many years and they need to be function as cleanly and efficiently as possible. It is critical for controlling smog and greenhouse gas emissions.

Pollution Probe is supporting the bill. I want to read a statement that it generously provided to me:

Pollution Probe supports the “Right to Repair” Act presented by...M.P., Windsor West. Minimizing emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from vehicles into the environment is a responsibility shared by government, automakers and drivers. An important step that drivers can take to minimize emissions is to keep their vehicle in a state of good repair and ensure that their vehicle's emissions control system is functioning properly. It is important that drivers have effective access to required vehicle maintenance and service in this regard. To the extent that the “Right to Repair” Act facilitates this objective, Pollution Probe supports this action.

That was written by Mr. Bob Oliver, executive director of Pollution Probe.

That is important recognition as we move toward cleaner running vehicles. There are more on the market. Hopefully we will see some of the newer models. Some of the better vehicles are emerging but many Canadians will not be able to purchase new vehicles. What do we do about that situation? Do we allow a slow strangulation of independent associations, or do we provide a set of rules so they can compete? It is critical for consumers who have bought vehicles. They may have extended warranties or they may decide to go to an independent facility later on to obtain that service.

It does not make any sense for our air quality that because a simple program cannot be downloaded in one facility, a tow truck has to be hired to transport a vehicle across the city to a dealership. That does not make any sense. It is also a drag on productivity in Canada. We need to make sure the individuals working in the facilities are doing so in an efficient way. Adding extra hours of labour on top of a simple procedure like that is not helpful to anyone. It is not going to make Canada competitive. It is certainly going to cause more congestion and will lead to more problems. It does not make any sense.

Nobody understands our roads better than the CAA. The CAA has been a very active element in Canadian society. It has provided the following statement:

CAA represents over 5 million motorists across the country. Our main concern on the “Right to Repair” issue is to ensure that automobile owners have the opportunity to choose and get the best possible service at a fair price. This bill will benefit the consumer by allowing for increased competition and consumer choice.

I want to thank all the individuals who have put their support behind this bill. The bill is intended to make significant improvements in terms of our economy and create a level playing field. Other countries have done so and I do not think Canada should be put at a disadvantage because other people cannot get their act together.

I have spoken about the automotive industry in the House for a number of years. I have been pushing for a greener, stronger automotive industry in Canada. The bill fits with that. That is why I hope it will pass this stage and go to committee. I believe it is an improvement for Canadians.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, prior to being elected to the House, I spent my adult life on the retail side of the auto industry. I served on the CADA's industry relations board and I served as chair of the Suzuki Dealer Advisory Board. I can say unequivocally that an overwhelming number of manufacturers, including Chrysler, are opposed to this bill. It is deeply flawed. It is very wide ranging and makes seriously flawed amendments to things like the Competition Act and so forth.

I would like to ask the member if he has considered the implications on the Chrysler dealer network. He stood yesterday and talked about 1,500 Chrysler workers being laid off. Has he considered the implications of his bill on the Chrysler new car dealer network right across this country and what negative effect it has on dealers when the cars are sold that his CAW members built?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comment.

First of all, it is 1,200 workers that get laid off, but I am sure that with their policies, the Conservatives will make sure it is 1,500 in no time.

We have to have a level playing field. This will not hurt car sales. This will not provide some type of a downturn. In fact, it will provide for a fairer system.

There are other government policies the member could bring in but chooses not to, to get better procurement out there. His party's former minister, David Emerson, promised an auto strategy. He promised that when he was a Liberal and then he flip-flopped and crossed the floor to the Conservatives. He promised that policy and never acted upon it. Canada does not have a plan right now for our auto industry. If it is suffering right now, it is because we have no plan.

There are ministers wandering around Washington right now. I would encourage the member, just like General Motors and ironically, Suzuki, to provide access to this information. All we are asking for is a fair set of rules for all of those out there, and that can be done in an accountable way. All we are asking for is a fair set of rules.

I believe the member's family has a dealership. They should think about this issue because General Motors has set an example, but the problem is that the rest of the automotive groups out there have not been able to form a consensus.

The hope of this bill is to bring forth a policy that is accountable and fair so that people can compete in an open market.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for introducing this bill in the effort to find a balance. I reflect on the debate we had between generic and non-generic drugs.

My question is similarly intended. The individuals who have come to see me who are opposed to this bill have indicated that in one particular respect, that is, the investment with respect to software proprietary rights and so on, there should be some consideration given to the manufacturers that have made those investments. Then there is the commercialization issue that comes into it. Could the member express how that balance similarly can be achieved through this bill?

The issue of training and safety has been brought forward. The member has talked a little about that, but does he think that training and safety will be placed at risk in terms of protection for the consumer?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a purchase requirement through the actual element of this bill, so that one would have to pay for that service or equipment, or that actual information. There would be money going back to the proprietor. It is very important to protect that element.

With regard to training and safety, that is a great point. Many Canadians head down to the United States every single year, and if they have car problems, they get the car fixed at different places by people who have fewer qualifications than Canadians. They come home and they cannot get the same services here by those same independent organizations. It does not make any sense. Over here on the Canadian side, we have better training, better scrutiny, and we also have a process that is blocked. However, if one heads into the United States and has a car problem, the vehicle can be fixed by someone who could be less qualified and that vehicle will be back on Canadian roads.