Gordon Earle

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question.

I agree that important things are happening, but it is thanks to the opposition, not the government.

I feel very strongly that we should be optimistic and we should look forward to something happening on a positive basis. The hon. member before asked me whether I felt there was any hope the government would address this problem adequately. I have to be quite honest. While we in the opposition would like to see some changes and see something positive take place, I have seen very little encouragement come from the government side that it is going to move in a very real way to make the shipbuilding industry a viable industry for the people in Atlantic Canada and on the west coast.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have to answer the question in the negative. I do not see any hope with the present government that we will move ahead on this issue unless there is a drastic change in events and a drastic change in the government's opinion.

As the member has rightly indicated, statements have been made in the past. When people were in opposition they said one thing but then suddenly they took a different approach when they became the government. Time and time again I have said it is very important that if we as politicians are going to have any credibility with the people who elect us, we must not be hypocritical. We must not say one thing and do another. We must not make promises while we are in opposition and do something different when we are in government.

The government has to look strongly at its past statements and live up to those statements and move this issue forward in a positive way.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important motion so I am going to read it again.

That this House calls on the government to develop a new national shipbuilding policy to support the revitalization of the Canadian shipbuilding industry by maintaining and advancing the degree of excellence and the technologies for which Canada is historically renowned, given that Canada has the longest coastline of any nation in the world and that historically Canadians are among the finest shipbuilders in the world.

The motion has been very well crafted and it says a lot. It is important that all of us give serious consideration to it this afternoon.

Undoubtedly there is a need for a national shipbuilding policy. I say that in all sincerity. Many times I have questioned the government with respect to a shipbuilding policy and I have often got back the reply that we do not need a policy, that we already have a policy. Yet, this policy seems to be long forthcoming. I requested a copy of the policy quite some time ago through the standing committee. I was told that it would be made available but I have yet to see anything.

What the government has is not a shipbuilding policy per se but a mishmash of little initiatives here and there which it can remotely tie into the concept of shipbuilding and it calls this a policy. What we are looking for when we talk about a national shipbuilding policy is something that is very clear and concise, that sets a sense of direction and gives hope and optimism to the people who work in the shipbuilding field.

Ships have been sailing between Canadian ports for many years. We believe firmly that they should be built in Canada, crewed in Canada and serviced and repaired in Canada. We know that the U.S. has the Jones act which ensures this for its industry, but we in Canada for some reason seem to want to go in a different direction. We do not want to ensure a sound industry for our citizens.

On December 31, 1996 there were 2,589 ships on order around the world. Yet shipbuilders on both coasts of Canada sit idle. One has to ask oneself why this is so. When there are so many ships being built around the world, why is it that in Canada, which has been historically known for its shipbuilding and technology in that regard, the shipyards are idle?

The U.S. provides generous long term loan guarantees for buyers. There are many other initiatives it takes to ensure the industry survives in that country.

On October 29, 1990 the right hon. Prime Minister, while he was in opposition, wrote a letter to the marine workers federation in which he said “It is safe to say that most people recognize that something has to be done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as they should have done long ago and indeed as they promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problem”. The Prime Minister wrote that when he was in opposition. We heard quite a different story today from the government side in terms of what has to be done and the importance of doing something now to maintain this industry and to help it survive.

Employment in this industry has plummeted from 12,000 workers in 1990 to fewer than 5,000 in 1996. I would venture that today it has probably gone even lower.

Why is it in this day and age when there is so much unemployment we cannot do something positive to aid people to find the necessary work to feed their families and look after themselves? Coastal communities are facing economic stagnation and chronic unemployment. We see it in the fisheries industry. Now the same thing is happening in the shipbuilding industry.

We should look at ways of making sure the shipbuilding industry survives and picks up. We can bring in tough environmental standards, such as calling for double hulls. That would create employment and work within this area.

We note that the Liberal red book in 1993 called for provisional funds for the shipbuilding industry. Today we do not see anything happening in that regard.

The premiers in August 1997 unanimously passed a resolution aimed at helping the Canadian shipbuilding industry become more competitive on the international scene.

Even more recently we had a meeting here on the hill with the shipbuilding industry, the workers, management, the associations and so forth. All the parties except the government joined with these people to look seriously at what could be done to help this ailing industry, what could be done to put men and women back to work, and what could be done to ensure that our children had a secure future in the Atlantic provinces and on the west coast.

We have to ask ourselves, what is the problem? Perhaps part of the problem is that the majority of the members on the government side come from a province where they do not appreciate the importance of our marine industry, where perhaps they do not appreciate the importance of shipbuilding to the Atlantic and Pacific areas. This may be part of the problem. We know certainly that where there is a will and an understanding, there is a way to resolve these problems.

We have the equipment and the skilled workers. This is the important point. We have a battery of workers who are skilled, willing and able and wanting to work. Nowadays people are criticized far too often for being on the welfare rolls as people who do not want to work, who have no industry, no ambition or whatever. This is not the case with the shipbuilding workers. They have indicated over and over again that they want to work. They want to be productive members of society. They want to put into reality their experience, technology and skills.

We have the equipment and we have the workers, but do we have a government with the will to stand up for Canada's shipbuilding industry? No. If we did have such a government, we would see this industry moving forward.

A national policy should include such things as loan guarantees, fixed and comparable interest rates, long term amortization, and regulations to ensure that ships that are delivered to or from Canadian ports are subject to Canadian rules on health, safety and environmental standards. This is very important.

The shipbuilding personnel and the people involved in the industry whom we met with made it very clear that they are not looking for any handouts. They do not want handouts. They want to contribute their skills in a meaningful way to help this country move forward. Those individuals are sincere when they say that. We know these individuals and we know them to be honourable people.

For some reason it appears the government has a distrust of the shipbuilding industry and the people involved in it. The Liberals are constantly saying that they cannot subsidize the industry, that they do not want to do this or that. I assure everyone this is not what these people are asking for. All they are asking for is a fair chance, a fair opportunity to put forward a program that they know, based on their experience, will work and help make Canada a more productive society.

We have the workers but unfortunately we do not have a government with the will to help them. Many countries have shipbuilding and industrial strategies and policies. For example, the United States, France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Korea and China all have their specific shipbuilding industry policies. Is Canada so backward that we cannot match these countries and come forward with a strong policy of our own to ensure work for our citizens? I would say we are not.

We need some leadership to be shown by the government to give this matter its due consideration. The government should work together with the industry, work with all those who are interested in supporting the industry and make sure we move ahead. We know that where there is a will, there will be a way.

[National Housing Act, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 1 motions concerning Bill C-66. I should say right from the start that we are opposed to these amendments.

These amendments attempt to deal with limiting the powers of CMHC in the commercial insurance market. It is interesting to note that of these six amendments, several were suggested by GE Capital in material that was sent out to MPs.

We are concerned about the effect of multinational companies taking over and influencing the direction in which housing should go. We notice that the federal government has already stepped back from the area of social housing. That has certainly given rise to the problem we see in our society today with respect to so many homeless people and the conditions that exist in so many of our communities.

There are a lot of communities throughout Canada where people do not have adequate shelter over their heads. We know how very important housing is to every aspect of a child's life. Children growing up without proper shelter, squeezed into bedrooms that house more than they should, or perhaps children not even having an adequate bedroom, all of these things impact upon the child's ability to pursue their education at school and to interact socially with others. These things come together to create some of the social conditions we see today, the many tragic incidents that are taking place across our country. We wonder how these things can take place and many times it comes right back to the root cause that those very basic necessities of life are not being provided.

We are very much opposed to things which would limit the potential for social housing and for the government to play a role. The question here is whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the large foreign owned multinational companies, or are we on the side of Canadian families who are looking for affordable decent housing?

If some of these amendments were to go through, it would certainly create a climate that would push CMHC to move away from that kind of risk market and into areas where it felt more secure. It would back even further away from helping with social housing.

We cannot say enough about how important it is that the federal government get back into the area of social housing to provide much needed accommodation right across our country. Lots of times when backing away from something people look at the budgetary reasons and say, “We have to get this deficit down. We have to cut back so we can bring the finances in line”. They forget that by cutting so deep, quite often they make the situation worse.

It is similar to a doctor who performs an operation and in cutting away a cancer cuts too deep into the bone and creates another problem. We know if we cut back on the programs to such an extent that we do not have adequate housing, then those other problems I mentioned earlier follow, people not being able to pursue their education, people becoming discouraged about looking for work. The social problems of people living on the streets, problems of drugs, needles and getting diseases because of unsanitary conditions, all of these things will develop. It escalates.

It is very important that the government assume its responsibility and role and makes sure there is adequate housing for all.

All through this bill there are provisions which would remove any direct government involvement in providing housing for those in need. Instead of parliament or even the cabinet making decisions about how best to provide affordable housing, that authority has been delegated to an appointed board of directors at the CMHC. Again we are into this whole area of privatizing everything which is something that disturbs me quite a bit.

In too many areas of public or social responsibility the government is cutting back and privatizing, putting it out into the private sector. Consequently government is losing control of the things that are really within its responsibility to make sure they are preserved in the best interests of society at large.

We have to look very closely at this whole process where everything is put out into the private sector as if it could be done better there than being maintained in the public sector. When that is done, we are actually putting a vote of non-confidence in our public service and in the people who work within that service. We are saying they cannot do things as well as private business or private industry.

The group of amendments that we are looking at and the kind of changes in this legislation are all geared in the direction of giving favour to the private industry as opposed to building up and enhancing our public service and getting the programs that are required so that all people can have adequate and affordable housing.

[Heroin Prescription Trials, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the government were an individual Canadian, it would have been forced into bankruptcy long ago. If the government were a small business, the shop would have been boarded up for some time now. The government sees fit to waste taxpayer money with seemingly little regard and with even less respect.

On February 16, 1999, I challenged the Minister of National Defence on the issue of Canada's submarine purchase. The price the government has led the Canadian taxpayer to believe it will spend on our new submarines is $750 million, but it appears the actual cost could be closer to $2 billion.

Imagine a Canadian small business underestimating its cost by over two and one-half times the original estimate when it budgeted for new equipment. No respectable business could stand such gross financial mismanagement time and time again. However, that is exactly how the government treats its own books and how it treats taxpayers.

I wish the only problem with this deal was the cost, but the big picture is even worse. The Liberal government's priorities are so far out of whack it is hard to conceive how it must have gone about making decisions.

Let me ask why we are buying four used submarines and how this decision fits into the role our forces will play early in the 21st century.

Two of the suggested roles, drug surveillance and fisheries patrol, are clearly dubious at best. Does the government really think that increased submarine capability would have stopped the turbot war? The proposed third reason for protecting our sovereignty under the ice cap would require an incredibly expensive refit.

What about the cost of technical data and crew training? What about the cost of infrastructure refit and development to be able to house the submarines? What about the need, as I have mentioned, to refit them with air independent propulsion so they can work under the ice without frequent resurfacing?

Furthermore, what will we do when these submarines break down? The production line for these submarines has ended and to get parts must we then cannibalize one of the four submarines we are purchasing? What about the cost of changing the communication suites to be compatible with the Auroras and helicopters?

I will detail my estimates and I trust the government will choose to do the same in its response: acquisition costs of $800 million; shore facilities and modification, $200 million; routine refits over the life of the program, $1 billion; and air independent propulsion system, $1 billion. This totals $3 billion and if we add 30 years of operating costs at approximately $2.7 billion, the grand total is $5.7 billion or over seven times the cost to the taxpayer that the government is touting.

What about the big picture itself? The government needs to answer a question to the people of my riding of Halifax West, to Nova Scotians and to all other Canadians. How does this expenditure stand up against the need for adequate pay and housing conditions for Canadian forces personnel so desperately needed and so terribly missing? It is true there has been some money infused as a result of the recent report of a committee, but yet there is a long way to go.

How does this stand up against the need for immediate attention to finding a substitute for the flying accidents waiting to happen or the Sea Kings and Labrador helicopters? People deserve an answer and they are waiting.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. He spoke about the peacekeeping force and I am sure he heard earlier the hon. minister speak about that force as well.

Would the hon. member, being on the government side, have any knowledge of whether or not the Russians have been informed of this massing of troops? Would he feel that might jeopardize or impair ongoing diplomatic efforts?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my question will be very brief. With respect to the 800 troops that will be deployed, the minister mentioned combat capable. Does this mean these troops will be armed? Second, where will these troops be coming from, which particular area of Canada, which base?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time for questions to be put to the minister by about five minutes.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with intent to the hon. member's discourse. He expressed some concern about the NDP position on this issue. The NDP's position has been consistent from day one. We want peace. We are simply by this motion calling on the government to intensify and accelerate diplomatic efforts to bring about this peace.

The hon. member also expressed concern, and quite rightly so, about the devastation and destruction that is taking place in Yugoslavia.

The hon. member asked what kind of message we are giving to Milosevic. Does the member feel that the message we are putting forth, a strong desire for peace and a desire to use every diplomatic effort to obtain peace and end the destruction is wrong?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am receiving, as I am sure many of our colleagues are, countless letters from people across Canada who are concerned about the situation and who are urging that peace be our main goal in this particular conflict.

People are expressing concern about the environmental damage that is taking place, the destruction of schools, the destruction of historic buildings and all those casualties that go along with the kind of conflict we see taking place. I am receiving lots of letter in that regard.