Antoine Dubé

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the fact that the Liberals are not questioning the party that brought forward this motion in favour of a shipbuilding policy this morning is a sign of openness on their part. I hope it is.

I just wanted to react to a remark made by my colleague from Chicoutimi, to tell him that I do not always agree with him. Sometimes, in the political arena, it is normal to be in opposition, to have democratic debates, and so on. On the issue of commitments, a Liberal member opposite said they were made in 1988.

I was a candidate in 1993 and I recall very clearly watching on television the Liberal candidate for Quebec City, who is now the Prime Minister's chief of staff, when he said “We will adopt a shipbuilding policy, hold a summit in the following year, and put in place concrete measures to revitalize the Canadian shipbuilding industry”. That is all I wanted to say.

The member for Chicoutimi has had experience in the previous government. Does he think it would be possible, if the government really wanted to do it, to renegotiate the free trade agreement to include shipbuilding? Canada has been in favour of its inclusion since the beginning.

Does the member think that, with all that is being done in the WTO and the OECD, the United States might be open to the idea of including shipbuilding in the free trade agreement? If so, does he think it would be a good thing, considering the weakness of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar, and does he agree with me that Canadians shipyards could benefit?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax West for his remarks. I understand his concerns about shipbuilding, because, in his region, a lot of people work there.

However, I do not share his pessimism over the impossibility of influencing the government to change its policy and its current attitude.

I can see positive signs at the moment. By way of example, the four opposition parties seem to support the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party.

The three main unions representing shipbuilders in Canada are in agreement. They even agree with their employers at the shipbuilders' association. Shipowners agree. All the provincial premiers agree. The Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, who will be calling elections soon, agrees. At their latest convention, the members of the Liberal Party managed to vote a resolution in favour of having a policy on shipbuilding.

I must watch my words, but the Minister of Finance's situation is rather unique, and he does not dare go too far ahead, being himself involved in the sector.

However, I do not share my colleague's pessimism and I would like him to react to my question.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer very briefly, since I do not have a lot of time.

The MPs who joined together to discuss this matter say that we would have to get back to the 10,000 to 12,000 job level we had in the past. At the present time, we are operating at only 40% of capacity. These are well-paid jobs, but no more so than in other countries. We are competitive. Even in constant U.S. dollar levels, wages here are no higher than elsewhere, with the exception of Korea.

The most important thing is the economic fallout of those jobs. In the export sector for instance, the number of jobs that would be created in Canada would be fourfold.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clear something up. I presented Bill C-493—it already has a number—on April 15. I have been seeking members' support ever since. This week, I am already close to the 100 signatures I need to have the bill introduced for debate more quickly.

As for the idea of a court, that would be consistent with what I said earlier about a summit, or negotiations with the United States. It is one suggestion that could be made as part of the negotiations to have Canadian shipbuilding included in the free trade agreement.

I would remind the House that, at the time, it was the United States that wanted shipbuilding excluded. The Progressive Conservative government of the day could not persuade them otherwise. They have two associations, one representing the seven or eight largest shipyards, and the other representing the others, and one of the two associations would not budge. At the time, the Republicans controlled the Senate and Congress and the idea was therefore defeated.

I will conclude by thanking the member for Fundy—Royal, the member for Saint John, and the New Democratic Party members for their excellent co-operation and their devoted efforts on this issue. Reform Party members were initially hesitant about a shipbuilding policy.

If we all put the national interest first, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry will at last be able to convince his colleagues to adopt a truly national shipbuilding policy.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to debate the motion introduced by the PC member for Saint John.

The motion reads as follows:

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.

An amendment was introduced to add the word “immediately”. And a good thing. Back in 1993, after the general election, when the Liberal Party was fresh from the opposition, I remember hearing the Prime Minister's current executive assistant say on TV that we absolutely needed a national shipbuilding policy, and that sometime in the coming year, that was in 1994, a summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada should be held because the situation was urgent.

Naturally a summit would involve representatives from the shipbuilding industry. In terms of numbers, shipyards, small and big ones, account for 4,000 jobs. At one point, however, the industry employed up to 12,000 workers. A summit would also involve people for the shipping industry as a whole.

Who makes up the shipping industry? Shipowners, of course, and sailors. People who tow boats in harbours, and shipping companies. Even today, they represent 40,000 workers. This is no small industry.

Contrary to what my colleague from the Reform Party just said, the shipbuilding industry is not exclusively located by the Atlantic ocean or on the St. Lawrence, in Quebec City. There is the Pacific Ocean out west.

If we consider how interrelated the entire industry is, goods are also shipped by ship, as far as Thunder Bay. The western grain producers ship from Thunder Bay to other countries, in Europe and elsewhere.

The word “national” is not superfluous in this case, as the national interest is at stake. It is a national transportation mode, like rail, road and, of course, air transportation.

But which one of all these industries costs the least per tonne? The maritime shipping industry. Which is the most economical, the most environmentally sound, the most accident-free, and the one in the past that was most respectful of the environment because of the gross tonnage of each vessel? The maritime shipping industry.

As I told the hon. member for Saint John, and as the motion states, we have the world's longest coastline. We also have the St. Lawrence Seaway, which goes as far as the tip of Lake Superior, and constitutes the longest navigable waterway in the world. This should be a considerable plus for Canada. Navigable waterways may be one of the greatest natural resources we have.

In my opinion, the St. Lawrence is far more than that. It is the backbone of Canada's economic development. What does it do? It carries freight right across Canada from the port of Halifax to the markets of the U.S. From the Great Lakes, freight travels down the Mississippi and the Missouri to other water routes in the heartland of the major world market the United States represents.

My congratulations again to the Progressive Conservative Party for choosing shipbuilding as the topic today. That enables us to show that this is a truly national issue, more than just local interests or a fight against seasonal unemployment. It is strategic and vital economic development. Often in government, here in Ottawa, officials and politicians live in—I was going to say their shell—their own world and often forget the regions.

They say that it is a traditional industry, outdated, a lame duck. But when people know about it as I do or as does the member for Saint John or the parliamentary secretary, they know it is not the case. The parliamentary secretary knows too that in shipbuilding, they are as technologically advanced as in the aerospace industry. A ship has as many computers as a plane, even more. Navigation is by satellite, in the same way. The qualifications required for jobs are the same too. It is not an outdated field.

I would like to take two minutes to talk about the situation worldwide. What is happening in the world? There are Asian shipyards, where ships are subsidized as much as 30%. This is wrong. European shipyards get a 9% subsidy, and the small ones, 16%. We must speak out against this. Canada is complaining about it through the OECD, but as the United States opposes this policy, what do the European countries do while the OECD tries to convince the Americans to support this policy? They subsidize their shipyards. We are not saying that, no one here is saying that. Here we talk about tax measures.

And what are the Americans doing? There is the Jones act, and also title XI, which is a program for shipyards specifically. Finally, I drew on this for the financing program, which is exactly 87.5%. That is exactly what the Americans do. There is nothing scandalous about this. This is what they do. When it comes to refundable tax credits, this is what Quebec does. I weigh my words carefully when I say refundable. These are not subsidies. The parliamentary secretary has studied the leasing measures in depth.

He is obviously a little shaken by our arguments or the pressure exerted by us or by the union front all across the country.

The Americans are doing something worse that is detrimental to us. They do not allow Canadian shipbuilders to enjoy the same benefit as their American counterparts, who are not charged anything. The fact that shipbuilding was excluded from the free trade agreement is a national tragedy. Not many members knew about this, but it is a fact.

If shipbuilding had been included in the free trade agreement, and considering the exchange rate with the U.S. dollar, the contracts signed by Canadian shipyards would be incredibly lucrative. But this cannot be changed through legislation. Negotiations are required to make changes to an agreement.

We would need a summit, as the Liberals had planned in 1993. However, six years later, in 1999, they seem to have forgotten all about it.

A coalition of unions was organized across the country. A large number of Canadians signed postal cards, which the Prime Minister will soon receive.

It is no longer just the Bloc Quebecois member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière whining alone in his corner, but all the opposition members, with the exception of the parliamentary secretary, because there are only Liberals in Ontario. But where there is a shipyard, the riding is represented by a member of the opposition. Given their small majority in the House—only five members more than all the opposition parties put together—they should do something about this issue, because the two-year deadline is drawing near.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it cannot be said that the parliamentary secretary does not care about the shipbuilding industry. There is a shipyard in his own riding. I met with him during the summer. He is worried about the industry, but he seems to be the only Liberal that is. He is unable to convince his colleagues to do what the shipbuilding industry and unions would like them to do.

What is stopping the Liberal Party from holding the shipbuilding industry summit Liberal candidates promised during the 1993 election campaign? They were talking about the following year, 1994, but five years have gone by.

It could be dismissed as an election promise but, more recently, members of the Liberal Party from the maritimes also called for something to be done for shipbuilding, for a good policy to be developed.

Again, just recently, the Liberal premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Thériault, criticized the Minister of Industry's attitude. The minister always says that he has a good policy but, if it is as good as all that, why is the shipbuilding industry operating at only 40% of capacity?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Saint John on her motion and speech, which echo Bloc Quebecois sentiments.

However, I would tend to agree with the parliamentary secretary. I think that the Mulroney government did not have enough time to implement certain solutions. It had begun to propose a rationalization of shipyards and had approached all provincial governments with shipyards in Canada. Quebec took action. We had three major shipyards, one in Sorel, one in Longueuil, and one in Lévis, and all operations were shifted to Lévis.

I would like to know why the maritimes have not fully rationalized shipyards.

[Issue Of Ceremonial Statements Of Service Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on March 11 of this year, I asked the secretary of state responsible for agriculture a question regarding shipbuilding, but I got an answer from the Minister of Industry instead.

I remind members that the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food and Fisheries and Oceans is also the member for Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet and that his riding is next to mine.

When there were 3,000 workers at the Lévis shipyard, 500 of them came from his riding. A lot of people from his riding have individually or collectively reminded him of that. I honestly think that the secretary of state responsible for agriculture, who is also a cabinet member, has tried to convince his cabinet colleagues to adopt a new shipbuilding policy.

I have noticed that other members in the House have tried to do certain things too, including the Minister of Labour who, recently, commissioned a study on the status of shipyards in Atlantic Canada.

Recently, I have seen a certain openness on the part of these two people. Being a member of the industry committee, I have also noticed recently a certain openness on the part of the Liberal majority, which accepted to include shipbuilding in a productivity study, and I am very happy about that. I obviously would have liked something more specific, broader, but it is an opening.

However, the Minister of Industry failed to be as open. Yet recently, he said “If the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has something to propose, other than grants, I will agree to examine it”.

That is exactly what I did on April 15 when I introduced, like my colleague opposite did a while ago, a private member's bill, which may come up for debate.

People are mobilizing all over, and support has come from the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, Camille Thériault, who has asked to meet the Prime Minister of Canada. This follows on the fact that his predecessor, Mr. McKenna, had put the same issue on the agenda of a first ministers' conference two years ago. Even activists in the Liberal Party of Canada, people from the Atlantic, managed to have a similar position approved.

When, once again, will there be real policy on shipbuilding with additional measures that will make Canadian shipyards more competitive?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would simply, in the spirit of my other questions, ask the parliamentary secretary if she is not bothered by the idea of taking pension funds belonging to those who contributed to it. Finally, what will the money the government is going to recover be used for?

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for Joliette.

I seconded this motion because I think it makes a lot of sense. One could even ask why what it proposes is not already in practice.

The motion proposes that a standing committee hold public hearings on every proposed procurement valued at more than $100 million. This would probably come under the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. There would therefore be witnesses, people who would ask questions in order to examine all aspects of such procurement. One hundred million dollars is a lot of money. The government would do well to be transparent.

Speaking of national defence, we can see in the Kosovo crisis that one of the problems of this government is a lack of transparency in its actions, the paucity of information it provides. Ultimately, we should perhaps not expect to be given strategic information in wartime.

I had to replace the member for Joliette on the committee. He almost never misses committee meetings. He is extremely available and devoted to his work. Approximately one month ago, however, he asked me to replace him on the defence committee. At the time, the committee was examining government contracts and defence procurement.

National Defence representatives, officials and military personnel appeared as witnesses. I was surprised at the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of obtaining information, about the breakdown by province of military equipment procurement, for instance.

We were given a few examples. If memory serves, there were about 50 budgets and, at the most, three breakdowns. It is interesting for members, who represent their riding, of course, but also their region and their province, to know how the money is distributed. I was able to question witnesses on regional impacts.

Why did the member for Joliette ask me to replace him? Quite simply because I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development. I therefore wanted to see the defence budgets, the impact they could have on a region.

This information seems to be a state secret. Yet I was not questioning them with a view to finding out what the equipment looked like or what it was made of, or to obtain military secrets. If that had been the case, I could understand. There is no question of telling all, of making everything public, when dealing with defence matters. It is important, however, to know how the money is distributed, what companies and how many jobs are involved. Questions have to be asked about how defence budgets are allocated and decided upon.

I also asked how these things were assessed and by whom. Departmental officials said that they had committees, that studies were commissioned and that the findings were submitted to cabinet. An interesting discovery we make while reading the auditor general's report is that taxpayers from Canada and Quebec can expect to spend large sums of money on projects over the next few months. That means there is a lot of money to be spent each year and, over the next few years, more equipment will have to be replaced.

The report also says that cabinet did not always rely on the findings from studies commissioned by the Department of National Defence. The findings from studies, whether in-house or conducted by firms outside DND, should be used. The auditor general noted, however, that decisions made by cabinet were seldom based on these studies, which is absolutely deplorable.

Regarding the choice of criteria, officials told me that studies were taken into account, but that decisions were primarily based on the political judgement of cabinet members.

When small amounts are involved, I can understand that it may not always be necessary to call for public tenders. But for contracts of $100 million or more, as the member for Joliette said, it seems to me that tendering should be considered.

In fact, I think the member for Joliette is a little bit too reasonable. If I have one criticism to voice regarding his motion, it is that the amount could have been smaller. However he made the following comment in his speech “This is for lack of anything better, since currently there is no obligation to go to tender for procurement projects valued at even more than that”. He suggests that at least we start at this level.

Personally, I would go further, but he is wise. He is trying to get the support of all parties and possibly government members. Even though it is a private member's motion, government members could support it. It seems to me it would be in the public interest.

We should have a parliamentary committee to review budgets, legislation and regulations on this. This is what our constituents want us to do. We are talking about $100 million in military equipment procurement and the government it telling us “No, these decisions are up to cabinet”. The auditor general, public servants and independent observers are saying that the trouble these days in Canada is that everything is decided by the cabinet.

However, I will not go as far as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and leave with my seat on this account.

Last night, the governing party went against the wishes of all the opposition parties and refused to hold a vote in the House on the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo. Decisions like these reflect the centralizing approach of the government.

The year 2000 is near. In my riding, people do not think much of politicians as a whole because they feel that in this parliament, as in others, democracy means “You can say all you want, decisions are made elsewhere”. In this instance, decisions are made strictly at cabinet level.

And who controls the cabinet? The Prime Minister. This is how things are done in the Prime Minister's office: the minister responsible makes a recommendation and the other ministers support it because of what is called collective cabinet responsibility. In fact, only a handful of people make the big decisions.

I want to remind the House that we are talking about $100 million, which seems quite reasonable to me. This is why I wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette. I want to commend him for moving the motion and aptly arguing in its favour. I urge my Liberal colleagues to support it.