Linda Duncan

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I cannot imagine what influences there could be that would have any level of credibility to the members of Parliament in the House that they would put ahead of the needs of our Canadian shipping industry and the workers who work in it.

When we are making decisions on such momentous matters as to whether we should sign on to a free trade agreement and what the terms will be, surely we must be thinking, first and foremost, of the interests of Canadians and the jobs that can be created for the future benefit of Canadians. I cannot imagine what on earth members would be thinking that they would not support the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. Who else but Canada should put the needs of Canadians and our shipping as a top priority?

As an environmental lawyer with 35 years experience, I am extremely concerned about the plight of our Arctic and this drive to exploit it as fast as possible without ensuring we have the protections in place. We need only look back to the devastating spill on the west coast of British Columbia where shipbuilders gave little attention to environmental protection and every attention to plying their trade, with Canada suffering the effect on our wildlife, our oceans and the fishery.

It is absolutely incumbent upon Canada to ensure we are putting a priority on the development of shipping that will ply the trade either in our Great Lakes, in our Arctic or along our riverways.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer I would have to profess that it is inappropriate for me to rely on hearsay. I cannot specifically speak to the remarks passed on to me by the hon. member as I did have not the opportunity to participate in that discussion.

However, I am well aware, from reading the written record, that every intervenor who came forward to speak as a witness spoke in favour of striking out this clause.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House in support of the motion by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to strike out clause 38 from the Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

It may come as a surprise to the House that a landlubber such as the representative from Edmonton--Strathcona would care about the shipping industry, but let me share with the House today the long historic background my family has with this industry.

Let me share with you that first of all we allowed the decimation of the fish stocks on our east coast, and now the fish stocks are disappearing on our west coast. Entire communities have lost their revenue source.

Now former fishers and fish plant workers must leave their communities and commute to the northern area of my province to toil in the tar sands to feed their communities.

Now we witness, with the support of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, the demise of the historic nation-building shipbuilding industry and the jobs once provided by this historic sector. We witnessed every representative of the shipping industry, whether workers or owners, coming to the parliamentary committee and begging for the support of the members of the House for the continuation of their industry. No support was given to them, except from the members of my party.

Shame on the official opposition members. They are supposed to stand up for Canadians. The promise of the Conservative Party to stand up for Canadians disappears when it comes to speaking for Canadians' benefit in yet another free trade agreement.

Shipping and shipbuilding, next to the coureurs des bois, have been the key to building the very foundations of our nation. My family's roots, beginning around 1610 in Mosquito Point and Carbonear, were based on the shipping industry. My ancestor, Gilbert Pike, was a buccaneer. Their ships attacked my ancestor's ships, and they moved to Newfoundland and became very active in the fishing industry.

My family depended on the shipping industry to bring in the supplies so that our community could survive and to ship the cod out to the European community. It was very critical to trade. If not for the shipbuilding industry, the entire community of Carbonear would not exist. The most famous person in Newfoundland, Sheila NaGeira, is my ancestor.

I say to the House at this point in time that we are talking about the demise of one of the founding industries of our country. How can the other members of the House sit by and allow this industry to disappear?

It may be unknown to other members of the House, perhaps even those from my city, that one of the most important founding industries in my own city of Edmonton was the historic shipbuilding industry on the banks of the North Saskatchewan River. It was one of the most important industries that founded our city and kept our city going. They built both sailing ships and barges that plied the rivers, developed the north, fed the fur trade industry, and supported the aboriginal and the trapping industries and the gold rush.

If it were not for that industry, the city of Edmonton would not have developed into the burgeoning municipality it is today.

The shipbuilding industry has come to the members of Parliament pleading for the support of their own elected officials. I ask my colleagues to please stand up for shipbuilders and for those who work in that industry, to please stand up for Canadians.

One of the other nations that will be party to this agreement, the Canada-European agreement on free trade, has stood up for its industry. Norway stood up for its shipbuilding industry and now has a burgeoning industry. Our southern partner, the United States of America, has stood up for its shipbuilding industry. What is wrong with our country? What is wrong with our elected officials?

We have the members of the shipbuilding union and the shipbuilders themselves taking the time away from their families and their jobs to come to Ottawa to plead with members of Parliament: “Please, we are all for free trade. We are all for selling our products overseas and entering into this very important agreement, but stand up for our side of the trade”.

Are we going to be a country only of buyers, and not sellers? We need also, though, to keep in mind, as the hon. member for the Northwest Territories regularly reminds me in the House and outside, that we have to look to the future. What about the Arctic trade?

The members across the floor keep talking about how they are going to build development in the Arctic. What the heck do they think we are going to use when we are protecting and developing in the Arctic? We need ships. Should those ships not be built in Canada? Do we not have the expertise and wherewithal to develop and build those specialized vessels that not only Canadians, our Coast Guard and those who ply our oceans will use, but we could sell those specialized ships to people around the world who are chomping at the bit to come into Arctic waters?

In the presentation by Dr. Vincent, renowned polar expert, last week to parliamentarians, he pointed out that Canada has an opportunity, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, but for the Arctic by virtue of geography it is ours to claim. Why are we not claiming this piece of the industry and developing and building the very ships that will ply the Arctic so that we can ensure they are safe and do not cause environmental harm.

The member said that our opportunity for marketing was In the Antarctic. We could also be marketing specialized ships to ply the Antarctic and support the researchers.

I am standing today, as are the other members, in support of this recommendation to strike clause 38, which means that we will be speaking on behalf of Canadians when we sign onto this trade agreement.

I had the privilege of working for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. That organization was formed as part of one of the side agreements to NAFTA. I am very proud to say that I contributed in a positive way to free trade in North America.

However, we need to ensure we stand up for the important sides of free trade and that we remember the interests of Canadians not just the interests of major corporations or people who might want to sell Canada wares or might want to sell Canadian ships. We should be thinking in terms of the workers in Canada in this time of economic constraint. We should be thinking, first and foremost, of supporting Canadian industries and Canadian workers.

I rest my case. I think the request of the hon. member is eminently reasonable. It speaks on behalf of Canadians. It is about time the official opposition of this House spoke up on behalf of Canadians.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise as well to present 700 of the more than 30,000 signatures gathered by the Canadian Grandmothers for Africa. I am well aware of this organization in my own constituency, the city of Edmonton, and the surrounding area. They are an incredible group of women. They travel to Africa and work with the grandmothers. They give them moral support but also take them resources and dollars.

I urge the House of Commons to support this initiative. At this time of recession, no one is suffering more than the women and children of developing nations who already cannot afford retroviral drugs, malarial drugs or the mosquito nets they badly need. I encourage the House to finally deliver on our undertaking to meet the 0.7% of our gross national product for development assistance, and to work strongly to get affordable medicines to the grandmothers who are working with their grandchildren in Africa.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the hon. member that we are missing out on a great opportunity. The government has claimed that it is not picking favourites, but we need to make sure that it is not. Let us leave it to the scientific, engineering and humanities community to decide the areas in which we should be investing taxpayers' dollars.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I too share the member's concern about what is happening with the innovation fund.

My concerns with the innovation fund are twofold: first, the fund itself is being increased by what the government calls streamline funding; and second, with any kind of government interference in the decisions on how the fund would be allocated.

Streamline funding means that the government would actually be cutting the funding that would go to research and putting that money into buying equipment or toward building buildings.

I share the member's concern with any kind of government interference in the type of decisions on how the fund would be allocated. Absolutely. Any decisions regarding funding for scientists should be made by their peers. They are the ones who know which science can be defended, which areas of endeavour are progressing, and where the money should be flowing.

I find this increasing trend by government of micromanaging the distribution of money to our universities, scientific and engineering and health institutes absolutely reprehensible.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am hearing from scientists right across Canada about their concern about the diminishment of money for basic scientific research, particularly in the Arctic at this point in time. We are about to begin hearings, at the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development, on endangered species and whether or not the regime we put in place is adequate.

One of the most contentious aspects of that legislation is the decision by the government to have politicians deciding when species should be listed as opposed to renowned scientists. That is the kind of concern that is being expressed by scientists right across the country. It is very critical that, if we are going to be providing research dollars and matching research dollars provided by other levels of government or scientific institutions, we leave it to the scientists themselves to determine who is most qualified to undertake the work and what is the most important science of our time.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Northwest Territories, who certainly knows firsthand the need for polar research.

As I mentioned, a lot of us attended the session delivered by Dr. Vincent last week. He is a renowned international polar researcher and he made a very clear point to us. Somebody asked why we should invest money in research in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. His reply was that we have a very vested interest in the direct geography of Canada. The Arctic is Canada's and if, at this point in time, we want to be putting a claim on the Arctic for resource extraction, we need to be getting serious about putting a lot more money into supporting our researchers to identify ways to not only protect the Arctic but make sure that we benefit from the discoveries.

There are incredible discoveries to be made in the Arctic. We need to be infusing a lot more money now. Right now, our northern polar research station is the furthest north. If we do not continue the funding, we are going to lose that and other scientists from around the world are going to try to fill that void. It is absolutely absurd at this point in time, with the importance of the Arctic to Canada, that we do not step up the pace and give more money instead of cutting.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we are suffering a very serious brain drain in Canada. It is not just in the areas of engineering and new energy technologies. It is not just the fact that graduate students are going to have to go south to continue their studies or, if they are already doing post-doctoral work, the United States or other countries around the world stand to benefit. We are putting ourselves directly at risk by not putting the money in for the advancement of science and health, particularly in the health area.

In my own family, I have a cousin for whom we have spent tax dollars on training as a child heart surgeon. However, he had to move to the United States and eventually became a U.S. citizen, all because we were not providing the jobs and funding to support his research and the research in that field. I am sure the federal government gave money to the great new heart research centre at the University of Alberta and yet it has not opened because we are not putting the money into the researchers and staff.

I absolutely agree with the hon. member. We are putting our future and certainly the future of science at risk.