Peter Stoffer

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague a heads up that my own brother was the number one person on the IWA seniority list. He finally left the Canadian white pine mill in Marpole after 45 and a half years of service when my family came to Canada. One of the thing he was always concerned about was the fact that B.C. liked to export raw logs. When raw logs are exported, jobs are exported.

The hon. member indicated that we received $4.5 billion back on the softwood lumber deal, but he forgot to mention that we left $1 billion behind that was owed to Canadian companies. I want to know why we left $1 billion behind in the softwood lumber deal and also, what is his view on exporting raw logs to the United States, which in many ways exports our jobs?

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

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.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

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.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

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.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

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.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

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.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

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?

[Hon. Gilbert Parent, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, to his wife, Sandra, and his daughters, on behalf of my leader and New Democrats federally and provincially across this country, I express our sincere prayers and condolences on the loss of Mr. Gilbert Parent.

Gibby, as I affectionately called him, had lost a son at a very young age. He carried that burden throughout his entire life, but he carried it with the grace and dignity of an extremely proud father.

I remember when we came here, in the class of 1997, when Gib Parent was the Speaker of the House of Commons, we were sitting at the end. My voice was fairly loud at that time, and some people say it still is, but Mr. Parent said, “Peter, I can't hear the question because you are sitting right next to me yelling at a minister”. Bill Blaikie today says it is because of my voice that NDP members were moved down to this corner. When we continued our lambasting of a Liberal minister, he said, “Peter, if you keep it up, there is only one other place for you to go”. After that, I learned about decorum in the House of Commons.

Gibby was a man who absolutely loved to sit in what we call “the big chair”. He had grace, dignity, humour, and nobody could ever forget the twinkle in his eye when he would make a comment or suggestion to a new member of Parliament.

His portrait hangs at the back of the chamber and we all get to see it forever and ever. Mr. Gib Parent was a decent, kind, and caring gentleman. He helped an awful lot of new MPs from all parties get their first walk in life, as is said in the House of Commons. He is also known for many rulings, and those rulings will be with us for a long time.

He was present for the procedural presentation of the publication, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which we refer to as “Marleau and Montpetit”. He was also very proud of the fact that he was one of the members who started the prayer group that met for breakfast. He took great comfort in knowing that members of Parliament and senators from all sides can find comfort and grace in prayer. Whatever people believed in, he believed there was a superior being who looked after us all.

On behalf of all members of Parliament, I express to his wife, family, and friends, and to his extended Liberal Party family as well, our sincere condolences on the loss of a great man, a man who obviously would say, on a day that we have lost three brave soldiers and others were injured, “Forget talking about me; worry about the men and women who serve our great country.”

We salute Gib Parent, offer our prayers and condolences and say to God, who now has Gib in his hands, “Take good care of a wonderful man.” He graced this Parliament. We are all honoured to have met him and are better people because of it.

[Canadian Forces, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, while we in the NDP do recognize and thank the government for its announcement yesterday on coordinating those efforts to help injured soldiers and their families, there is a very serious problem out there for soldiers who leave the military voluntarily and who are waiting for a pension cheque.

The reality is these men and women who serve our country have to wait many months before they get a pension cheque. That is putting everything in jeopardy, their mortgages and other bills.

When will the government clean up its act and get out these pension cheques which the members of the military so rightfully deserve?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that begs the question as to how will the Liberal Party will keep the Conservatives to account. What will the Liberals do? Will they stamp their feet, raise their arms and call the Conservatives bad people or will they actually have the courage to stand up?

We know they just celebrated their 50th anniversary, 50 confidence motions in a row of supporting the government. What will the Liberals do if the Conservatives tell them to go pound sand, that they do not care what the Liberals have to say because this is what they will do?