Scott Brison

[International Trade, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's venture capital industry is in trouble. According to the Conservative government, the best way for a Canadian company to obtain venture capital is to become an American company.

Why are the Conservatives abandoning Canadian innovators and encouraging them to move to the United States?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress is preparing to spend billions of dollars on new water and sewage projects. John Hayward runs a small pump-making firm in Halton Hills. He says that the buy American provisions will prevent him from getting U.S. contracts, forcing him to cut more than 10% of his workforce and to move jobs to the U.S.

Why is the Prime Minister claiming victory on the buy American file when U.S. protectionism threatens to kill thousands of Canadian jobs, just like these ones in Halton Hills?

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, no member of the Liberal caucus or the Liberal Party would ever suggest that human rights ought to be subordinated.

The fact is that three years ago, with the Liberal government, under both Prime Minister Chrétien and Prime Minister Martin, Canada had more influence on Chinese human rights when we were deeply engaged at the foreign policy and trade level than we do now. We have less influence on Chinese human rights today because of the fact that the present Prime Minister has chosen to poke his fingers in the eyes of the Chinese government at every turn.

We have lost the capacity to influence the Chinese on human rights, and we have subordinated and destroyed a trading relationship with China that has the capacity to create great wealth and prosperity for Canadians.

China needs our energy and our commodities. We need to be deepening our relationship and working with China to research and develop and commercialize clean energy technologies. We need to be China's clean energy partner to help it develop its economy in a sustainable way, and there are great opportunities for Canada to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this legislation. It is clear that shipbuilding policy is critically important, and the Conservative government has neglected shipbuilding over the last three years.

I have worked very closely with members of my caucus, members for Halifax West, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, and Random—Burin—St. George's. We have met with and had great consultations with the shipbuilding industry and with labour.

It is very clear what we need to do in terms of an industrial strategy for shipbuilding. We need to reinvest in the structured finance facility. We need to combine the accessibility to the structured finance facility with the accessibility of the accelerated capital cost allowance—in other words, to make the two programs available at the same time to Canadian buyers.

Currently, if someone from outside of Canada wants to buy a Canadian-built vessel, they can qualify for the Canadian structured finance facility and they can qualify for the accelerated capital cost allowance in their own country. If a Canadian buyer of a Canadian-made vessel wants to do the same, they cannot. They can qualify for one or the other. That is clearly nonsensical and ought to be addressed.

We need to invest more vigorously in government procurement. When we talk about Arctic sovereignty and defence and the Coast Guard, the need to invest in vessels is clear. Governments around the world invest in domestic procurement in shipbuilding and help create national and international champions, both in shipbuilding and in defence, as well as in the aerospace industry. Governments with whom we have free trade agreements in fact pursue more vigorously procurement programs aimed at developing their domestic industries than we do.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked earlier today and has over the years presented many innovative solutions and ideas for advancing shipbuilding. With that focus we have worked with the industry critic in our party and we will continue to advance and present to Canadians a clear and important shipbuilding policy.

The issue of trade is critically important to Canada. Our prosperity as a small, open economy depends on our trading relationships. The FTA and NAFTA have been very good for creating wealth and prosperity for Canadians. It is ominous when, in recent weeks, for the first time in 33 years, we have a trade deficit. With our relatively small, open Canadian economy, we are actually now buying more than we are selling. That is ominous in terms of our capacity to create wealth and prosperity for Canadians and our capacity to use that wealth to invest in progressive social policy for Canadians.

The fact is that we are too reliant on the U.S. market, and as the U.S. market tanks, as it is doing right now, we are very vulnerable. Over the last three years the Conservative government has not effectively diversified our trading relationships and in fact has damaged our trade and foreign policy relations with what will be the fastest growing economy in the 21st century, and that is China.

China, notwithstanding what is going on globally now with the economic downturn and recession, is growing this year by 8%. China needs the commodities we produce in Canada. China needs the energy we produce in Canada. China desperately needs the clean energy solutions we can develop in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, and across Canada, both in terms of cleaner conventional sources and alternatives.

At a time when we should be deepening our trade relations with China, the Conservative government has chosen to destroy that relationship and has done everything it could to damage those types of constructive relations that would allow China and Canada to partner to research, develop, and commercialize clean energy technologies and to build their economy in a sustainable way.

The European Union is going to be the next frontier for Canada. We have a vested interest in deepening our trade relationship and pursuing a free trade agreement with the European Union, the second largest export market in the world next to the U.S.

The European Union is looking closely at the EFTA free trade agreement with Canada. The EFTA free trade agreement with Canada is seen as a bit of a qualifier for the negotiations. Currently the negotiations between the EU and Canada are only at the scoping stage, but the EFTA free trade agreement with Canada is seen as a qualifier. Whether Canada can sign a free trade deal with EFTA countries will determine whether we can pursue one with the EU.

Saying no to EFTA would be a major setback. In fact, saying no to EFTA would mean saying no to a free trade agreement with the EU. That is the practical reality.

It does not surprise me that the NDP is against the free trade agreement with the EFTA countries, because the NDP has been consistent. That party has been against NAFTA, it has been against the EFTA, and I fully expect it will be against the free trade agreement with the EU. I expect that when a Liberal government moves forward to deepen our trading relationship with China, the NDP will be with the Conservatives fighting that economic progress and the deepening of our relationship with China.

In recent weeks, when the U.S. Congress was moving forward with very significant and dangerous buy-American provisions that they added to their stimulus package that would have discriminated against Canadian steel and Canadian manufactured goods, the NDP actually supported those measures in the U.S. Congress and said the buy-American initiative was actually good, and in fact that we should be introducing our own buy-Canadian initiatives here in Canada. This would lead back to the same type of situation we saw with Smoot-Hawley in the 1930s, when U.S. protectionist action lead to other countries' protectionist actions, which led to, at a time of economic downturn, when we needed to be deepening trade relations, dividing of the world and the economy and preventing those trade relations.

It does not surprise me that the NDP was against these trade agreements, but it did surprise me a little bit that the NDP was supporting the American Congress with measures that were directly and completely against Canadian prosperity and jobs.

We do stand for a strong shipbuilding policy. A Liberal government will implement a strong shipbuilding policy. When we discuss the shipbuilding policy with the shipbuilding stakeholders, they agree with the measures we are proposing and believe that they can make a real difference in creating jobs and opportunities in the shipbuilding industry.

If the NDP argument is that we should be against all free trade agreements around the world and we should fight vigorously against liberalized trade, what do ships typically carry? Ships typically carry goods. If we do not have vigorous international trading relationships, if we do not pursue free trade, if we cut Canada off from the world, that would be the worst thing for the shipbuilding industry.

Frankly, if we do not have international trade, we do not need many ships. The more international trade we have, the better for the shipbuilding industry here in Canada, the better for shipbuilding industries around the world.

I live in a little community called Cheverie in rural Nova Scotia. In Cheverie there were shipbuilders back during the age of sail. Those shipbuilders built vessels that transported goods around the world. The reason we have an Atlantic Canadian or British Columbian or Quebec shipbuilding industry is because of trade.

If its opposition to trade was specific to this agreement, the NDP would have more credibility, but the fact that it is opposed to every trade agreement Canada ever tries to sign eliminates the NDP's credibility on trade, on shipbuilding, and on economic policy in general.

[Afghanistan, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas is not very good without a teleprompter.

The fact is that yesterday in the House the minister of state said that any person who supported the idea of an envoy to Afghanistan did not have faith in our diplomats there. Yesterday, at the same time, his boss, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, supported the idea of having an envoy.

Does the minister of state believe that the government no longer has faith in its diplomats in Afghanistan and how can this government on the same day take two positions on an issue as important as Afghanistan?

[Afghanistan, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas) rejected the idea of appointing a special envoy to Afghanistan. At the same time, his superior, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, contradicted him.

Who is right? Who is wrong? What is the Conservatives' real position on this?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been an incredibly passionate defender of the shipbuilding industry in his riding and across Canada. In meetings we have had together with shipbuilding companies and labour, they have said that the hon. member and the Liberal Party continue to be strong proponents and defenders of shipbuilding.

Does the hon. member agree that yesterday at committee, when the chair made a ruling on the legal advice of the clerk, to challenge the chair on that would have indicated a lack of confidence in the non-partisan clerk, the clerk who does not work for the government but who works for the House of Commons?

Not only is the NDP member economically illiterate, he has absolutely no idea of the rules and procedures in this House when yesterday at committee he accused the clerk, the legal clerk, of being partisan. The NDP member talks about defending the public service and yet yesterday he attacked the public service.

[Government Accountability, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want a new $3 billion fund with no accountability, no transparency and no oversight. With a deal like that, no wonder the finance minister is already warning us that money will be wasted.

If Canadians want to see real accountability and transparency in stimulus spending, they can go to President Obama's site, www.recovery.gov. There, Americans can see where their money is going, right down to the contractor and the congressional district. As the site indicates, “This is your money. You have a right to know where it's going and how it's being spent.”

Why are the Conservatives not providing that kind of accountability to Canadians for their hard-earned tax dollars?

[Trade, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian firms cannot get U.S. government business because of American protectionist rules. Yet last year U.S. defence firms almost doubled their business with the Canadian government.

Having failed to stand up for Canada and secure ITAR exemptions from the Bush Republicans, the Conservatives' soulmates, what specific actions has the trade minister taken with the Obama Democrats to secure ITAR exemptions to protect Canadian aerospace and defence industry jobs now when they need it the most?