Serge Cardin

[Trade, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec industry wants its share of spinoffs from military contracts. One year after the contract was awarded to Boeing and Lockheed, the aerospace industry is unable to confirm whether the value of the contracts is $660 million.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that Quebec is not receiving its fair share?

[Trade, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is possible to choose local industries for the construction of equipment and still comply with the provisions of NAFTA and the WTO. With regard to security in particular, there is nothing to prevent the government from having trucks for the army built in Canada, in Quebec for instance .

Why does the government refuse to use these exemptions and prefer to award its military contracts to foreign companies, an illogical decision in these times of economic slowdown?

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, some tariffs will disappear, but they do not really have any impact in terms of increasing imports. A real quota has been set, and there will be no increase in agricultural production. Only about 5% of agricultural imports are affected. The tariff applied to this 5%. Overall, there will be no impact.

That is why I have insisted that supply management be maintained. Maintaining and safeguarding supply management will require that this government take a firm stand. Overall, the impact on the agri-food industry is currently so minimal that the Bloc Québécois will support this free trade agreement.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party probably could have asked me the same question when the Liberal Party was in power.

Unfortunately, that is what is happening. There is no way to know for sure. However, when it comes to government procurement, under this agreement, the government remains completely free to give preference to domestic procurement, subject to the WTO agreement on public procurement.

I think the member was referring to what was written on page 172 of the government's economic action plan, which indicates that the government is investing $175 million—on a cash basis. It had to specify in order to demonstrate its commitment, which means that the money will finally be paid out. Sometimes, quite often even, we hear good intentions and lofty verbal promises, but the money is not always forthcoming.

In this case, regarding the prospect that the government will favour domestic procurement, we can only hope that it will honour its commitment to invest $175 million. If it does not do so in the near future, I urge the Liberals to stand up to defend the marine industry, that is, the shipping and shipbuilding industry. In such a case, I would encourage them to vote with Quebeckers, and probably the NDP, to ensure that the government respects its commitment and that it does more to develop the shipbuilding industry.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, having worked with my hon. colleague at the Standing Committee on International Trade, I know that he usually uses the softwood lumber argument and often reminds us about that.

We have tried to explain to him that, with respect to the softwood lumber issue, the entire industry—business owners and unions alike—asked us to support that agreement. The Bloc Québécois protects Quebec's interests, of course, but we also respond to the demands of all Quebec stakeholders when they ask us to do a certain thing. We could have asked the federal government to go further, and that is what we did. We brought forward all of these demands, whether possible or impossible, but, above all, we advocated for what the people of Quebec wanted with respect to softwood lumber.

Now he wants to talk about shipyards. The reason the negotiations took 10 years is that the shipbuilding industry wanted to extend the tariff phase-out period because the industry was against the agreement in that context. After negotiations, that period was extended, but with the conditions we established and the demands we have been making for a long time with respect to funding and the development of a real maritime policy for Quebec and Canada.

The demands are on the table and, as shipbuilding industry representatives expressed clearly from the beginning, they were against it, but they consented to an agreement to phase out tariffs over a period of 15 years. We expect the government to respond to these demands by using every possible strategy, including those articulated by the industry.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to address the House during this debate on Bill C-2. For those who have not necessarily had the pleasure of learning about this bill in detail, I just want to say that it calls for the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. The association, EFTA, is made up of four European countries—Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—with a little over 12 million inhabitants, all told.

I should point out that the European Free Trade Association once included nine countries, but has lost members over the years. To compensate for those losses, the four members of the European Free Trade Association have undertaken to sign a series of free trade agreements, including this one with Canada. Earlier, the minister mentioned that he has been trying to speed up negotiations on all kinds of bilateral free trade agreements. Typically, multilateral agreements of the type with which we are all familiar are preferred. The WTO oversees all trade agreements.

Now, some 200 countries around the world are trying to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements at a more frenzied pace than ever. It also looks like the government is in a hurry to finalize the free trade agreement with Colombia. As we all know, committee debates have focused on human, workers', union and environmental rights. That is why the opposition will not accept this agreement. We also know that the new President of the United States does not support the free trade agreement with Colombia. I am not sure how the minister and the new government want to approach this debate. Many free trade agreements are currently being negotiated, but we still have to be careful about what we agree to in the end.

This is not an agreement that was hastily put together. On the contrary; negotiations began in May 1998, over 10 years ago. We know that in the fall of 2000, governments agreed on a first draft. Because it opened up the ship markets too quickly, it threatened our shipyards. Only the economic sector feels directly threatened by this agreement. As a result of new negotiations, implementation will be staggered over several years, up to 15 depending on the type of vessel. Although it is not thrilled, the association representing shipbuilders is resigned to accepting the agreement but is asking for an aggressive shipyard modernization program before the elimination of tariffs.

I asked the minister that question earlier, but he did not answer. I wanted to know what exactly he intends to do to make up for all the years and money invested in the shipbuilding industry in Norway, which was heavily subsidized in order to develop its competitiveness and expertise. The minister simply stated that he would ensure that it would not reoccur and that there would be no more subsidies. That is not what I wanted to know. I wanted to know what Canada will do to ensure that the shipbuilding industry can also benefit from certain programs that will result, by the time tariffs are removed, in a competitive situation. We were not given an answer.

The free trade agreement between Canada and EFTA is a traditional free trade agreement. Once implemented, it will liberalize trade of all non-agricultural goods.

It concerns only non-agricultural goods, not services, agriculture or investment. Of course, it provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that the parties, and only the parties, can use.

Another provision of this agreement has to do with anticipated economic impacts. In committee, opposition members have often asked the government to conduct an economic impact study in order to make projections and determine what will happen and what the impact will be on various sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing and other specific areas. It has never carried out a single study, even though it has had 10 years to do so. Even the website for some countries in the European Free Trade Association is not up to date, because information is missing. How could the government have produced an economic impact study on this agreement? It must be condemned. It is always the same thing: the government never provides us with an economic impact study. We had to make do with drawing conclusions from a few general observations.

Needless to say, the goal of the Bloc Québécois is to work for the interests of Quebec, and we are going to keep on doing that as long as we are here. Logically, Quebec stands to benefit the most from this agreement. Canada's main exports to these three countries all come from Quebec. It follows that lifting the trade barrier should also benefit Quebec.

In addition, in high-tech sectors, Quebec's economy is strong in areas where these countries are also active, which should promote investment in Quebec. Take the example of Switzerland, which has a very vigorous pharmaceutical industry producing brand-name drugs. Prescription drugs account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of imports. To break into the American market, Swiss pharmaceutical companies might think about manufacturing drugs here, and the mecca of brand-name drugs, with its pool of skilled researchers and advantageous tax rules, is Quebec. A free trade agreement to facilitate trade between a corporation and its subsidiaries would likely bring new investments in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.

Nickel accounts for over 80% of our exports to Norway. The biggest mine in Canada and third largest in the world is in Quebec's Ungava region. It is owned by the Swiss company Xstrata. Our leading export to Iceland is aluminum. There again, production is concentrated in Quebec. Basically, subject to the implementation of an aggressive policy to support and modernize shipyards, Quebec should benefit from this agreement.

When we presented our supplementary opinion to the report from the Standing Committee on International Trade, there were two issues that directly affected us: protection of supply management and shipbuilding. Now I would like to talk about protecting supply management.

Obviously, Bill C-2 also touches on agriculture. It allows for the implementation of bilateral agricultural agreements, which would be added to the free trade agreement with the EFTA. These agreements are not far-reaching and will not have a significant impact on Quebec agriculture. Of the three agricultural agreements, the agreement with Switzerland in particular caught our attention because it abolished the 7% tariff on dairy products imported from Switzerland. Currently, 5% of the Canadian dairy product market is open to foreign competition. The 7% tariff was levied only on the imports that were part of this unprotected segment of the market to which our producers do not really have access.

Since the elimination of the within-quota tariff provided for in the agricultural agreement with Switzerland will affect only the market segment that is already covered by imports, the impact on our dairy producers will be negligible. However, this will make it all the more important to vigorously defend supply management at the WTO. A quota increase coupled with the elimination of the within-quota tariff would expose our dairy farmers to increased competition from countries that, unlike Canada, subsidize their dairy production.

The House of Commons unanimously adopted the Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to reject any reduction in the over-quota tariff and any quota increase. Given the elimination of the 7% tariff in the current agreement, it is imperative that the government maintain a firm position at the WTO: supply management is absolutely not negotiable. In fact, in our opinion, a weakening of supply management would justify the renegotiation of the agricultural agreement with Switzerland.

I should also point out that modified milk proteins—which Switzerland produces—are transformed to such an extent that the courts have ruled that they are not agricultural products. That means that they are not covered by agricultural agreements. That being said, one of the appendixes in the bill to implement the agreement has been completely excluded. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement, and the tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. In fact, it is mainly the west that will benefit from the agricultural agreements because they provide for freer trade in certain grains, but the impact will not be significant because these countries are not heavily populated. The message is clear: supply management must be vigorously defended at the WTO.

The second aspect that directly affects us is shipyards. We have some concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will start gradually decreasing in three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years. However, our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completed abandoned ours. If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards would likely disappear. But for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, the world's foremost waterway. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. A policy to support our shipyards is urgently needed.

Moreover, this is the only recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic—incidentally, that was me, at the time—and of course the deputy critic, who is sitting behind me.

It reads as follows, “The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO”. That is the only recommendation made in the report, and the government must fully implement it.

The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards. We expect the government to give up its bad policy, and we call on it to table, as quickly as possible, a real policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry.

When they appeared before the committee, shipyard representatives stated that two measures should be given priority: allowing accumulated depreciation to be transferred to buyers of Canadian ships and putting in place a structured financing mechanism. These simple measures—at the very least—could be adopted immediately. However, there are other measures that should be added.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is, indeed, a free trade agreement. Bilateral free trade agreements are proliferating. We continue to be convinced that multilateral agreements should be signed as often as possible.

The agreement we are discussing involves four small countries. It is a very positive agreement but we must realize that it is also very limited. Together, these four countries represent approximately 12 million people and about 1% of Canada's exports. The real opportunity lies with the European Union. With a population of 495 million people, generating 31% of global GDP, the European Union is the global economic powerhouse. Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which has accounts for more than 85% of our exports.

The American economic slowdown, coupled with the surge in value of Canada's petrodollar against the U.S. dollar, reminds us that this dependence undermines our economy. Quebec has lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the Conservatives came to power, with their laissez-faire doctrine. To diversify as we must do, we should not look to China or India, countries from which we import, respectively, eight and six times more than we export to them. The European Union is an essential trading partner if we want to diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the United States.

What is more, the fact that Canada has not signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes how competitive our companies are on the European market. With the recent rise in value of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to skip over Canada and open subsidiaries directly in the United States. Canada's share of direct European investments in North America went from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004. Add to that the fact that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement since 2000. Consequently, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec. Bombardier is a case in point.

Overall, this free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association is good for Quebec. But as I have said and will keep on saying, it is better to promote multilateral agreements, where the rules apply to everyone. Important considerations such as human rights, union rights and environmental rights are sometimes left out of bilateral agreements. It is not true in this case, but it has happened in other agreements. I am more and more convinced that multilateral agreements should include social and environmental clauses. That is the direction we need to take.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. We began negotiations 10 years ago. Yet, in those 10 years, the government was not able to present an economic impact study in committee. In the report, the Bloc Québécois said that the Canadian government must, without delay, implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the shipbuilding industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

We know that after a three-year waiting period, there is a decrease in tariffs spread over 10 years. However, what is the government's plan to put Canada in a good position when it comes to the shipbuilding industry?

We know that Norway benefited from subsidies for many years and that it of course developed its construction expertise and performance, as well as its strong competitiveness. If the government does not want the shipbuilding industry to be ignored, it must intervene to create a maritime policy, while tariffs are decreasing, so that Canada will be competitive after that period.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not indulge in a lot of hypotheses like the hon. member, whom I did not recognize unfortunately and who is probably newly elected. Despite all the good faith he demonstrated in order to get elected, he is probably realizing that he too was relying on Conservative hypotheses to defend his party.

As I said earlier, the Conservatives are far removed now from the interests of the people, their needs and aspirations, and most of all, any solutions.

I suppose the people of this member’s riding are experiencing the same things. He must realize that regardless of what he was told earlier, his Prime Minister wants a majority at all costs. Regardless of what it takes or how it is done, he wants a majority in order to have total control.

Imagine taking away the funding of political parties. Where does that usually lead? We could re-read history, but I hate to think it could happen again in Canada. We have already seen governments take away all the funding of political parties in order to make them disappear.

The Conservatives are doing this at a time when they think people feel they are pretty well off, but the bulk of that money came to them under the old legislation. They did not even want to say who had funded them. The attack on democracy and free expression of the various parties in a democratic society is a fundamental element and by its very existence constitutes a point of no return. There is no way I can believe that the member who has just asked me that question was unaware that there was no significant element in it to deal with the crisis.

The Bloc Québécois submitted some proposals that the Minister of Finance did not even read. Then the Conservatives asked the opposition parties for their cooperation. The opposition parties decided to take the situation in hand and to cooperate in order to meet the needs and aspirations of the public, and especially to present some solutions people could understand and were both practical and for the short term. What the Conservative Party is lacking right now is a vision.

Since January 2006, anyone with the slightest clue about finance and economics knew what was coming. It was not a matter of using a crystal ball, there were facts pointing to it. People could see the ups and downs happening, and the way things were headed. The Conservatives are incapable of meeting the needs of the population. They have clearly demonstrated this. The Bloc Québécois has presented its measures to help the people of Quebec and in so doing to help the unemployed elsewhere in Canada, as well as people dealing with problems such as a shortage of social housing. We are meeting the needs of Quebec. Yes, we are defending its interests, and this automatically protects Canada from the Conservatives at the same time.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought you a little more generous. I have only four minutes to express what I feel about the Conservative government, today especially, after the remarks they made during statements by members and in oral question period. It was pathetic to see, in particular the Conservative members for Quebec, who, in my opinion, are far removed from the needs and aspirations of the people of Quebec.

I will probably not have the time to say all that I wish, or to try to inspire the Conservatives. Given how the Conservatives behaved this afternoon during question period, I will use an example to explain.

When I was young, I had a little cat. As you know, a cat is a domestic animal that is quite friendly, often soothes people, is approachable and, of course, likes to be petted. One day, the cat hurt itself and I noticed its animal instincts came to the surface and it could be quite nasty to anyone who came near. What I see here is not a domestic animal but a wild beast that has been seriously wounded because it realizes that it has lost people's confidence.

In the same way, the Conservative party has lost not only the confidence of Parliament and the members of the opposition, but it is losing any confidence or credibility in the eyes of the people of Canada and Quebec. You know what an injured animal does; especially a wild animal. It is astonishing. It will do anything to save itself. We can therefore expect anything from this government. That is why I repeat that the opposition parties have lost all confidence in it. And, no matter what it tries to do, the cat was out of the bag in the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement. Now we know what the Conservatives want. Quite simply, they want power for the sake of power. They want total control. We have seen their actions against democracy; and that is unforgivable. There can be no going back; no matter what they do, or what they say. Confidence has been broken; it has been shattered. This is a point of no return.

The Bloc Québécois associated itself somewhat with the other opposition parties, and to this extent the coalition is non-partisan but against everything the Conservative government might do to the people of Quebec and Canada. Most of the time, what the Bloc proposes is good for Quebec and protects Quebec’s interests 99.9% but is also good for the people of Canada and those Canadians who are having trouble with employment insurance for example.

My colleague also spoke about the waiting period. We will get rid of it. There are unemployed people in Canada too and he should think of them. There are other important aspects as well. There are people in Canada who lose their jobs and are retirement age and cannot get back into the workforce. A program for older workers is possible in Canada too, but it is also very good for Quebec.

Insofar as investments are concerned, the finance minister did not even read what the Bloc Québécois suggested. We know this because he admitted yesterday, after the question asked by my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain, that he did not know what the Bloc had proposed. He would do well to take an interest because the opposition has lost confidence in this government forever. We need change, and in a hurry.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Let us talk about that, since I heard an echo from the distant prairies, by way of Quebec. Take the example of the person who did not go to talk to the people, or if he did go, did not listen to them. He is not aware of the needs of the people in his riding. He only repeats the policies of the Conservative reformers that he has been spreading throughout Quebec and he never stops hitting the people of Quebec over the head.

Instead of tabling a plan for economic recovery, rather than providing oxygen, the Prime Minister has chosen to suffocate the economy.

The Conservative leader decided to ignore businesses, regions and people. We cannot accept that. Instead of tackling the economic crisis, the Reform-Conservative government decided to provoke a democratic crisis for strictly partisan reasons by eliminating political party funding. The Prime Minister also decided to attack workers by suspending their right to strike, and to attack women by making the right to pay equity negotiable. It is easy to conclude that, in an attempt to more easily impose his ideology, the Prime Minister wants to suppress political parties, unions, women and all forms of opposition, including, primarily, the voice of the people.

See you later, Mr. Speaker.