Bill C-2 (Historical)

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation signed at Davos on January 26, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the bilateral agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General for Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements.
Part 3 of the enactment provides for its coming into force.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a broken promise and I am sure he is aware of a few more that he could outline. I would like him to do that.

He specifically mentioned the icebreaker. The Prime Minister's first promise to the north was three armed icebreakers. That vanished for a few years, but after we pushed and pushed, the government finally agreed to build one. As the member says, we have no idea when that will happen and it will go to the Coast Guard, not the navy.

There were ice-strengthened supply ships promised to help support the north, another broken promise. Those are completely gone.

What about ships that can go through 18 feet of ice in the north? The government has decided to build patrol boats that can go through one metre of ice. There are a lot of problems and I am sure the member has some other broken promises that are favourites of his.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue again and it is a pleasure to follow my colleague who has worked so many years in these halls on the issue of shipbuilding, officially through the transcripts of Hansard and also in the background yelling “What about shipbuilding?”

That is a common phrase, and one of the things that I have seen over the years, and I have been here since 2002, coming from an industrial automotive area, is really a lack of policy for sectoral strategies. One of the things that separates our party from other parties in this House is the belief that the government does not have to always be involved in the actual industry but should set out some conditions and some structures that make it prosper and compete, similar to other countries. That is not done in this country.

The philosophy of the Liberals and Conservatives over the last number of years has been to just lower corporate taxes and then industries will thrive. Whereas in other countries, there have been successful models. In Norway, which is one of the concerns we have with regard to the trade agreement that we are talking about today, it has been able to develop a very competitive shipbuilding industry through a sectoral strategy. That is one of the reasons Norway will have a successful penetration into the Canadian market after years of government assistance and structures.

It is important to note, as we look at the current economic issues that our country is facing, that we are continuing, and I think Canadians will be shocked to hear this, with the Liberals and Conservatives passing this budget, to beat out a path of corporate tax cuts.

Right now, with the deficit and the debt and all the borrowing that we are going to do, we are actually going to be borrowing more money to give it to the corporations and actually have to pay more interest on that. We do not even have the money for those tax cuts right now, but we are going to continue to do that. That does not make any sense when we look at what the government has been doing. Basically, the Conservatives have been on the side of the banking sector, quite explicitly. The banks are bringing in profits right now, and they are not even doing the things they have been asked to do by the government and other Canadians, which is to extend credit.

I would just point to the automotive sector, for example, where right now we have people who want to borrow to buy a new vehicle or lease a vehicle, and they cannot do that. The bank rates are just absolutely unacceptable. They are anywhere between 7% to 11%. That prevents people from getting into a new vehicle and keeping a Canadian at work, or it gouges them as consumers which is totally unacceptable. The banks are the only ones actually making money on automobiles right now. That is not acceptable.

What we are hoping to see here is a sectoral strategy evolve that involves our industrial bases. That includes the issue of shipbuilding. As my colleague has noted, it is not only important for a manufacturing base, it is also important for this country from a national security perspective. That is why the United States has policies set in place. We have not challenged those policies because in some respects we have actually accepted the fact that the Americans are going to have some procurement for their own interest in terms of a defence policy. That is something we have agreed to in terms of understanding.

I will point to a good example, a classic, with regard to the Navistar truck plant, where right now the government has provided a $300 million contract to Navistar, which has a plant in Texas, but it also has a plant in Chatham, Ontario. We are actually allowing Navistar to produce these military trucks in Texas when retooling was only $800,000 in Chatham. So we are going to fire all those workers and send them home. It is actually going to cost us around $17 million to $19 million in employment insurance instead of retooling that truck plant.

I am sure they would understand in the United States that Canadians would want to build their military trucks, themselves, for their men and women serving here in our country and also abroad. They would understand that, just like we understand that they would likely do the same for those in Texas, where they would not actually send the procurement here. It does not make any sense when we look at the economic conditions that are facing us right now.

There has been a lot of debate in this chamber and also in the United States about some of these policies. There was a lot of discussion about the United States having a buy America clause as part of its overall stimulus package, but the reality is whether or not that is in fact in that act, unless it is actually disclaimed, it actually counts no matter what because it is part of the American policy going back to the amendments made on separate legislation.

We can protest and say what we want, but the reality is it stays in the actual package because it goes down to the state funding level where those officials have no jurisdictional accountability for the trade agreements or it goes to the municipal level and the same thing happens. So, the Americans can make those choices. We never in the past have contested that and a broader discussion needs to be had.

The Liberal Party has been attacking us saying that we are going to create some type of a trade war, but for heaven's sake, what would happen if we actually had a buy Canadian policy in place? We could then go to the United States and start talking about a buy North American policy. It would lead to a great engagement on those issues. But we do not have anything here. We just send it and let it go. We have a trade deficit this year. That is one of the reasons. It is because we have lost our manufacturing base and we do not do anything to support it in terms of public policy.

That is what is really nice about shipbuilding. I had the opportunity to go to Halifax and tour the Irving yards where I talked to the men and women working there. I know the Conservatives encourage labour mobility if workers cannot find work there. Labour mobility means that men and women, instead of working on policies that actually protect those communities and grow those opportunities, can go somewhere else for a couple of months and leave their family behind, and that is okay. Well sometimes we have to do that in life and we all understand those things, but that should not be the public policy.

To have strong communities, we need people who are taking their kids to soccer games and hockey games. They are the parents who can go home every single night and see their kids, and can help grow their community, to volunteer, and to have an attachment to their neighbourhood. It lowers crime. It improves the social values of the community. We should not be saying public policy-wise that “Well, you know what, if you don't like it, then we're going to help you get on a plane to stay in a camp somewhere else, bunk up with a bunch of people and that's the best thing we can do for you”. Then come back later on and say, “ And by the way, you have to find another job two months later somewhere else in this country or some other country”.

That is not right and that is what is happening in regard to some of the workers in Halifax where the skilled trades are short of work. There has been an insinuation that we do not have the capacity to do some of these things, but we can build that capacity. It is quite easy to do so.

I always thought the closing of the Collingwood shipbuilding facility was a step back. In the Great Lakes, where I come from, it used to be a thriving shipbuilding industry and that is gone these days. The ones that are left are small and not as significant as they used to be. I would like to see us go forward. We need a big turnover in Great Lakes shipping cargo fleets soon. So why not be part of that building process? Why not have some of those work skills happening here?

I know that my colleague noted the military procurements that have disappeared and vanished. Those are great opportunities to build the private and public sector elements necessary for the infrastructure investment to make it worthwhile. There is a pent-up need for that right now.

I hope that the proposed amendment passes. It would carve out the shipbuilding element. It would be sent back to committee to be worked on. Hopefully, we could go forward with something that is good for Canadians. It is not just the New Democrats saying this. I want to read into the record a couple of quotes. The first is from Andrew McArthur, representing the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. He said:

The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government we do not carve industries out. We raise the question the Jones Act in the U.S. was carved out from NAFTA. We are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans. The Americans have free access to our market. So industries do get carved out. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

It is important to recognize that what we are asking for is very much a common practice, but it is also something that could give us a negotiable stance when dealing with other trading countries. New Democrats do believe in trade. We just want fair trade. Part of fair trade is making sure we are open and going to discuss these issues even if they are very difficult, but at the same time we will also strategically do that as we look at the industries. Most countries do that. I think we should too.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being able to respond to both domestic and external threats and having the structures in place to be able to handle that capacity are really important parts of a country's strategy. It is interesting that even at the best of times, as we have procurements outside of this country, we also become more vulnerable to timelines.

We are not only just vulnerable to the timelines and the manufacturer that we are buying from. Another country could jump the line on us, get the procurement that we had sought because their capacity had not been expanded and they were based on a business model over a series of years. They could jump the queue on Canada and get some of the vehicles, ships or whatever else we might be purchasing as a preference.

We have a strategic disadvantage there. It is important to recognize that this is also very much the psychological aspect of a nation being able to control its own destiny and for people to be a part of that. I will talk about the Navistar experience again. The people in the Chatham, Essex County and Kent County area want to be part of the people who assemble the vehicles that protect our nation and serve the people here and abroad. They want to be the men and women who do that. They obviously want jobs, as we all do, but they also want to be part of the process to defend our nation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the trade aspect of this legislation. It has been suggested before that certain industries get used as bargaining chips when Canada hits the trade negotiation table, whether it is with Europeans or the Americans. Certain industries are protected and other industries are not. Certain industries are accounted for and other ones are not.

As my hon. colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned, we see that the Americans, when negotiating with Canada, had all sorts of protections built around the safeguards of their shipbuilding industry. The Canadian negotiators accepted that and found that to be reasonable. We still negotiated with them, whereas on the Canadian side of the table, we presented no such similar measures to protect our own industry.

Not accounting for the same things that our allies are doing in the same negotiations seems to be a perpetual condition within Canada's bargaining position in international agreements. We see it here again. I wonder if the member can account for this strange lapse in judgment or national interest that is presented by Canadians over and over again.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if our negotiators have a poor self-esteem when they go into these negotiations, but it seems to be a common thing. I think it really goes to the philosophical element that we have had in the last 10 to 20 years in this country: if we just lower corporate taxes, everything will be okay and everything will be fine.

How well has it worked right now, when we have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in five years? Right now, we are actually borrowing money to pay for corporate tax cuts. That is what we are doing right now. We are going to borrow that money, incur the debt, and give the banks and oil companies, that are making profits right now, more of the money that our children will have to pay back.

It does not make any sense. All the taxpayers out there should be really upset about this fraudulent practice. Money should be reinvested back into purchasing assets that are going to recoup some value for taxpayers. Those could be ships that are going to serve our men and women, and protect our navy and coastlines.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have about four minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the principle of this debate before the House today is looking at an international trade agreement in its full aspects and zeroing in on one aspect of that agreement that needs greater consideration by the House.

It seems that the men and women who are involved in the shipbuilding industries of Canada would thank the members of this place to give it that due consideration. While our negotiators went forward and tasked this agreement together, which has many aspects, this one piece, and we have seen it as a precedent in agreements before, that the piece around the shipbuilding industry internationally is often protected on a national basis.

This speaks to a lack of a national dream or a national vision that the present government and previous governments have failed to express. When we lose sight of where we want the country to be in years to come, we simply allow that famous invisible hand to come in and adjust, manipulate and allow things to go where they will. Sometimes that works out but in some cases it does not.

When we look at an industry like the shipbuilding industry, which requires enormous amounts of investment and expertise that is not widespread, when we lose the people who know exactly what they are doing around a shipyard, they are so much harder to get back.

As every member of the House can attest, when any kind of announcement of a new company coming into any of our constituencies, particularly on value added and manufacturing, we celebrate the 25, 50 or 100 jobs. We think it is fantastic because it is good news and it so difficult to do.

We have witnessed over the last number of years, as the hon. member quoted, 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost. Some of them have been replaced by much lower paying jobs and very much less in value added jobs. There are members who are sitting in the House today who have witnessed that firsthand in their constituencies and who understand politically and economically how difficult it is to recover an industry once lost, how difficult it is to pull back the skilled workers, to re-encourage the investment and to bring the sense of optimism required to build those jobs in their constituencies and across this great country.

To lose those jobs and to simply say that it is part of an agreement that we need to sign on to and there is no consideration otherwise, is patently false. We have seen our trading partners do this with us time and time again. They identify key industries, as the Americans have done on shipbuilding and as the Europeans will do on shipbuilding in many circumstances, and say that those are unique industries that require government protection.

It seems that, regardless of the industry at this point, we have a government refusing to implement any kind of a national strategy. On the auto industry, for example, for years the New Democrats have called for an independent auto strategy to be built with the manufacturers and the labourers to design where the auto industry will be in years to come. Instead, we have the laissez-faire attitude of telling us not to worry and that everything will be fine. Well, it is not fine. It is simply not fine for the government to say that we are doing better comparatively than the others. We are doing terribly and it will only get worse.

The economic indicator that the government can point to right now says that things are looking up. It is high time that the government actually fulfilled its role and set the rules of the game and the parameters through things like trade policy and industrial strategies that give Canadians that renewed sense of hope. A penny on the GST is not doing it. Canadians know that because of the pink slips sitting in their mailboxes. They know that because they are not able to tell their families not too worry, that they know they are going through rough times but things will improve.

On this amendment, we can do something. We can express some future vision for our country. We can make an industry viable again and make it possible for Canadians to celebrate the actions of this place, rather than bemoan the lack of leadership they see from the benches of the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt at this point to tell the member he will have six minutes remaining when the House returns to this item.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has six minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to press the government to understand the critical nature of splitting off this one significant piece from the bill. It would do several things all at the same time. Most important, it would send a signal to Canadian industry and value-added manufacturers in this country that Parliament cares about the families and workers involved in that industry.

It seems, after hearing the government's comments in defending its practice of putting this one piece into the agreement with Europe, that it is unable to defend its position. That is unfortunate, because whether we agree or disagree on issues, all members are sent to this place with the expectation that they can defend their positions, that they can provide reasons and substance for why they consider one thing or another to be true.

To remind Canadians who have been following this debate, we are asking for a hiving off of the shipbuilding industry from this agreement. Members of Parliament have been receiving mail from constituents from coast to coast to coast, particularly the constituencies in which the few remaining shipyards still operate, expressing their concern. Over the years, this industry has been hammered by agreements that the present government and previous governments have signed, by government policies that slowly squeeze out the very oxygen this industry needs in order to survive.

Recently, my colleague from Burnaby gave me a letter from the Lauzon ship workers' union that said, “We represent CSN-affiliated workers working at the Lévis shipyard. We stand with workers in all Canadian shipyards in supporting your efforts to exclude Canadian shipyards from the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement”.

This is really important, particularly to our Bloc Québécois colleague, because this speaks to the needs of workers in all provinces, of all workers connected to this industry.

The time has come to protect these workers. If we do not, we are basically saying that this Parliament and our work here are not important. The NDP believes that is unacceptable. We will continue to talk about our disagreement with the government. We have a different perspective on the economy and negotiations.

The Conservative government slips into an ideology far too easily. There is not a trade agreement in the world it would not sign. It negotiates looking backward instead of forward to what needs to be established.

At the very least, to most Canadians the notion that all trade agreements would have a net benefit to the Canadian economy would seem very straightforward and plausible. Yet we see time and again across the table at these negotiations representatives from other countries defend the interests of their nations, protect the industries they believe need protecting and make trade arrangements to the net benefit of their nations. Yet we have to appeal on bended knee. We have to fight tooth and nail with our own government to represent our own industries at the table.

The NDP has been a long and consistent supporter of fair trade. The NDP has been a long and consistent ally of those around the world looking to establish trade agreements that protect the environment, labour relations and standards, and enhance the capacity of our country to trade. We are a trading nation. Time and again we see governments come forward with the idea of sensible trade but present other ideas.

When the Americans negotiated with us and set up caveats for their own shipping industry and steel industry that exempted them from that agreement, Canada had no problem at all accepting that condition of trade and yet made no such considerations for Canada's own industry.

I have some vague recollection of the Conservatives having a little saying in the election, something about Canada first or stand up for Canada. I do not hear it much any more and we do not hear it when the government negotiates trade agreements.

This is an opportunity for Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc members to join the NDP and understand that we can protect and enhance this industry and make it a viable one for future generations. That industry helped build this country. To turn our backs on that industry at this time would only continue the economic ruin that has been put upon this country by the Conservative government. It is time for it to stop now.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley because he has reflected the concerns that our caucus has about the real problems in Bill C-2.

I am the member for the riding of Vancouver East, which includes the port of Vancouver. I can remember the days when we had a great shipbuilding industry in the greater Vancouver area along both sides of Burrard Inlet. The demise of that industry and what is going to happen now under this bill deeply concerns us, as well as the Canadians who have been involved in this important industry for generations. I was taking note of the comments of George MacPherson, the president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation. He said that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. He pointed out that with the passage of this trade agreement, Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. He said that the government's plan is an outrage.

Would the member comment, in terms of the impact on workers who have built up this industry and have developed those skills only now to see it be lost?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is something to note how difficult those jobs were to create in the first place. If we were to look back through the records of this Parliament and other legislatures across this country when the establishment of shipyards was first debated, it took an enormous amount of effort not only on the part of industry, but also on the part of government, to establish this fine and solid industry.

The expertise that is required to work within this industry is very hard to come by. We know that these workers are in demand around the world. We know that when those talents and that experience leave an area or a country, which has been happening in Canada, it is very hard to attract them back.

If nothing else, it would be a sign of good faith on the part of the government to agree with New Democrats to assist the industry and allow it to have a fair shake, to put it on a level playing field with the industries in other countries around the world with which we compete so that there is a sense of hopefulness within the industry and for the families of the workers in it.