2009-03-06

Government Orders
Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, momentarily, I will be proposing a motion by unanimous consent to expedite passage through the House of an important new bill, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada. However, before I propose my motion, which has been agreed to in advance by all parties, I would like to take a quick moment to thank my colleagues and the other parties for their cooperation in expediting this legislation.
This is a clear demonstration of how Parliament can work when we have set aside our partisan differences and work for the good of the Canadian people, who have entrusted us to represent them. This legislation was tabled just yesterday and, when passed, will establish for the first time ever a national cemetery for our country. Hereafter, governors general, prime ministers and Victoria Cross winners will be able to choose to be interred and commemorated there.
Once this important bill passes both houses and becomes law, we will finally have our own cemetery where Canadians can commemorate those who have dedicated themselves to the service of the public through high office or supreme military valour. I am very proud of this legislation and I am pleased that it will be expedited through the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, a member from each recognized party may speak for not more than 10 minutes on the second reading motion of Bill C-17, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada, after which the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yes.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):  moved that Bill C-17, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by seeking unanimous consent to share my time.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the Conservative government to Bill C-17, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the member for Ottawa—Vanier on this file. I would also like to note the efforts of my good friend, the member for Ottawa—Orléans, who seconded this motion and with whom I will be splitting my time. I would also like to specifically acknowledge the work of the Minister of the Environment, who put a lot of effort into this project to finally make it a reality.
The recognition of Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada would serve as an eloquent symbol for our country. This unique recognition would confer upon Beechwood Cemetery the honour of being a national place of tribute.
I would like to talk a little bit about what makes Beechwood the right choice for being recognized as the national cemetery. Beechwood is a reflection of Canada's identity as a multicultural, multi-faith society with sections reserved for the Chinese, Greek, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Polish, Lebanese and other ethnocultural communities.
Monuments to St. Charbel, Our Lady of Fatima, Élizabeth Bruyère, and St. Marguerite d'Youville are visible on the grounds. Beechwood is also the home of the Chinese Cemetery of Ottawa, designed according to Chinese religious principles and distinguished by a pagoda to honour the community's ancestors. An aboriginal tribute garden is also in the planning stages.
Over the past decade the Beechwood Cemetery Foundation has worked hard to set the foundation for its inevitable recognition as the national cemetery of Canada.
In 2001 Beechwood became the National Military Cemetery for the Canadian Forces. In 2002 it was designated as a National Historic Site of Canada. In 2004 the RCMP National Memorial Cemetery was established here. Finally, in 2007 the veterans sections administered by Veterans Affairs Canada and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission were amalgamated with the National Military Cemetery. 
In April 2008 the multi-million dollar Beechwood National Memorial Centre was opened to serve the memorial and commemorative needs of all Canadians. The facility features an imposing sacred space area, adjoining reception rooms, and a Hall of Colours, featuring the laid up colours of Canada's military regiments. The sacred space area was designed after extensive consultation with leaders of major faith groups to better serve the needs of Canada's diverse faith communities. It is believed to be the first centre of its kind in the world.
The national cemetery of Canada proposal arises from a collaborative effort between the Beechwood Cemetery Foundation and the Government of Canada. The costs of interments would continue to be the responsibility of various federal departments and agencies as appropriate: National Defence for the burial of military personnel in the National Cemetery of the Canadian Forces; the RCMP for the burial of members and their immediate families in the National Memorial Cemetery; Veterans Affairs Canada offers a program to assist the families of veterans with the burial of those who served Canada; Canadian Heritage for state funerals and the interment of governors general and prime ministers; and the Parks Canada Agency for the maintenance of the gravesites of Canadian prime ministers.
Through its 135 years of existence, Beechwood has proudly evolved into a leading multicultural, multi-faith cemetery in the nation, and remains an outstanding cultural landscape, which expresses the values and beliefs of many important and distinct cultural communities in Canada.
For generations to come, Beechwood Cemetery will continue to provide a symbolic venue to honour prominent Canadians, including former prime ministers, governors general, those who fought valiantly to promote democratic values and to ensure world peace and security, and the men and women who have shaped the course of Canada's history.
I would now like to share my time with my colleague, the member for Ottawa—Orléans.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment for graciously sharing his time with me.
Hon. members know that I do not hog the time in this chamber. When I do speak, I avoid partisanship and fanaticism, yet I am passionate about history, about the history of our home and native land, about the history of this place.
Bill C-17 is an opportunity for all members of the House to work in this spirit, and as the House can see, we are.
First, I would like to praise the Minister of the Environment for his hard work and dedication to this project. While this idea is not a new one, this minister and this government have made sure to make it happen.
In addition, I would like to mention the contribution of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Chief Government Whip, the members for Ottawa—Vanier, Ottawa Centre and Gatineau, as well as Senators Keon and Munson and Bruce Carson, from the Prime Minister's Office. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Grete Hale and her foundation. 
Some may ask, why does Canada need a national cemetery? In answer, I am sure that many hon. members are familiar with the Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington, D.C. In fact, there are 141 national cemeteries in the United States, but they are generally military cemeteries containing the graves of U.S. military personnel, veterans and their spouses. The Arlington National Cemetery is an exception, as it contains the graves of outstanding civilian leaders and other people of national importance in the U.S. National cemeteries in that country thus serve a very specific military purpose.
Other countries have established national cemeteries. The Pantheon in Paris is a building that serves as a repository for the remains of many illustrious French citizens.
Members of the British royal family are interred at Westminster Abbey and at St. George's Chapel in Windsor. These models serve very specific purposes, and while of interest, do not meet the needs of our country.
This government believes that a made in Canada formula is required for a national cemetery that extends beyond military burials and that pays tribute to the contributions made by all those who came before us in shaping Canada as a nation.
I am sure that hon. members support the need for a national cemetery in Canada. Over 75,000 Canadians from all walks of life found their final resting place at Beechwood Cemetery, including 23 national historic persons who have made an outstanding and lasting contribution to Canadian history.
 Many prominent Canadians are interred at Beechwood, including leaders such as: William McDougall, a Father of Confederation; Sir Robert Borden, the eighth Prime Minister of Canada; Tommy Douglas, the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan and the first leader of the New Democratic Party; and Ramon Hnatyshyn, a former member of this House and 24th Governor General of Canada.
There are military figures such as: Generals Andrew McNaughton, Henry Crerar and Charles Foulkes; engineer and scientist Sir Sanford Fleming; and poets Archibald Lampman, Arthur Bourinot and William Wilfred Campbell.
By virtue of its location in the nation's capital, Beechwood Cemetery serves as a focal point for national memorial events such as Remembrance Day.
Finally, in the spirit of promoting the ideals of Canadian unity, the Beechwood Cemetery Foundation is committed to ensuring the delivery of services in Canada's both official languages.
This recognition will illustrate our government's commitment to the heritage in this place. It is our duty to preserve this heritage, to make the younger generations aware of it and to pay tribute to those who shaped our country's history.
By passing this bill, our government will open the doors of Beechwood Cemetery to prime ministers, governors general and recipients of the Victoria Cross who wish to be interred in the nation's capital.
This recognition would also ensure that there is a place conducive to reflection, a perfect place to pay tribute to those who came before us and who fought to make Canada an open, free and peaceful country, a country characterized by strong values such as justice, respect for human rights and gender equality.
This will be a way for us to preserve and highlight our country's historical heritage. 
When we put away partisanship and fanaticism, when we work together for the common good, we can all get things done.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am very pleased to speak in favour of passing this bill, which is very important to me and to many of my colleagues in this House. I would like to repeat what I said yesterday during a ceremony that took place following the government's introduction of this bill in the House.
The first thing I did yesterday, and I will do it again today, is to thank and salute the board and staff of the Beechwood Cemetery, some of whom I know are listening intently to the debate, and I will read the names.
 It is appropriate that the people who have carried this project mostly so far be recognized: its chair, Grete Hale; Mr. Robert White, the treasurer; Margie Howsam the secretary; Mr. Richard Wagner; retired General Maurice Baril; Ian Guthrie; Stephen Gallagher; retired Brigadier General Gerry Peddle, Madame Ghyslaine Clément, who was assistant commissioner of the RCMP; Ms. Carol Beal; and the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, Tim Killam.
As I did yesterday, I saved the last gentlemen's name, David Roger, who has, at some point in the history of the cemetery been instrumental in preserving it and ensuring that, as an institution, its integrity was protected so that it could become what it is about the become, Canada's national cemetery.
I salute all these people for their constant, ceaseless volunteer work to make of this institutions what it is.
 It does not go without some staff as well: Madame Sylvia Ceacero, Vera Yuzyk, and the predecessor to Sylvia, Tim Graham, I salute them for the work they have done over the years.
My second comments are to thank Parliament and the government. 
A little over two years ago, on February 27, 2007, I introduced a bill in the House to make the Beechwood cemetery our national cemetery. At the time, I asked two of my colleagues for their support. One of them was to the right, literally or at least geographically: the member for Ottawa—Orléans. I did not have to ask twice; he agreed immediately and has always supported the idea. I also sought the support of my colleague to the left, geographically and perhaps otherwise: the member for Ottawa Centre, who also did not hesitate to support the bill.
My intention was to show that the initiative was completely non-partisan. That was true at the time and remains true today. I made it clear that if the government wanted to take over the bill and make it a government bill introduced in its name, I would have no problem with that. It has finally happened. And so I want to highlight the work and support of the Minister of the Environment, who brought the bill this far, and of his predecessor, the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean. This is an excellent example of collaboration.
I have also engaged in an ongoing dialogue on the subject with the member for Gatineau, because I do not want anyone in the House to feel injured or left out by this initiative. As the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said at the beginning of the debate, this is an approach that Canadians are coming to appreciate and will certainly appreciate in this case.
I thought it was important it be done that way. If Beechwood Cemetery is to become a national one, as I said yesterday, I thought best that it be borne out of collaboration and not confrontation, out of harmony and not controversy, and that seems to have been achieved here. 
After this debate, there will be two ultimate steps in the other chamber and royal sanction. I suspect and I hope the willingness of collaboration will manifest itself in these two last steps for this legislation to be fully enacted.
It brings me to the question of why we should have a national cemetery, and I think it has been touched upon. What is important is this institution be as close as possible a reflection of what Canada is, a pluralistic and an inclusive society.
Everyone has a place in our society.
We do not neglect the importance of our military history and the proof is in the pudding in that the military has chosen to have its national cemetery within the confines of Beechwood.
The same is true of the RCMP. This country operates under the rule of law, and that rule is fundamentally important to the very nature and fabric of our society. The RCMP has also chosen to make Beechwood its national cemetery. Thus, we have here two fundamental components of what makes up Canada and its history. 
However, it goes way beyond that. As has been mentioned, in the Beechwood Cemetery are heads of state, elected officials, federal, provincial and municipal, scientists, industrialists, people from all walks of life beyond any partisanship. Sir Robert Borden is there as is Tommy Douglas, so it stands as the range of political persuasion in the country. 
I am also one of those people who believe that linguistic duality is a fundamental and essential characteristic of Canada's future, of what it will become. In that regard, I must say, Beechwood has done an excellent job. That was an indispensable condition of my support for this institution's desire to become a national cemetery.
I commend Beechwood's efforts and achievements in this regard. Of course, by obtaining national cemetery status, the directors and managers of this institution understand that this must remain an enduring condition—in perpetuity—in order to continue to deserve this status of national cemetery.
Last year saw the pièce de résistance when the Governor General, our head of state, participated in the opening ceremony of the Beechwood National Memorial Centre at which its multi-dimensional, multi-ethnic and multi-denominational character was consecrated. Every religion is accepted at Beechwood and, indeed, they are all represented there harmoniously. Beechwood is, I think, what a Canadian national cemetery should be: a reflection of its society.
However, one element seemed to be lacking. Over the last two weeks, somehow this element is being solved. Two weeks ago, the Ottawa Citizen ran a story, written by Randy Boswell, about a gentleman by the name of James Creighton, who, according to our Prime Minister, is the closest thing Canada has to a founding father of hockey. This gentleman is buried in Beechwood Cemetery in an unmarked grave.
His is a long and interesting story. Essentially, the Society for International Hockey Research has determined that this gentleman had been at the forefront of defining the modern rules of hockey as it is practised today. This gentleman also was for 48 years the law clerk of the Senate. When he died, I believe 1930, within a week, his wife also died. As a consequence of that, he remained buried at Beechwood in an unmarked grave. The Society for International Hockey Research found this out and hoped to raise enough money to have a suitable headstone erected in his honour. That story was carried in the local newspaper two weeks ago.
 I then called the Ottawa Senators, both the hockey club and the ones in the upper chamber, to see if the money could be raised so the headstone could be prepared and erected. I am happy to say that not only a number of people reacted positively, but Beechwood Cemetery itself has given us pledge money. The Ottawa Senator's owner has also. Our colleagues in the upper chamber are pondering it. I believe that some time in the spring this last element will be fulfilled. How could it not be any other way, that our national cemetery would also honour our national winter sport.
I am very proud to say that a headstone will indeed be arranged and erected for this man.
The final step for me is to hope that our colleagues in the other chamber, Senators Dallaire, Keon, Munsen and the Government Leader in the Senate, Madame LeBreton, who have all been involved with this, will ensure that this is carried out promptly and that we can all take some pride in this achievement of Parliament, as we are doing here today.
Mr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-17 concerning Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa. If Canada wants to create a national cemetery on Canadian land, that is Canada's business, and we of the Quebec nation respect that choice.
In addition, I am very happy to speak to this bill, because several famous Quebeckers are buried there.
I would like to extend sincere thanks to Michel Prévost, chair of the Outaouais historical society, for all the historical information he sent me to share with Quebeckers and Canadians about illustrious Quebeckers whose graves are in Beechwood Cemetery. Mr. Prévost is a consummate professional and a great guy. Thank you very much, Michel.
First, there is Alonzo Wright, a lumberman and politician, who was born on April 28, 1821 in Hull, Lower Canada, and died on January 7, 1894 in Ironside, Quebec. He was the grandson of Philemon Wright, the founder of Wrightville in Lower Canada.
There is a bridge over the Gatineau River that is named after him. Today, on some of the land he once worked stands the Collège Saint-Alexandre in the town of Touraine, in Gatineau.
In the rugged “Ottawa valley country”, he became, to his contemporaries, a “king” of the forest industry.
Alonzo Wright's political career spanned the years from 1863 to 1891. First elected as the member for the Quebec riding of Ottawa, under the infamous union forced by the equally infamous Lord Durham, he was re-elected five times in the Dominion. He was always elected under the banner of the Liberal-Conservative Party, whose first leader was John Alexander MacDonald. Prior to 1863, he was an admirer of the Reformers Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine. As a politician, he fought hard for his riding, championing agricultural development, colonization and the construction of canals and railways to link the region to what is now the rest of the Quebec nation. Perhaps with him, the Outaouais would already have its four-lane highway 50, but we will never know.
Another well-known Quebecker who has left her mark on Beechwood Cemetery is Élisabeth Bruyère. The founder and first superior of the Sisters of Charity of Bytown, she was born in L'Assomption, Lower Canada, on March 19, 1818 and died in Ottawa on April 5, 1876. A hospital in the Lowertown area of Ottawa bears her name, and there are streets named for her in Gatineau and Ottawa.
Mother Bruyère is not buried in Beechwood Cemetery, but a beautiful monument has been erected there in her honour. A Quebecker by birth, Mother Bruyère established a community that is present today in the Outaouais.
Under the protection of a cousin, abbé Charles-François Caron, the parish priest of Saint-Esprit in Montcalm County, she received a religious, intellectual, and domestic training of the highest quality. In 1834 she taught at the local school; she continued teaching at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul on Laval Island when her benefactor was transferred there in 1836. 
Elisabeth was easily moved by the sufferings of others, and in 1839 entered the order of the Sisters of Charity of the Hôpital Général de Montréal, commonly called the Grey Nuns. In 1845, she went to Bytown where, under the yoke of the Act of Union, Franco-Ontarians had no schools, hospitals or organized assistance. Young Sister Bruyère was among those who served this community and surrounding ones. She had to combat the tragic typhus epidemic of 1847-1848.
The Grey Nuns saved some 475 of the 600 who fell ill. In addition, they were entrusted with the care of fifteen infant orphans. Mother Bruyère trained sisters in Bytown who opened no less than 25 houses serving as schools or hospitals under her control, such as St. Andrews West, near Cornwall, Ontario, or Timiskaming, known at the time as Canada West, and Buffalo, in New York State. Élisabeth Bruyère was a woman of courage and vision.
Louis-Théodore Besserer, notary, soldier, member of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada and businessman, was born in Château-Richer, near Quebec City, on January 4, 1785, and died in Ottawa on February 3, 1861. 
He was a pupil at Petit Séminaire de Québec and then studied to become a notary.
 At the beginning of the War of 1812, Besserer was a lieutenant in the 2nd militia battalion of the Quebec City district. He was transferred to the 6th battalion on March 20, 1813 and on September 25 of the same year was promoted captain. He represented the county of Quebec in the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada from October 7, 1833 to March 27, 1838. He agreed with the Ninety-Two Resolutions and was a Patriote of the Quebec region. 
Disappointed and embittered by political events, Besserer retired in 1845 to an immense estate he had purchased in 1828 near Bytown. A shrewd businessman, he had it subdivided into building sites, and gave Bishop Patrick Phelan a lot for a church and school in order to attract buyers. He also had several streets laid out, one of which, in Sandy Hill, still bears his name. This speculation brought him a fortune. Along with other fellow citizens, he was concerned with the incorporation of Bytown as a town, which took place in 1847. 
Unfortunately, assimilation reared its ugly head. Mr. Besserer quickly became anglicized and, by the end of his life, considered himself to be a unilingual anglophone. 
Sir George Halsey Perley was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire on September 12, 1857 and died on January 4, 1938. For half a century this Quebecker had a bridge between Grenville, Québec and my home town of Hawkesbury in eastern Ontario proudly named after him. The bridge that replaced it is now known as Long-Sault because it is in the area of New France where Dollard des Ormeaux died during a conflict.
Perley was a politician and a diplomat. Between 1904 and 1935, he was elected seven times as the federal member for Argenteuil—a seat now occupied by none other than our Bloc Québécois transport critic. He served, among other things, as minister of the overseas military forces during the first world war. 
Many other people are buried in Beechwood Cemetery.
Built in 1873 in a hilly area surrounded by trees, it has winding paths, picturesque views and numerous wooded islets as well as its variety of trees, shrubs and ornamental plants. This place of pastoral beauty, which lends itself to reflection and commemoration of the dead, is also home to monuments of considerable artistic and historical significance. There is also a beautiful chapel on this sacred site.
In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues from Ottawa—Vanier, a Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, a Conservative, and Ottawa Centre, from the NDP, who set aside partisanship and worked together with the Bloc Québécois to make this project a reality in their city.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to this bill.
 It is a bill that is uncommon in many ways, the first of which is the way it came together. 
I thank the member for Ottawa—Vanier for his leadership. I also thank my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, for his support and leadership, and my friend from the Bloc who just spoke.
Beechwood Cemetery is an important acknowledgement to Canada. It means that Beechwood Cemetery would become a national symbol in earnest, and it already is a national symbol in function. As has been mentioned by others, it is the resting place for many important Canadians. It is the final resting place of thousands of men and women who gave their lives for our country: peacekeepers, soldiers and people who worked on humanitarian missions around the world. It is a place that already does honour our nation.
What the bill does that is so fundamentally important is that the federal government, the voice of this nation, puts its stamp on this and acknowledges for all to see that this place is a national symbol, a national place of resting for so many.
It is important to note some of the people who do rest there. We know that one of our prime ministers, Sir Robert Borden, rests there. He was the prime minister who was in power at a time of war and who led this country in so many different ways. It is important that our country, through this legislation, acknowledges a previous prime minister. As he rests there he symbolizes, in my opinion, many of the prime ministers who have served the country so well.
It should be noted that most of the other G8 countries have designated a place of national importance for those who have served their country and who are now resting in peace.
Another important person to Canada and to our party who rests at Beechwood Cemetery is Tommy Douglas and his wife, Irma Douglas. I have had the occasion to be in that place many times. I know that Mr. Douglas would appreciate this legislation not because he is there, in fact, that would be one of the reasons he would not support it, but because of the idea that we should honour this country and note that it is something that every democratic nation should have.
When we look at the contributions of people like Tommy Douglas, both in his home province of Saskatchewan and on the national stage, he brought much to this country. He supplied the ideas that have been developed and have been co-opted by past governments that we can all be proud of. We on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party have been honoured by his legacy and his leadership. Often we hear his voice reminding us of why we are here.
Another important Canadian who rests in Beechwood is Thomas Fuller. For all of us here, we should honour the fact that he was the architect of this very building. Again, he was someone who contributed to the nation and to this place.
Ray Hnatyshyn, the former governor general, also rests at Beechwood Cemetery. 
It is also important to note that where this place is set is important in terms of the national fabric, in terms of the viewpoints and in terms of the landscape, as has already been mentioned. It is, without question, the most important piece of real estate, next to the place we are in, because of the people who came before us. For that, the bill is not only an honour but is an important contribution to our national fabric.
Often it is through literature that we capture the essence of an idea. I want to conclude my speech and my contribution today by quoting an author and a poet, Archibald Lampman, who actually was inspired by Beechwood and wrote the poem In Beechwood Cemetery. The poem reads: 
  Here the dead sleep--the quiet dead. No sound Disturbs them ever, and no storm dismays. Winter mid snow caresses the tired ground, And the wind roars about the woodland ways. Springtime and summer and red autumn pass, With leaf and bloom and pipe of wind and bird, And the old earth puts forth her tender grass, By them unfelt, unheeded and unheard. Our centuries to them are but as strokes In the dim gamut of some far-off chime. Unaltering rest their perfect being cloaks-- A thing too vast to hear or feel or see-- Children of Silence and Eternity, They know no season but the end of time.  
Let us all come together, pass this legislation and honour those who have come before us.
The Speaker: Order, please. Pursuant to order made earlier this day, Bill C-17, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada, is deemed read a second time, deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, referred to committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)
Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):  moved: 
 That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 33. 
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important amendment to this bill, which has been called by the shipbuilding industry “the shipbuilding sellout”. We have had debates in this House about trade agreements before, and the sorry history of this Conservative government is that it has been an incredibly ineffective negotiator.
 We saw that with the softwood sellout, which continues to have profound repercussions for our softwood industry across the country. Softwood mills are closing down and softwood workers are being thrown out of work, all because the Conservative government was ineffectual at the negotiating table.
The EFTA agreement has the same problem. Essentially what it does is expressed in the words of unanimous recommendations by the shipbuilding industry itself, saying that this agreement constitutes a shipbuilding sellout, a sellout of our shipbuilding industry. Whether we are talking about marine workers from British Columbia or marine workers from Nova Scotia or the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, witness after witness says this agreement will kill shipbuilding jobs in Canada and will kill them in an irreparable way.
This amendment will carve out shipbuilding from the agreement. As we all know, around the world legislators do their due diligence when trade agreements are negotiated, whether it is the U.S. Congress, most recently with the U.S.-Peru deal, or whether it is the European Union in the most recent EPA signed with Caricom. In every case the legislators must look at the text of the bill, look at the implementation legislation, and decide what is in the interests of Canada.
What we are hearing unanimously from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and from shipbuilding workers on both coasts is that this agreement, unless shipbuilding is carved out, will kill the shipbuilding industry in Canada.
The witnesses were very compelling. They were not only talking about the fact that this will kill shipbuilding, but the fact that this will, in a very real sense, have implications for all the sectors in the industry, whether we're talking about shipowners or ship repair facilities.
I'll quote Mr. Andrew McArthur, who was speaking on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. This is what he said earlier this week at the Standing Committee on International Trade:
 It's not only the shipbuilding industry that's jeopardized, it's the shipowners. On the east coast you've got owners who operate offshore supply vessels. Norway operates one of the biggest fleets in the world. They have something like over 50% of the total world supply of offshore supply vessels. The North Sea is in a downtrend where they're looking for places to send these ships that were built with subsidies that have been written off. They could come in here and undercut any Canadian operator on the east coast for charter rates. It's not only the shipyards, it's the ship owners. 
From the shipbuilding industry, we also had comments about the ongoing viability of our shipbuilding industry, because as the shipyards shut down, the repair facilities are menaced as well. Essentially what we are doing is triple jeopardy: killing the shipbuilding industry, killing ship repair facilities, and killing the possibility for shipowners to be competitive.
In the long term, what we heard from Mr. McArthur on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada is that the technology comes from new construction and design, and without the ongoing technology and education of our total workforce, the industry is just going to die. We need the new construction to sustain the ongoing technical capability, so repair would suffer.
We have heard a lot about the brain drain in our shipbuilding facilities. Essentially over time we are losing people who are qualified and trained in shipbuilding. This is not an industry that can be rebuilt overnight by snapping our fingers. Whether we are talking about Marystown in Newfoundland and Labrador, Halifax--and I know very well that Halifax shipyard workers are imploring Nova Scotia Liberal MPs to vote for this amendment to carve out shipbuilding--Welland, Ontario, or Victoria, Vancouver, and Nanaimo in British Columbia, marine workers are calling on this Parliament to carve out shipbuilding.
As for shipyards, the Davie shipyards, for example, would be threatened by this agreement. It is our duty to carve out shipbuilding from this agreement. Whether we are talking about Quebec, Ontario, western Canada or Atlantic Canada, jobs in all regions are at risk in these tough times, the worst recession we have seen since the 1930s.
The Conservatives are pushing forward. They are refusing at any point to allow for our shipbuilding carve-out. They have their own reasons for that, and I think certain Conservatives, particularly in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, will bear the brunt of that irresponsible action. However, the opposition in a minority Parliament has an important role to play. 
Conservatives have said that they are going to withdraw the bill if this amendment is passed. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that is ridiculous. The government lost on iron and steel in the United States because of a botched negotiating strategy, and the softwood sellout has been appallingly bad across the country. Because the government has had so few successes in the area of trade--in fact, none--they will re-introduce this bill to committee with the changes so that we can clean up and restore some of the paragraphs in clause 33. However, the government's threats to withdraw the bill are simply not credible.
Accordingly, I ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment, as they did at committee, in order to carve out shipbuilding from this agreement. The Bloc supported our motion at committee so it stands in the House.
The Conservatives' threat to withdraw the bill is simply not credible. I ask the members of the Bloc Québécois, who are concerned about the future of the Davie shipyards, to consider our amendment and support it in the coming weeks. I know my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke agrees that we should follow up on the committee's work with a well formulated amendment.
Of course we ask Liberal members of Parliament to vote for this amendment to carve out shipbuilding. This is what shipyard workers in Halifax are asking for. This is what marine workers in Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for. This is what marine workers in British Columbia are asking for. For Liberal members of Parliament, it is quite clear. I believe they must choose to vote with what those shipbuilding workers across the country have said unanimously. 
I have to stress this point. There is not a single representative from the shipbuilding industry, whether workers or owners, who came forward and said, “Oh, this is not a bad deal”. All of them said the impact will be catastrophic and all of them said there will be losses of jobs. Can we take that risk at a time when we are essentially hemorrhaging jobs in so many sectors? Can we take the risk of a botched negotiating strategy by a government that simply does not understand how to be tough at the negotiating table? It is tough with ordinary Canadians, but it is very weak when it comes to the United States softwood industry or Liechtenstein. It just caves at the negotiating table.
Our responsibilities as opposition members of Parliament are to vote for the carve-out and for this amendment. This is a shipbuilding sellout. There is no doubt about that. We have heard compelling, unanimous testimony from our shipbuilding friends and colleagues across the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. It is very clear what course this Parliament must take. By voting for the carve-out, we are defending the interests of our shipbuilding industry and we are defending the interests of our shipyards across the country.
We are allowing that opportunity to stop the brain drain, to stop the collapse of our shipbuilding industry and to start to restore our shipbuilding industry to the prominence it once enjoyed. We have the longest coastline in the world by far. It is inconceivable that the country with the longest coastline in the world and a proud shipbuilding tradition would knowingly have its Parliament adopt a trade agreement untouched and unamended when we know the impacts would be disastrous. I ask for my opposition colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on a subject of huge importance to the economy of Canada.
In January 2008 Canada, along with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, collectively known as the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA, signed the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement. 
In today's economic times, we have to continue to open doors for our businesses in global markets, in contrast to the NDP's desire to close doors and try to make it as a stand-alone trade zone within Canada. It is simply impossible to do that.
The November 2008 throne speech underscored the importance this government places on trade and investment and reaffirmed our commitment to actively pursue trade negotiations and partners around the world. The Standing Committee on International Trade has reviewed Bill C-2 and has now reported back to the House with just one minor technical amendment.
The opposition, the NDP, proposed to vote 16 amendments to this bill, claiming that Bill C-2 did not effectively recognize Canada's shipbuilding industry, as we just heard from the member from Burnaby. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The government is fully aware of the views of the shipbuilding industry. We negotiated and consulted extensively with stakeholders in the industry to ensure their concerns and interests were fully understood and considered during the negotiations.
Government officials also consulted with the provinces and the territories on the treatment of ships in the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement, and today we are about to sign a free trade agreement that we can be proud of. It is a deal that addresses Canadian shipbuilding concerns in a number of different ways.
For example, it contains a 15-year tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, and a 10-year phase-out on all other sensitive shipbuilding products, protecting our shipbuilders in Canada. These phase-out periods include a bridge period of three years, during which tariffs will be maintained at the most favoured nation level. These provisions give our shipbuilders considerable time to adjust to a duty-free environment.
This is important. Fifteen years is the longest tariff phase-out period for an industrial tariff in free trade agreement history in this country. These provisions respond directly to the concerns vocalized by the shipbuilding industry and by the NDP.
On rules of origin, the provisions under the EFTA are those sought by the Canadian industry. They are consistent with those in Canada's other free trade agreements. The EFTA also contains specific provisions for the collection of customs duties in accordance with the tariff phase-out program on the value of repairs and alterations to ships that are temporarily exported from Canada to EFTA countries.
We have ensured that this new agreement does not introduce any new obligations for Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or any other products. Accordingly, and this is important, federal and provincial governments will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards for the purchase, lease, repair or refit of all types of vehicles. 
That is very important. That is something that the NDP does not recognize exists in this contract.
Separately, this Conservative government has announced more than $43 billion--that is billion--for the procurement of maritime vessels in the next 30 years. These are vessels that the government will purchase.
Furthermore, the government continues to encourage the use of Canadian shipyards through the renewed structured financing facility--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but unfortunately it is 11 o'clock. We have to proceed with statements by members, but the hon. member is going to have a full five minutes to complete his remarks when debate resumes on this bill a little later.

Statements By Members
New Interprovincial BridgeRoyal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, residents on both sides of the Ottawa River need a new interprovincial bridge. City planner Jacques Gréber actually planned for it over 60 years ago.
Forty years ago the approaches on both sides of the river were designed. More than 30 years ago they were built. In the spring of 1984 the National Capital Commission told the members of the then Gloucester City Council that it would transfer title to the not yet named Aviation Parkway to the Ontario Department of Transportation to give direct access from the 417-174 split to Montée Paiement and Highway 50 on the Gatineau side. The bridge would be built in 1999. Oops, another thing that did not get done.
The bridge has been a pawn in countless political manoeuvres motivated by nimbyism. 
We need a bridge. Sixty years of studies all point to that bridge at Kettle Island. 
Nimbyism often hurts the people who adopt it more than anyone else.
The past is an indicator of the future.
Annette LegerMr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a remarkable woman who gave a great deal of herself to this House and her country.
Annette Leger passed away on February 23 in her native Moncton, her dear mother, Betty, nearby.
Annette had a long and notable career on Parliament Hill. She was the executive secretary to several members, Maurice Sauvé, Donald S. Macdonald, Lloyd Axworthy, Paul St. Pierre, as well as Postmaster General Eric Kierans, and House Sergeant-at-Arms Gus Cloutier.
Annette is best known for her work as the coordinator of the parliamentary page program from 1979 until she retired in 1994.
When she accepted the position, women were just starting to take their place as equals in the labour force, and that battle continues to this day.
Annette travelled the country to recruit young Canadians, looking for that special spark in them, the treasure of our country.
I ask all members of the House to join me in celebrating and acknowledging Annette's life and her deep service to this country.
Le Réveil NewspaperMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, employees of Le Réveil, a newspaper in the Saguenay, are going through tough times. After announcing that printing services would be moved out of the region, the paper's owners announced that management and layout would be transferred to Montreal or Quebec City. 
Staff of Le Réveil did not want to see these positions transferred out of the region, so they refused management's final offer. Unfortunately, management then locked the employees out.
This is a deplorable situation considering that the company wants advertising revenue from businesses in the region, but is eliminating jobs at the same time.
I would like to offer my support to the employees of Le Réveil. I would also like to say that the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region is with them all the way. Le Réveil must remain a regional paper and provide good jobs in our communities.
Disraeli Freeway and BridgeMr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this past Friday, February 27, I had the distinct pleasure to present some 5,800 Disraeli Freeway responses to Mayor Sam Katz's office at Winnipeg City Hall.
My office has received these responses from Manitobans with definite opinions on the planned 16 month closure of the Disraeli Freeway and bridge between downtown Winnipeg and the northeast quadrant of the city.
Since this issue came into public focus in May of last year, I took a position opposing the proposed 16 month closure. First my MLA office and now my MP office have been swamped by people who agree that some alternative closure must be found.
We need to stop the closure of the Disraeli by building a new two lane span on the east side, and only when that is open to traffic, then refurbish the old four lane bridge. When done, we would have six lanes, three each way, the same number as on Henderson Highway.
Of the 5,800 responses, only 161 support the mayor's planned closure, just 2.81%.
Coptic ChristiansMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the persecution of Coptic Christians who populated Egypt for thousands of years. 
The Christian population of Egypt is estimated at between 6% and 14%, and over 90% of those Christians are members of the Coptic Church, yet only 1% of the seats in the People's Assembly are held by Christians.
These Orthodox Christians are routinely persecuted by radical and extremist groups. At times, even local authorities are reported to have carried out this persecution.
It is not the official policy of the Egyptian government to persecute Christians, but it is not doing anything to prevent it.
I congratulate Canada's immigration minister for his acts to protect Arab Christians from persecution in that part of the world.
The Egyptian constitution provides for freedom of belief and practice. I ask that the Egyptian government start to respect that principle.
International Women's DayHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend Canadians will celebrate the 98th annual International Women's Day. This day commemorates the social, political and economic accomplishments of women, both past and present, throughout the globe, but also the barriers that still exist and the progress yet to be made.
This year Canada's chosen theme is, “Strong Leadership. Strong Women. Strong World: Equality”. 
In Parliament the presence of women MPs provides the depth, creativity and fortitude necessary for effective and responsible government. Today we have more female members of Parliament than ever before, but there is still a long road ahead. Presently, only 22% of the House of Commons seats are held by women compared to 37% in Norway and 56% in Rwanda.
In her book The Unfinished Revolution, the late Doris Anderson wrote that what women want is simple and real. How can something so sensible take so long to accomplish?
In Rebel Daughter she asks, “Isn't it time that women stopped holding up half the sky and began making at least half the decisions down here on earth?”— 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The member for St. Catharines. 
Canadian ForcesMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the lives of three brave Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan were lost to an improvised explosive device northwest of Kandahar city. One of these men was Warrant Officer Dennis Raymond Brown from the Lincoln and Welland Regiment based in St. Catharines.
Warrant Office Brown spent his life serving his community and his country, first as a constable with the Niagara Regional Police and then with the Canadian Forces. He is described as a loving husband and father whose desire to help others led him to serve in Afghanistan. His wife, Mishelle, described his commitment so well this week.
As parliamentarians, our votes directly affect the lives of our soldiers and we feel the loss of each soldier we send into duty. Soldiers like Warrant Officer Brown, Corporal Dany Olivier Fortin and Corporal Kenneth Chad O'Quinn paid the ultimate price defending our country and helping Afghanistan build a stable democracy.
We in the House, regardless of political stripe, thank and honour them for their courageous service.
International Women's DayMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 8, we will celebrate International Women's Day. Although women represent 52% of the population in the Eastern Townships, we are far from achieving gender parity in any kind of governance.
In the Eastern Townships, women hold only 28.5% of management positions and, on average, 12% of union positions. At the municipal level, only 14% of mayors and 26% of municipal councillors are women.
Last fall, Nicole Robert became the first female reeve of the Haut-Saint-François RCM and the only woman to hold such a position in the Eastern Townships.
Together with the organization Promotion des Estriennes pour initier une nouvelle équité sociale (PEPINES), I encourage more women to take up decision-making positions in my region. Only 22% of members in this House are women; there should be more of us.
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 2009, International Women's Day will mark the end of International Women's Week, with the theme “Strong Leadership. Strong Women. Strong World: Equality”. I am proud to say that our government supports the equality and full participation of Canadian women from all backgrounds in our society. 
As we all know, women are active in the labour force, work in managerial positions and even make up the majority of full-time students in most university departments. Furthermore, this government has the highest percentage of women in Canadian history, given that women make up 69% of our cabinet.
On behalf of all women in the Conservative caucus, and those among our supporters and our staff, who work every day to make this country a better place, I would like to wish Canadian women everywhere a happy International Women's Day.
Canadian Co-operative AssociationMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Co-operative Association, one of this country's largest economic and social movements. 
From its beginnings in Hamilton, Ontario, the Co-operative Union of Canada was formed to encourage the sharing of information, mutual self-help and concerted action among Canadian co-operatives. Today there are 8,800 co-operatives and credit unions across the country. Collectively, they have more than 17 million memberships, over $275 billion in assets and employ more than 150,000 people. 
They differ from traditional businesses in that they are owned by the members who use their services. Their history, of course, shows they are often formed during difficult economic times, making them as relevant today as they have ever been. Since most co-ops are locally based, they not only provide jobs but also generate wealth which remains in the community. Co-ops are without a doubt one of Canada's greatest single success stories.
On behalf of all members of the House, congratulations to the Canadian Co-operative Association on this its 100th anniversary.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, Newfoundland voted to democratically join Confederation, and since that time, Newfoundland and Labrador has flourished as a part of Canada. Liberal Senator George Baker apparently does not see that and calls for a separatist party to be established, the Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberal leader says that kicking him out of caucus would be ridiculous. I would argue it is more ridiculous to keep him in caucus.
Meanwhile, the Liberal member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton says he has long followed the Sri Lankan conflict, yet he cannot identify the war flag of the Tamil Tigers.
While the Liberal leader is focused on fundraising, he is neglecting his obligation to deal with the irresponsible and divisive views held and promoted by that MP and Senator George Baker. 
This is more than just tolerance from the new Liberal leader for intolerant views held by members of his party. It is irresponsible.
Status of WomenPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow community members in Ottawa will join the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada to celebrate International Women's Day. The event will mark the completion of the organization's project, “Engaging Immigrant and Visible Minority Women in Leadership Roles”.
This week we celebrate the leadership and achievements of the women's movement in pursuing a just, peaceful and inclusive world. This is particularly poignant at a time when we see attempts to undermine women's equality through regressive legislation on pay equity.
Immigrant and visible minority women face sexism and racism simultaneously, which results in higher rates of discrimination and poverty.
Strengthening the voice of immigrant and visible minority women is one major step in the process of ensuring equality for all Canadians.
I congratulate the organization for the work it has done, and I stand as an ally with these leaders in the continuing struggle for women's equality.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the civil war in Sri Lanka is tragic for both Sinhalese and Tamils, but nothing can condone terrorist actions.
The Tamil Tigers are listed by countries around the world as a terrorist organization and have done little to promote peace in Sri Lanka. Not only did they invent suicide bombing, but they in fact prey upon the very Tamil population they claim to represent.
At a protest yesterday where dozens of Tamil Tiger flags were being flown openly, the Liberal member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton was quoted as saying, “You are here today for a great cause. I am helping you guys because you are fighting for a right cause”.
Canadian foreign policy has always preached dialogue over hatred, peace and politics over violence. This is just another example of the Liberal leader tolerating extremism and intolerance within his caucus.
North Shore RegionMr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these are hard times for economic development in the regions of Quebec.
For example, in the North Shore region, Wabush Mines laid off half its workforce indefinitely in January. We learned this week that Alcoa would cut the hours of employees at its Baie-Comeau plant by 15% in response to the global economic slowdown. The forest industry, which is also in crisis, is important in my region as well.
Even before this economic crisis, employment in the North Shore region was declining significantly each year. Unfortunately, that decline could get worse. 
Instead of helping the regions of Quebec, the Conservatives have cut funding for CED and refused to invest heavily in forestry, limiting assistance to $170 million over two years for all of Canada.
What a mess the Conservatives have made.
Ontario ByelectionMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday voters in Haliburton--Kawartha Lakes--Brock chose Rick Johnson to be their next MPP. On behalf of this House, I congratulate Mr. Johnson for his hard-fought victory.
Having previously served as a trustee for the Trillium Lakelands District School Board and as president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Mr. Johnson brings an impressive record of public service to his new post. I am confident that he will serve his new constituents with distinction in the Ontario legislature.
I also wish to extend the best wishes of the House to Mr. Johnson's opponent, John Tory. In the course of the byelection campaign, Mr. Tory demonstrated his characteristic tenacity and his lifelong commitment to public service. Although he was not the victor, his integrity and devotion to the people of Ontario has never been in doubt. 
I am certain that all members of this House join me in wishing John Tory well in all his future endeavours.
Liberal Party of CanadaMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Tamil Tiger flags were being waved on the lawn of Parliament yesterday. The Liberal member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton called their terrible actions “a great cause”. The Sri Lankan conflict is a great tragedy, not something that should be exploited to draw votes to the Liberal Party.
Just as bad as fanning the flames on conflict abroad, Senator Baker, the Newfoundland Liberal, is calling for a Newfoundland and Labrador separatist party. The Globe and Mail has called for his expulsion, while the Liberal leader says expelling him from a federalist party is ridiculous. 
The behaviour of the Liberal Party is ridiculous.
More tolerance for intolerant views in the Liberal Party is not the way to form government. Acting like this, the Liberals are as likely to form government as their coalition allies, the separatist Bloc, sitting next to them.

Oral Questions
Government ExpendituresHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government wants $3 billion for spending after April 1. That future stimulus will no doubt be necessary, but Canadians also need help right now. The recession is not just beginning next month. It has been going from bad to worse for the last year.
The government has $4 billion in its coffers right today, already approved by Parliament, available right now, but it refuses to invest it to help, for example, the 1,500 people who lost their jobs this week in both Windsor and Hamilton.
Why will it not use that money now? Why the delay?
Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking about two entirely different funds. One deals with the building Canada fund; the other one, vote 35, deals with the broader objectives, the type of objectives that the member is talking about to help the community. Those objectives are outlined in our economic action plan.
The Liberals in the Senate need to get the job done, to get it passed so we can help those people.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who is muddled.
Thousands of Canadians are worried about their jobs, their family livelihoods, their savings and pensions, and the government could help immediately but it refuses.
It has $4 billion available right now. No other approval, no delay, is necessary.
That money could be invested today to help livestock producers, for example, or forestry workers, but the Conservatives simply want to use it to hide their humongous deficit.
Why will they not help vulnerable Canadians right now?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have made numerous announcements over the past few weeks, not just in Saskatchewan where dozens of projects have received the federal green light, but the Prime Minister last week was in British Columbia where he announced a significant amount of support for the Evergreen public transit project. 
We have announced more than 280 projects to support job creation in the province of Ontario. Step by step, we are getting the job done.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, they are good at announcing but precious poor at delivering.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities confirms that the most cost-effective way to fight the recession, to put shovels in the ground and create jobs quickly, is to transfer federal infrastructure dollars to local governments on a per capita basis without demanding short-term cost sharing.
The money is available: $4 billion pre-approved, ready to go right now.
Why is the government making mayors and municipalities wait until the next fiscal year? Why are the Conservatives delaying the fight against the recession?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, there is always a delay in the actual approval and the cheques being cut. It was not someone in the government but the member for Willowdale who said that yesterday.
We want to work constructively with provinces and municipalities, because instead of having $3 billion being spent on infrastructure and job creation, if we work with our provincial and municipal partners we can have $9 billion. That is three times more jobs, three times more hope, and three times more opportunity for Canadians who are in desperate need of an economic shot in the arm.
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are asking Parliament to give them a blank cheque worth $3 billion under the pretext of the immediate need for economic stimulus during this crisis. However, the Conservatives currently have more than $4 billion that is unused but already approved for infrastructure.
Why was this money not used at the first sign of economic troubles last fall? Why the delay?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in fact we did act last fall. We acted even earlier than that, in the fall economic statement of 2007.
We cut Canadians' taxes, an act that was applauded by many Canadians. We felt then and we still feel now that the best stimulus is to leave money in Canadians' pockets. That is why we cut taxes then, so Canadians could prepare for the economic downturn that we are facing now.
Alexandra Mendes: Mr. Speaker, they pretend they do not understand the question, but the Conservatives know exactly what we are talking about. In last year's budget, this House gave them $4 billion for infrastructure projects that would create jobs. Montreal's Quartier des spectacles is a concrete example. The federal funds that were promised were announced with great pomp and circumstance but still have not been made available. The Conservatives are not currently using this money to create jobs.
What are the Conservatives waiting for?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, step by step, we are committing funds, those $4 billion, to specific projects right across the country. The Premier of Quebec and my federal counterparts, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister for Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec, are in Montreal today making another announcement.
Would the member opposite like us to take that money back and send it to municipalities instead?
We are working co-operatively with provinces, with municipalities, getting dozens of projects approved that will lead to cleaner water, less congestion, and support for our environment.
Sports InfrastructureMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when questioned in committee about the terms and conditions of the sports infrastructure program, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities declared that he will be advised by the political ministers of each region when making decisions.
Are we to understand from the remarks of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that he intends to transform the sports infrastructure program into a slush fund for the benefit of his Conservative friends?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable for that member to make that allegation. I am surprised that such a senior member would do such a thing.
I regularly get advice from my cabinet colleagues. I regularly get advice from my colleagues in the opposition. I saw with great interest the member from Markham was actually making a Government of Canada announcement in his constituency, which was very exciting. We work very co-operatively with all members of the House. I have even received some good advice from the members of the party that the member opposite represents.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the partisan approach proposed by the minister will slow down the distribution of money to this program. The minister should instead give Quebec and the provinces control over the program so that things will not be delayed.
Does the minister realize that he is transforming an economic stimulus program into a Conservative Party promotional tool?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we will work very closely with the Government of Quebec and the premier. We will also work with Quebec municipalities.
By working together, we can undertake three times the number of projects, create three times the number of jobs and carry out three times the amount of work. We can also make three times as many investments and create three times more economic growth. That is our goal. Almost every project must have the support of the provincial or municipal government. Therefore, we will work with them.
Does the Bloc member believe that Mr. Charest will help the Conservative Party in the next election campaign?
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities show that there is obvious partisanship in the use of sports infrastructure program funding. The program even provides for making agreements with the private sector, over the heads of Quebec and the municipalities.
Is the minister aware that, if such agreements are allowed, over the heads of legitimate authorities, the sports infrastructure program could get out of hand and turn into a tool for politically blackmailing the cities?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues are in Montreal this morning, with the Premier of Quebec, to make another announcement about support for a project in Quebec. We are going to work with the provinces.
I told the committee yesterday that every member of this House is welcome to submit ideas. I have already received some ideas from Bloc Québécois members, the Liberal Party and the NDP, and I have received many good ideas from this side as well.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, it was this minister who gave a political lieutenant and Conservative organizer the job of talking with the provinces.
How can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities assure us that the approach he is proposing will not turn the infrastructure program into a tool for promoting the Conservative Party and a source of secret funding to build up the Conservative Party's election fund, like the Liberals' sponsorship program?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, I am going to work with the Minister of Public Works, the government of Jean Charest and all my colleagues from Quebec on this side of the House. Ideas from the other side are welcome.
I have heard it said that the Bloc is everywhere, that the Bloc members are all over Quebec, gathering ideas from their municipalities. All ideas are welcome, and we are going to work with the Government of Quebec.
HousingMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a report to be tabled at the UN Monday is yet another indictment that Canada has failed its citizens in the most basic of human needs: affordable housing. 
The report spells out that Canada urgently needs a comprehensive and coordinated national policy. The budget was yet another example of the failed approach that the government is taking. There is no new money to end homelessness and nothing for new social housing.
Will the minister implement the recommendations in the UN report and commit to a national housing strategy?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have committed a number of dollars with respect to housing: $1 billion to support much-needed repairs to social housing, $600 million for new housing and repairs to existing housing on reserve, $400 million for on reserve, $200 million for the North, $400 million to build more seniors housing, and $75 million for new housing for people with disabilities.
We are addressing that issue in a significant and substantial way.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. There is money there for decks for cottages, but there is nothing for new social housing for families nor for homelessness. Why is that? 
In Vancouver we have a housing crisis. B.C. needs support and money for new social housing, not just for upgrades or retrofits. The government is still in denial. In fact, it is now an embarrassment in the international community.
I ask again, will the minister commit to a real housing plan that will actually deliver the affordable housing units that are so desperately needed in this country?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I was just enunciating a number of initiatives we took. That particular party voted against each and every one of them while at the same time trying to promote the issue of housing.
With respect to homelessness, we have committed $1.9 billion over the next five years to improve and build new affordable housing and to help the homeless. These are the kinds of things we are doing. We would ask the New Democratic Party and this hon. member to get behind us and help support that to happen.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised a full review of water systems on reserve. However, they have told groups, including the Safe Drinking Water Foundation, that they are not welcome at meetings on water quality. These groups have spent years cleaning up water systems like the one at Yellow Quill First Nation in Saskatchewan and Saddle Lake First Nation in Alberta. 
Their experience is invaluable, so why is this minister turning them away?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has done a lot since coming to office on water on reserve. We inherited a difficult situation. We admit that. However, we have reduced the number of dirty water systems by over half. Additionally, we launched a water and wastewater initiative that further builds on this by better addressing water infrastructure issues and water systems in all first nations communities. We are working with first nations on a legislative framework. We are getting the job done.
InfrastructureMs. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the economy is clearly getting worse. We have more bad news today. Yet, almost $4 billion of approved and allocated infrastructure money has been ready to go all this year. It still is. 
Why has the government held almost $4 billion back in approved spending when Canadians needed help? Was it simply to avoid, for purely political reasons, the word deficit?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, a very wise member of Parliament made the following statement on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation yesterday. She said, “There is always a delay in the actual approval and the cheques being cut”.
Mr. Speaker, do you know who said that? The member for Willowdale.
Martha Hall Findlay: Mr. Speaker, that begs the question about why the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure seems incapable of providing a list of those projects, which he wants to spend on in three weeks. 
My gosh, is this minister not good at making announcements? Towns like Kenora, Sudbury, Hamilton, and towns and municipalities all across this country have had money promised, but they have seen virtually none of it. An announcement is not the same as a delivery.
We all understand the need for speed and the government knows full well that there is a proven method to get money out to the municipalities right away to invest in what they need. It has been told and shown many times. Why does the government continue to refuse this method, one that it knows will work?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is because we do not want to cut back two-thirds of the projects that we would like to see go ahead in this country.
Let us look at what municipal leaders in the member's own province are saying. The mayor of Welland said, “This project will be a tremendous kickstart for our community”. The mayor of South Stormont, Bryan McGillis, said: “They've been waiting for this money for 30 years. I've almost got tears in my eyes I'm so happy”. And finally, South Bruce Peninsula Mayor Gwen Gilbert said, “This is huge news. It's very exciting. A sewage system for Sauble Beach has been on the radar screen for a lot of years”.
Step-by-step, we are getting the job done.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the recession gets worse every day, the Conservatives are sitting on $3.9 billion in infrastructure funding that has already been approved by Parliament, money that will lapse on April 1 if it is not flowed. Yet, the Conservatives have failed to fund even so-called priority projects like the Strandherd bridge in Ottawa. 
Why can the government not get funds already approved into our communities? Why the delay?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, funds under building Canada do not lapse, so that will be good news for the member opposite to learn. They are rolled over to subsequent years. Projects do take time. We cannot just begin to construct a subway system overnight. Engineering work has to be done and we need to seek the necessary approvals. 
When municipalities and provinces spend money on infrastructure, they can invoice this government, and the commitment from this minister and this government is that those invoices will be paid within 30 days.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the people in Toronto have been waiting since 2007 for promised funds for the extension of the Spadina subway line to Vaughan; $700 million announced, but not a penny has hit the ground yet. Given that they are sitting on almost $4 billion, why can the Conservatives not get their act together? Why do hurting Canadians have to wait?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, some 24 months ago, my premier and the Prime Minister made an important announcement for that subway project. The simple reason why the funds have not flowed is because the shovel is not in the ground. The province has not spent any money. We do not give blank cheques to projects that have not proceeded. 
When those projects do begin to spend money, the invoices will be fully paid within 30 days. The good news is, thanks to the leadership of the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister, that project is about ready to go and that will be a big shot in the arm for Toronto's economy.
Pay EquityMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some 40 women's groups in Quebec and Canada have announced that they will go to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to denounce the measures put in place by the Conservatives concerning pay equity, a non-negotiable right for women.
Is the government aware that this complaint will broadcast Canada's backwards approach to the entire world?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I agree that pay equity is not a negotiable matter. It is in fact a human right that we will respect. I am wondering where that member was over the last 15 or 20 years when these complaints were not being resolved. She said nothing. Our government is getting the job done.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I was fighting against men like him in order to defend women.
Does this mean that the Conservative Party is adopting the approach proposed by Tom Flanagan, the Prime Minister's guru, an approach—as we saw yesterday on the news—that says pay equity should not get in the way of prosperity for oil companies in the west? Are we really to believe that this is behind their approach? What is their answer?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I am going to let those kinds of cheap, sexist comments slide. I am interested in ensuring that pay equity is achieved by women in this country in a timely fashion. That is what our government has committed to. That is what that member has failed to do over the last number of years. We are getting the job done.
JusticeMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court, in no uncertain terms, has denounced the Conservative government for its policy change pertaining to Canadian citizens sentenced to death abroad. The judge said, “Government policy cannot be created by a process as amorphous and unaccountable as the one followed here.” 
Does the government plan to abide by the ruling, abandon its ideology-based policy and ask the American authorities to commute Ronald Smith's death sentence?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I respond to that exaggerated characterization of the court's decision, I would remind the member of the two young aboriginal men whose lives were cut short when Ronald Allen Smith marched them into a Montana forest and shot them execution style.
That said, we are currently reviewing the court's decision and it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you would agree, the excesses of demagoguery eventually end up looking foolish, pure and simple. Is the minister's representative trying to say that the millions of people and hundreds of countries around the world that have fought to abolish the death penalty did not have sympathy for the victims? 
The government has 30 days to appeal the decision. Can the government give us the assurance here today that it will not appeal this decision—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas).
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it would be nice if all of the opposition parties showed as much concern and compassion for the lives of victims and their families as they do for the perpetrators.
AfghanistanHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): 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?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the minister's return to tell us about his highly successful trip to the Middle East and NATO.
Every country has to make its own decisions as to how they organize their engagement in Afghanistan. Some countries have a special envoy. Canada has asked other countries to consider more troops and development. Our brave men and women have been doing the hard work in Kandahar and this has earned Canada the diplomatic clout, unlike the Liberals when they were preoccupied with their soft power fantasies.
Scott Brison: 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?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to check Hansard. That is a complete misrepresentation of the answer. We have confidence in our foreign affairs professionals, even if the opposition does not.
JusticeHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a federal court has ruled that the government must seek clemency for a Canadian sentenced to death in the United States. Will the justice minister abide by the court's decision?
Peter Kent: The hon. member must have been out of the House when I gave my previous answer, Mr. Speaker. The government is currently reviewing the court's decision and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, it is giving Canada a black eye, clearly. History is clear. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and in 1987 the Mulroney Conservative government held a free vote on its reinstatement. Again, Parliament said no, but guess what the Minister of Justice did? He voted in favour of the reinstatement. 
Is the minister still in favour of bringing back the death penalty in Canada?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, that question is not worthy of a response.
Employment InsuranceMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the EI work sharing program is designed to avoid layoffs by offering EI income benefits to workers willing to work a reduced workweek while their employer recovers. Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was pleased to announce that the EI work sharing program has been extended by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tell the House how our extension of the work sharing program was received?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member and the House that this initiative has been received very well. Here is what the Forest Products Association of Canada had to say:
 —extending the work-sharing program will keep thousands of forest-sector employees gainfully employed until market conditions improve, help workers retain valuable skills, position companies to take full advantage of the eventual economic recovery, and lessen the impact of layoffs and mill closures on communities. 
That is what employers want. That is what employees want. That is what Canadians want. We are taking action to protect jobs and to keep Canadians working.
The EnvironmentMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment finally admitted that his $1 billion so-called renewable energy fund was entirely devoted to the most expensive and unproven option, carbon capture.
I am worried that the minister is unaware that carbon capture is not a renewable energy. Simply calling it a clean energy fund does not make it so.
Will the minister tell Canadians if there are any legitimate plans to invest in real renewable energy such as wind and solar, or will he simply call the fund what it truly is, just another Conservative greenwash?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is another example of the NDP not reading the budget.
Our budget includes $1 billion for green infrastructure, $300 million for eco-energy retrofits and $1 billion for clean energy programs such as carbon capture and storage.
We are working with the U.S. administration, President Obama. We are world leaders in carbon capture storage. The member needs to support the budget.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, recently when asked, the minister was unable to even define what he believed green energy to be. We know that coal plants using carbon capture require 30% more coal to run and are 50% more expensive to build.
The government must be held to account for bringing in the most environmentally backwards budget in a generation.
 Does the government really believe in an energy future where we need 30% more coal just to keep the lights on?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the member voted against the Great Bear Rainforest. He has not read the budget. He said that he would vote against it regardless.
The good work with the clean energy dialogue continued with President Obama, our Prime Minister and our Minister of the Environment this last week in Washington, D.C.. We are working hard.
 Why is the NDP continually trying to obstruct moving forward on a clean and green environment?
Arts and CultureMs. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government has slashed funding for Quebec culture, but it always seems to have enough money to spend on federalist propaganda. Recently, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages added $372,000 to the Historica Foundation's budget even though the organization already gets $17 million in federal funding to carry on the work of the now-defunct Canadian Unity Council.
Maybe the government should be a little less buddy-buddy with Canadian propaganda mercenaries and pay a little more attention to what our artists need.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, it seems like an appropriate time to remind the member of our government's economic action plan.
Over the next two years, our government will be investing $530 million in the arts, more investments in heritage and culture than any government in Canadian history. It represents a 10% increase over the next two years in arts and culture funding, money that will support arts and culture from coast to coast, including Quebec. 
Paule Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, this government is obsessed with using history for partisan purposes. The government has already trivialized the significance of the conquest and attempted to rewrite history. Will the government finally understand that we do not want it teaching its version of history to 14-year-olds by funding the Historica Foundation?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes talking about taxpayer-funded propaganda. I have an example of exactly that kind of propaganda funded by the Bloc Québécois. This is from an extreme, racist paper that called Barack Obama a dog, issued threats of violence against Quebeckers and supports an extremist agenda. 
The Bloc Québécois should stop spending taxpayer dollars on that kind of extremist propaganda.
Mrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, filmmaker Jacques Godbout has criticized the Conservatives' under-funding of the National Film Board. As usual, the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages says that everything is fine and that the NFB does not need additional funding.
When will the Conservatives let the NFB regain the prestigious reputation it once enjoyed?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, the government is investing in heritage and culture in our country and that includes investment in telefilm and television programming and also new media.
This government supports arts and culture. We support telefilm.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, the numbers belie what the Conservatives would have us believe. The NFB's budget has shrunk by $14 million over the years. As filmmaker Jacques Godbout put it, it was once an extraordinary institution; now, it is an endangered one.
Will the Conservatives help the NFB retain its status as a relevant institution in the digital media era?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I see the Liberal member is quite excited about this. She should be excited because over the last 10 years there has been an increase in funding to the National Film Board by over $9 million. That is roughly 15%.
I know why the Liberals are excited. They are excited because we are putting more money into arts and culture than any government in history. We are standing up for arts and culture.
Softwood LumberPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, another softwood lumber decision requires Canada to pay $68 million. Canada's hands are tied by the anti-circumvention clause of this bad agreement. What forest company in Quebec or any other province is going to be able to export its products with a 10% surtax? The Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party realize now that they made a huge mistake in supporting this agreement, which is a sellout.
Will the government also come to that realization and pay the forest industry $68 million for its mistake?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, we are still in favour of the softwood lumber agreement, which put an end to a longstanding dispute. The agreement provides stable conditions for the forest industry.
It has allowed the reimbursement $4.5 billion to the softwood forest industry. 
This agreement has the support of the provinces and of Canadian industry.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that response is just the latest disappointment for the hundreds of thousands of working families dependent on the forestry industry.
Forestry has been in a 10 year downturn. It has seen 45,000 job losses in every province of the country. Five hundred more layoffs were announced just this week in Nova Scotia.
The Conservative government is overseeing the slow death of the forestry industry in Canada.
My question is simple and spoken most respectfully. Will the minister convene a national forestry summit to help our forest industries and forestry-dependent communities build a more secure future?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is not a family or an individual who has lost a job with whom we do not sympathize.
The measures we have taken support ordinary people across the country. The forestry sector measures are targeted toward those ordinary folks and toward the communities that are hard hit by the downturn.
That is one reason why we put in place a $1 billion community adjustment fund to try to deal with some of those pressures.
Mining IndustryMrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, mining companies from around the world are gathered in Toronto this week to discuss the state of the global mining industry and how companies can continue to remain competitive in this period of global economic uncertainty.
In the lead-up to the budget, Canadian mining companies asked the government for a competitive investment climate and access to credit.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources tell us what steps our government has taken to support Canada's mining industry to ensure that Canada remains the world leader in mining and mineral exploration?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Miramichi for her hard work on the mining file. It is a critical industry, especially in my province of Saskatchewan, which has now become the mining leader in Canada.
In Canada's economic action plan our government extended the mineral exploration tax credit. This week The Province newspaper reported:
 Canada remains the world's most popular headquarters for junior miners, thanks to incentives such as flow-through shares that let tax deductions for exploration be passed on to the investor. 
It is due to the hard work of this government and the member for Miramichi that Canada will remain a global mining giant.
Status of WomenMs. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the country celebrates International Women's Day, the women of Canada do not have much to celebrate. This week when I spoke at the U.N. conference, women were asking why Canada had been silent on the issues that matter to women: equality, the court challenges program, child care and international aid. Even Canadian Grandmothers for Africa are here today demanding results.
Why have the Conservatives failed to show leadership and take action on the priorities that are important to the women of Canada?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, to appreciate our government's commitment to women, members need look no further than our caucus. This government has demonstrated its commitment to elect more women to Parliament. In recent elections, Canadians have elected many more women from all parties. In addition, 69% of the members of cabinet are women, the highest percentage ever. We also have a minister who has specific responsibility for the status of women and enjoys the respect of our Conservative caucus. 
University ResearchMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government attacked artists in the last election campaign. Now, it is going after researchers by giving funding priority to research in the area of business and thus neglecting all other social sciences.
Does the government realize that students, professors, and university presidents are joined by the entire sector in opposing the Conservatives who are throwing a cloak of darkness over university research?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I answered almost this exact same question last week. Our government has increased funding for scholarships at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council by 50%, $75 million.
 During the budget consultations, stakeholders said that they wanted more scholarships, and we delivered more scholarships. One of the areas that they mentioned was underrepresented was in the area scholarships for business students, and we have done that.
Canada graduate scholarships will continue to fund social science and humanities studies and will also support business and finance research.
Airline IndustryJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, Ryanair president, Michael O'Leary wants passengers to pay for the right to use bathrooms aboard his planes. He is asking Boeing to reconfigure its fleet to install a mechanism for a credit card reader.
We know these are tough economic times, but to charge people to use a washroom during a flight is just ridiculous. Are airlines not gouging passengers enough with fuel surcharges and airport taxes? What about those thousands of passengers who do not have credit cards? Are they supposed to wear diapers? Could this issue become a health risk?
Will the government support a passengers' bill of rights to ensure that this kind of nonsense does not happen here?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, that would depend.
HealthMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this March is nutrition month. Nutrition in a balanced diet is a critical component to a healthy lifestyle. Proper nutrition aids in health promotion and illness prevention.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health share with the House what our Conservative government is doing to promote nutrition and healthy eating in Canada?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her commitment to a healthy and a balanced lifestyle. I am proud to say that our government is taking strong action when it comes to promoting nutrition and healthy living. Canada's food guide has been one of the most trusted sources of information for over 65 years. The guide is available in 12 languages and a tailored version was developed for first nations, Inuit and Métis.
In July 2008 we released the updated booklet and a web-based version of the nutrient value of some common foods. As well, Health Canada has shown leadership in improving the nutritional quality of foods through the trans fat task force, the trans fat monitoring program and the sodium working group.
Public SafetyMr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three years ago, Justice O'Connor made recommendations on the critical need for independent oversight of the RCMP in the wake of the Arar affair.
The government ignored these recommendations, even after being echoed by the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner, the Senate anti-terrorism committee and in the RCMP pension scandal. 
In committee yesterday, a Conservative MP broke a year of silence by calling those responsible for oversight “paper pushers”. After three years of inaction, after doing nothing, perhaps we finally have a reason why.
Are those charged with the oversight of our intelligence activities just paper pushers to the government?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the committee has only begun to hear witnesses on this particular issue.
The government takes very seriously those recommendations, a number of which have been implemented, and we do respect and appreciate the work of all of those bodies.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, official documents indicate that because of CSIS' recommendation, a Canadian citizen went to prison in Sudan, a country known for torture and ill-treatment of its prisoners. Meanwhile, CSIS believes that it acted in a manner consistent with Canadian law and policy.
Could the government confirm if rendition of a Canadian citizen to Sudan is consistent with Canadian law?
This is not about a court case. This is about Canadian policy. Therefore, I do not want an answer from the parliamentary secretary about a court case.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I presume my hon. colleague is talking about Mr. Abdelrazik.
We continue to provide Mr. Abdelrazik with counsel assistance. However, I would like to advise my hon. colleague that Mr. Abdelrazik is on the UN international no-fly list.
Canadian ForcesRobert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in 2006 the Prime Minister promised to establish four air expeditionary wings in Canada. Since then, several announcements have been made concerning additional military personnel, but nothing has materialized. One month ago, the minister responsible for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean told Le Quotidien that, by the end of 2009, 125 soldiers would arrive in Bagotville.
Can the Minister of National Defence confirm that 125 new soldiers will really, this time, be assigned to the Bagotville base by the end of 2009?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
Canada's armed forces are constantly looking at ways to enhance their ability to deliver the goods to Canada through bases, such as Bagotville, and through the use of the reserves in all parts of the country. We are continuing to evaluate that.
Any commitment made will be followed through on, and any announcement that is made will be in the best interests of the Canadian Forces and, ultimately, of the Canadian people who are the customers of the Canadian Forces.
HealthCarolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, last week, President Obama's budget signaled support to open up the cross-border medicine trade. 
In the last session, the government refused to support my private member's bill, Bill C-378, to protect the Canadian pharmaceutical supply from being bulk exported south of the border.
What is the Minister of Health doing to protect Canada's drug supply to ensure that we do not become the U.S. discount drug store?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, we continue to monitor the U.S. developments. I can advise the House that we are a long way from a successful U.S. drug import bill.
If future situations warrant action, I assure the hon. member that we will take a balanced approach to this issue to protect Canadians' health, while also respecting our international trade obligations.

Routine Proceedings
Interparliamentary DelegationsDean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group respecting its participation at the 32nd Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers held in Bar Harbor, Maine, September 15-17, 2008.
Committees of the HouseMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 and pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 4, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees in the House.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in. 
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to table a petition from one of the most successful petition efforts in the history of this country. 
The petition calls upon the government to do three important things: to immediately set a timetable by 2015 to meet its obligation to the 0.7% gross national income development goal; to contribute a fair share to the global fund for AIDS and TB; and to make legislative changes necessary for Canada's access to medicines regimes. 
This is an effort of the grandmother project. I am delighted that representatives are here today in Ottawa. Members will see, from the petitions in my hand, their effort and Canadians to bring this message to our government. It is now incumbent upon our government to take this message and take action. 
Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a certified petition signed by people in Paradise River, Mary's Harbour, Charlottetown, Postville, Lodge Bay and other communities in Labrador.
The petition concerns the unfair differential tax treatment of those taxpayers who received lump sum payments under the Atlantic groundfish licence retirement program.
The petitioners call for a full review by the Minister of National Revenue, with a view toward ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all those who were affected by this tax interpretation mistake.
The 850 fishers impacted, many of whom are seniors, have been wronged and they seek fairness and justice. They ask the Minister of Revenue for action.
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table a certified petition from residents of my riding who live in Port Hope Simpson, Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay and St. Lewis, on the south coast of Labrador.
The petitioners call for changes to employment insurance, including the elimination of the two week waiting period and an increase in benefits to 50 weeks. They also call for improvements to work-sharing provisions to keep people employed. 
The petitioners understand that people need help and they ask the Conservative government to respond with real EI improvements to help them and their families.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, it is again with great pleasure, along with my NDP colleague, that I am rising in this House to present a part of the petition from Grandmothers for Africa. As a grandmother myself, I know how much our love for our grandchildren guides us and leads us to do things we might not otherwise have the courage to do.
I thank Grandmothers for Africa for their courage in presenting this petition, which contains more than 32,000 names, to support African grandmothers in taking care of their grandchildren who have AIDS or are AIDS orphans.
Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am also pleased to present, on behalf of the Grandmothers for Africa, a petition from residents right across the country, including my own riding of Victoria.
The grandmothers are asking that, in this global economic downturn, Canadians do not forget the world's poorest and most vulnerable. They are asking the government to immediately set a timetable for our 40 year promise to contribute 0.7% of our GDP.
They are also asking Canada to make legislative changes so that there is a sustainable flow of generic drugs to Africa.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like the colleagues who have just spoken from the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, I, too, am presenting part of the very large petition that was collected by Grandmothers for Africa.
Members of the House have already heard a bit about this petition. I should mention that it is signed by 30,000 grandmothers of all ages and individuals of both genders. In others words, many people have joined on to this worthwhile cause that the grandmothers started.
Rather than dwelling on the specifics that they have asked for, which have been dwelt on by my colleagues, I will mention the extreme importance of the underlying issues that the grandmothers are trying to draw attention to: the epidemics of tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria in Africa that claim quite literally millions of lives every year and which represent, arguably, the greatest tragedies of our times.
This is a very worthwhile cause and, were it not against the rules to mention the presence of individuals in the gallery, I would draw attention to the presence of some of the grandmothers here.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want tougher penalties for sexual offenders.
The current penalties for sexual offenders do not reflect the severity of the crime and the subsequent life-altering consequences suffered by victims.
These residents call for legislation providing that sexual offenders receive a minimum 10-year jail time with no parole, that sexual offenders must attend rehabilitation and that the public be notified upon the release of a sexual offender.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition to the House regarding the crisis that calls for emergency EI or employment insurance measures. I would like to thank some of the members of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers for putting this together.
 It states that a healthy unemployment insurance system is the most powerful of all economic stabilizers, with which I agree; that in the recessions of the early eighties and nineties, UI prevented deeper and longer downturns; and that we have entered this new economic crisis with a weaker EI system and now only 42% of the unemployed receive EI at any given time.
Some of the things they are asking for are: 360 hours to qualify, the increased benefit for at least 50 weeks in all regions, the elimination of the two week waiting period and more flexible innovative uses. 
With that in mind, it is my honour to present this petition to the House of Commons on this day.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from March 5 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When debate was interrupted, the member for Cariboo—Prince George had five minutes remaining.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I had just spoken about a very important part of Bill C-2, and I think it is worth going over it again. It is that Bill C-2 does not introduce any new obligations on Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or for any other products. Accordingly, federal and provincial governments in Canada will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards in the purchase, lease and repair of vessels of all types. 
This is good news for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. This is good news for Canada's economy. This goes along very well with the recent announcement by the government that it is putting more than $43 billion into the procurement of maritime vessels over the next 30 years. That is good news for the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and the industry is rejoicing about that huge government infusion of cash. 
That is good news for the economy of Canada. That is good news for everyone but the NDP, because the NDP does not like good news. It cannot survive with good news. Whenever there is good news happening, NDP members do whatever they can to try to carve out some little portion of it to make it into bad news, because that makes them happy. 
That is why the member for Burnaby—New Westminster does not like Bill C-2 at all. As a matter of fact, he does not like any free trade agreements. If people listened closely when he was talking about the softwood lumber agreement, which he wants to rip up, they would have heard huge applause coming from the American softwood lumber dealers in the southeastern part of the U.S.A. They were cheering him on. They want to rip up that softwood lumber agreement, go back to the courts and stop any sales of Canadian wood to the U.S. That would be the best thing for them. They were cheering the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. They do it regularly whenever he talks about scrapping the softwood lumber agreement.
The government continuously encourages the use of Canadian shipyards for building ships through the structured financing facility. That allows shipowners who buy their ships from Canadian shipyards to reduce their interest cost on their financing. The government has put an additional $50 million into that fund, and that is good news for the shipbuilding industry. It is bad news for the NDP, because that party does not like good news and has trouble with it.
The government also recognizes the importance of Canada's domestic government procurement market for our shipbuilding industry. We are taking steps to address the many challenges faced by Canada's shipbuilding industry by buying down the interest rate of the loans that shipowners are using to purchase ships from Canadian shipyards.
The government has shown its support for our ship industry. In budget 2009 we invested $175 million on a cash basis for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake some life extensions and refits.
I could go on, but I want to remind members that Bill C-2 passed second reading by a vote of 258 to 36. That vote was a clear show of support for this agreement in the House, except from the NDP, which, as I said, does not like good news. 
I would like to ask all members of the House to continue to support this government and its efforts as we continue creating a strong competitive economy for Canada today. It will give our children the opportunities they need to succeed in tomorrow's world. Bill C-2 is an example of that. 
We appreciate the support of the Liberals and the Bloc in getting this agreement. We have been trying to do it for 10 years and finally we have an opportunity. Notwithstanding the NDP, which does not like agreements such as this one, we are going to get this passed.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, what a load of claptrap.
For members and people who are watching from Cariboo--Prince George, this is the member who did not even bother to read the softwood lumber sellout. They can look that up in the Prince George Citizen. He did not even do that on behalf of his constituents. The result has been hundreds of lost jobs in Cariboo--Prince George.
For the folks who want to look that up, it was in the online edition of the Prince George Citizen a couple of years ago.
Perhaps he has read this agreement. I certainly hope so, but the shipbuilding industry does not see this as good news. In fact, the shipbuilding industry came before committee to ask unanimously to be carved out. Those were shipyard workers from Halifax, shipyard workers from Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Shipbuilding Association of Canada.
They were very clear. George MacPherson said that the position of the association from day one was that shipbuilding should be carved out from the EFTA. Mr. Andrew McArthur said, “It is not only the EFTA that concerns us. The ground rules may be set.... Once you've set the ground rules...the industry would be in very tough conditions”. 
 Why does the member think he knows more about shipbuilding than all the shipbuilding association representatives and workers who said, “No. Carve this out of the agreement”?
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, for the member for Burnaby—New Westminster's edification, of course I was working on the softwood lumber agreement all through the completion of it. I certainly had an understanding of it. Even before the text came out, I knew all the salient points. I knew it was a good agreement.
As a matter of fact, during the committee stage I had to assist the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in many cases to understand the softwood lumber agreement. I do not take a back seat to him at any time.
The fact is that the government has put a $43 billion commitment into building new vessels for Canadian waters. They are all going to go to Canadian shipyards. The shipbuilding industry is going to get a huge infusion of cash from that money. We have protected the shipbuilding yards on the tariffs. It is a 15-year phase-in.
Many things are going to be good from this EFTA deal, but then again it is good news, and of course the NDP and the member do not like good news, ever.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.
There is an interesting opportunity for us to have a true national shipbuilding strategy. In my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, we have outstanding men and women who work on shipbuilding.
The questions I have are these.
First, a section of Bill C-10 tore up an arbitrated agreement that our shipworkers had. This agreement actually eliminates the arbitrated wage settlement for which they have been waiting for a long time. Will the hon. member bring this matter to the attention of the minister and ask his government to reinstate that agreement? It is the right and fair thing to do for the shipworkers who work in our government shipbuilding and ship repair yards.
Second, will he support a national shipbuilding strategy and the movement of the import tax that we have when we buy ships abroad so that the import tax would go into a dedicated fund, matched by the private sector, that could be used for infrastructure for our shipbuilders?
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for those two excellent questions. I know that the member certainly does like good news when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. He is looking for a revival of that industry in his riding, and good for him.
I will certainly bring those two points he has made to the minister's attention and work with him and members from all parties who want to see the shipbuilding industry complete this revival and once again make Canada a world force to be reckoned with by competition around the world.
That is exactly what Bill C-2 is trying to do. It is unfortunate that the NDP is opposing it so strongly. The Liberals and the Bloc are supporting it. They know a good-news story when they hear it. Unfortunately, the NDP does not like good-news stories, so we expect them to oppose it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It is my understanding that when the member for Burnaby—New Westminster gave his speech earlier today, his five-minute question and answer period was overlooked, so at this point, before I resume debate, I would like to go back to the five-minute question and answer period to be put to the member for Burnaby--New Westminster.
Questions and comment. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to one very specific solution for which I have been fighting for a long time. It could provide the moneys for our shipbuilding industry. As I said before, we have an import tax on purchasing ships abroad. Let us take that import tax and put it into a fund that is matched by the private sector. Those moneys could then be an injection into infrastructure for our shipbuilding industry. Would my colleague from the NDP support that proposal?
Would he also support a national shipbuilding strategy? In my riding and indeed nationally, our navy, BC Ferries and the Coast Guard have enough work for the next 20 years. Frankly, our navy needs our ships now. They need the frigates and the joint supply ship, which is absolutely essential for our navy to be able to do its job. It is actually a crucial piece of infrastructure for our navy. Would the member put his back into it and fully support our Canadian navy's ability to get the joint supply ships, the frigates and the long-term 20-year infrastructure plan that we need for our Coast Guard, our navy and BC Ferries?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, yes I do. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asks a pretty substantive question, because if he does not vote for the amendment on the carve-out, the tariff is eliminated. The Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the marine workers in his riding, in Nova Scotia and across the country have been saying that is the reason the carve-out is needed. 
That is why he needs to vote for the amendment the NDP has brought forward here. If we do not do the carve-out, then what he suggests cannot be done. What he suggests is very much in line with what the NDP has been proposing. My colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore has been the strongest advocate for shipbuilding in this whole Parliament, and he has been talking about a wide variety of measures. We cannot do it if the carve-out is not put in place. 
I ask the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to stand up for B.C. marine workers, like his colleagues in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who are considering voting for the amendment. I hope that he does too, because in doing so, we save the shipbuilding industry, and the other things he suggests become possible.
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, when the shipbuilding industry was at committee, I asked them point-blank if shipbuilders in this country can compete with shipbuilders around the world. The response was that yes, they could. They said they have the ability to build ships that are as good as any in the world, and I believe that.
We have done a number of things in Bill C-2. We have provided for the structured financing arrangements and we have put in the 15-year tariff phase-out. Through the budget, we are putting $43 billion into the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It is all good news. Why does the member for Burnaby—New Westminster want to destroy Bill C-2 and see it not go ahead? 
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, having been in the House for a while, the member for Cariboo—Prince George should know that this does not “destroy” Bill C-2. On third reading it is referred back to committee so that the carve-out is enshrined. As he well knows, that is what we are trying to achieve and that is what the shipbuilding industry has told us unanimously.
I have the transcripts right here. Not only do we listen when witnesses testify before the Standing Committee on International Trade, but we also take the transcripts and reread them afterwards. I would suggest that the member might be well served by doing that.
Representing the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Andrew MacArthur said that it's not only the EFTA that concerns them, and he said that it's very close to a sellout. He supports the carve-out on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada.
 I asked the member earlier why he thinks he knows more about shipbuilding. Apparently we have the answer.
Scott Brison: 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.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, stopping all free trade would be bad news for Canada, and we know how the NDP feels about bad news.
The member for Kings—Hants made some excellent points. I take a bit of issue with his references to the Conservative government not promoting trade with China as much as we could. If the member looks at the global economy, I'm sure he will realize that purchases are down in China as well as every other country. Even though its economy has grown, China's purchasing has slumped a bit, and that is a natural thing.
It is important to recognize that our trade with China is strong. We are selling a lot of forest resources to China now. We are doing everything we can, but we are not going to trump human rights in respect to trade.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: 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.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the trade committee. He is still learning about trade, but I am sure over time he will get up to speed.
I need to correct one thing with respect to his comments about the European Union. The European Union recently signed an EPA with CARICOM, the Caribbean countries. The Caribbean legislature said it was not good enough and made some changes, and the E.U. is now moving to ratify that agreement.
So the issue with the NDP is not trade agreements. We favour fair trade, not Bush unregulated free trade but fair trade agreements. We are strong promoters of that. We take issue with bad trade agreements.
The Liberal caucus has admitted that it made a monumental mistake by supporting the softwood sellout. Northern Ontario and northern Manitoba reacted by throwing the Liberals out of every single seat in those areas because they made that mistake. 
Now we have the shipbuilding sellout, and some hon. members in the Liberal caucus are saying they are going to support the amendment. People from British Columbia and Nova Scotia know they have to vote in the interests of their shipyard workers.
I am simply asking the member to listen to members of his caucus who are saying they need to stand up for shipyard workers.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: 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.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the NDP's amendments to Bill C-2.
The Bloc Québécois' agenda is to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Overall, the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association is a good one, and the Bloc Québécois will support it because it will liberalize trade of non-agricultural goods with that part of the world. Quebec will likely benefit.
For example, Switzerland has a flourishing brand name pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of our imports from there. Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to penetrate the American market may consider making prescription drugs here. It is no secret that Quebec's pool of skilled researchers and favourable tax system make it a premier destination for brand name drug companies.
A free trade agreement that facilitates trade between a company and its subsidiaries could promote new investment in Quebec's pharmaceutical sector. And then there is Norway, where nickel accounts for 80% of our exports. The largest mine in Canada, third largest in the world, is owned by a Swiss company, Xstrata, and is in Quebec's Ungava region.
Aluminum is our top export to Iceland, and aluminum production is concentrated in Quebec. 
This agreement does not have the same flaws as some previous agreements. NAFTA, the agreement with Costa Rica and the agreement with Chile all contain a bad chapter on investments that gives corporations the right to take a government to court if it adopts measures that reduce their profits. There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association. 
This agreement covers only goods, not services. Nothing would force us, therefore, to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not covered. Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very strong, secretive banking system, or Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity. 
The same thing is true for government procurement. The government is perfectly free to prefer Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on government procurement. It would obviously be pretty ridiculous for the government to give itself a certain amount of latitude and then decide not to use it. We therefore want the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of Canadian goods and services, to prefer Canadian suppliers and show some concern for the spinoff effects of its procurement. And it has the right to do so.
In the area of agriculture, Bill C-2 also allows for implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements in addition to the free trade agreement with those countries.
Those agreements, which are no threat to supply management, will have no great impact on agriculture in Quebec. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. The tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. That is what we have been calling for all along, and what the Conservative Party usually refuses to recognize.
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. 
 As for shipbuilding, we need a real policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry as soon as possible. Like many people, 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 EFTA. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic and deputy critic, which 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 in the report. 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 a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry. Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.
The Bloc Québécois believes that this free trade agreement is a good agreement. The problem is shipyards. We call on the government to table a real policy by the end of the year to help shipyards become competitive. However, we cannot afford to jeopardize this free trade agreement, which is good for Quebec.
The real issue for the Bloc Québécois, and what it has always called for, is a free trade agreement with the European Union. Bill C-2, a free trade agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, is good, but we have to recognize that it is limited. Together, these countries have a population of only 12 million people and account for roughly 1% of Canadian exports. The real issue is the European Union, with its 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. The European Union is the world's leading economic power.
Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which buys 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, the priority should not be given 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 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. 
Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. 77% of the people who work for French companies in Canada are from Quebec, as are 37% of those who work for U.K. companies here and 35% of those who work for German companies here. In contrast, just 20% of people working for U.S. companies in Canada are Quebeckers. The Government of Quebec has been working with companies since the Quiet Revolution, and that is a major advantage when it comes time to seek out European investment. We have everything we need to become the bridgehead for European investment in America. 
For the Bloc Québécois, this free trade agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland is a first step. We cannot not sign it. The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, the NDP, runs the risk of jeopardizing this agreement. The Bloc Québécois will oppose the NDP motion.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows well enough that the Bloc Québécois would never sacrifice one job in Quebec, never. That is why we were hoping that the New Democratic Party would take off its blinders a bit and participate in creating a real policy, a strategy to develop shipyards. That is what is needed. We should not be discussing the NDP amendments. In this House we should be discussing an assistance program for shipyards. That is what would allow them to be competitive, and that is what Davie Shipyards needs. That is the reality. Once again, the NDP refuses to see the reality. They have moved on to something else. An agreement will be made and we should discuss a real assistance program and work together, with the government, on this program.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: 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.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, this member's problem is that he should be getting legal advice. The NDP's amendment would only serve to put an end to this free trade agreement and that is not the goal. The NDP should have done this work before. If they did not do it, that is their problem. However, as we are talking, we are hoping that the free trade agreement will be put in place and that we will work immediately towards a policy to help shipyards.
Peter Stoffer: 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.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without question that of all members of Parliament who have been through this place in the last decade, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is the greatest champion of the shipbuilding industry, and members would be wise to pay some heed to his words of caution.
What he is presenting today, in such passionate tones, is something we all need to understand in terms of manufacturing in general. When it is destroyed, it is so much more difficult to build back again. It is not, “Do not worry, we'll let it go by the wayside now and we'll replenish it later on”. We hear this from Liberals right now. These things take decades and decades to be built up, but can be destroyed in a very short amount of time.
When a shipbuilding yard, especially of a sizable nature, loses consistent business over time and has a government, and successive governments, design policies that undermine and undercut its ability to employ people, how much more difficult is it to regenerate the energy, the interest and the enthusiasm around its yard when orders do show up, hopefully some time in the future?
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: 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.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): 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.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: 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.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: 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 (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have about four minutes.
Nathan Cullen: 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 (Mr. 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.

Private Members' Business
Brian Masse:  moved that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-273, affectionately known as the right to repair and affectionately because it would bring in a set of rules that would be very appropriate for this country to have. It deals with the aftermarket situation with regard to fixing automobiles and repairing them. It is an environmental issue, a consumer issue and a safety issue. 
The bill seeks to make some changes to the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I want to read into the record some elements that are very important. However, before I do that, it is important to outline that I have been working on this bill for a couple of years. It is not a bill that just came out of the blue. It has been dealt with in terms of hearing from people across the country, ensuring the issue was something that needed addressing and ensuring there would be a required element of Parliament to move on the bill. I hope all members will look at this bill and the merit of it and endorse bringing it to committee for study and further work.
When I think about this bill and one of the key elements of it, I think of Nancy Suranyi. I went to her garage in Namao, Alberta, and that facility really showed another level to this. It is not only just about making sure consumers have the right to choose, but I found the public safety element very significant. In this facility, which requires this bill to move forward, there is everything, not only with regard to just vehicles for personal recreational use but also school buses and other types of public service vehicles where safety is required. 
What is the consumer's right to a repair bill? The vehicle manufacturers are restricting access to tools, training and software to the aftermarket industry due to the increased sophistication of today's vehicles. It is gradually becoming more difficult for independent repair facilities to access the information and develop the skills required to service vehicles. By resolving some of this information for dealership networks, vehicle manufacturers are putting the aftermarket industry at an unfair disadvantage. The aftermarket market has made significant efforts in recent years to negotiate with vehicle manufacturers in order to find a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the majority of vehicle manufacturers in Canada are unwilling to negotiate an industry-led solution and have little impetus to do so. The AIA has exhausted industry-led solutions and is now requesting the Government of Canada to intervene in order to restore the balance between the dealership network and the independent repair facilities.
It is important to note that the intent here, especially if we look at other parliamentary action we are taking, is to help the dealers as well. One of the things we are requesting is to pursue a new vehicle purchasing and procurement policy as part of a stimulus package to get more automobiles on the road that are more modern and will actually help the dealers. Therefore, this is very much done in balance.
What is the problem? Vehicle manufacturers are restricting access to the tools, training and diagnostic and repair codes to independent installers, preventing them from repairing late model vehicles. This effectively eliminates choice. 
Over 18 million vehicles are on the road in Canada today and approximately 59% of them are equipped with onboard diagnostic capabilities, referred to as OBD-II. The ratio will increase over time. The number of vehicle components monitored by the OBD-II will also continue to increase. The tools and the software required to access the computer control units on vehicles have become increasingly proprietary. Vehicle design processes are also more sophisticated. The use of exotic materials and the changes in welding and assembly technologies make it necessary for independent repair shops to access factory specific training and tools. Consumer choice is evaporating and the impact of growing dealer monopoly is significant. 
Fewer choices mean higher repair costs and many repairs will be delayed or ignored altogether, putting highway safety at risk and increasing the risk of poor quality emissions. Also, fewer choices mean lower productivity. The existing dealer network does not have the capacity to repair all vehicles on the road today. This means longer waiting times and increased travel distances for consumers, especially in rural communities. 
Fewer choices mean instability. Independent repair facilities are primarily small enterprises found across Canada and many are located in small towns and rural areas. If this problem is not solved, many small businesses may be forced out of business within the next five years.
Fewer choices mean that emission standards for vehicles will not be maintained, leading to more pollution and contributing to other environmental problems.
Fewer choices endanger public safety because the safety mechanisms and the functions on the vehicle will be at risk of not being properly maintained, putting not only drivers and passengers at risk but also pedestrians and property owners.
It is important to note that this is a situation unique to Canada. I live very close to the border. When I walk down the front steps of my house and look to the left I can see Detroit, Michigan. It is literally two miles away. The river is two miles wide. Ironically, I could get my car repaired at an independent garage in Detroit within a matter of minutes and yet I could not do the same in Canada. What is also ironic is the fact that the repair technician working on my vehicle in the United States could have less training than a repair technician in Canada because Canada has some of the highest qualification requirements. Our technicians get their training in independent garages. 
I want to thank Danielle Grech, Andre Chamberlain and Daniel Clement who attended the press conference here. These technicians had never done a public press conference before and, despite that, came to the nation's capital and took part in the public forum. They talked about the fact that even though they were professionally trained, they found it difficult to service people's vehicles. They talked about the fact that they had gone to school and received the necessary training and met the necessary requirements, but because of technical problems related to an industry that could not find consensus, they were not able to compete in a fair and open process.
What is at stake here is the thousands of people who are affected by this industry. They know they will see diminished opportunities, not because of competition or because of other issues, but because they do not have the ability to be in a market that allows them to do so, which is why Canada needs to change this. 
The U.S. environmental protection act requires the manufacturer to provide this kind of information.
 I want to ensure all members in the House understand that I am not asking for something free. The legislation would require a fair payment system. We want to protect intellectual property. We want to ensure these things will be maintained. There is a clear effort from the groups supporting the bill to have a basic set of principles that will be accountable. 
In the United States, people can easily download any of the software they need for a vehicle with just a credit card purchase. In Canada, a vehicle in an independent shop would need to be towed to a dealership because independent shops cannot simply download a simple program.
Vehicles now have increased computerization that require more of this type of atmosphere. Things like tire pressure could be affected in terms of whether a vehicle can be serviced at a particular facility or not.
The bill has been looked at through a lot of different lenses. I want to read some of names of the organizations that are supporting the bill: the Retail Council of Canada; Pollution Probe; the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; Corporation des Carrossiers Professionnels du Québec; the Canadian Independent Automotive Association; the Barrie Automotive Repair Association; the Grey Bruce Independent Automotive Repair Association; Association des marchands de véhicules d'occasion du Québec; the Ontario Tire Dealers Association; Motorist Assurance Program; Automotive Oil Change Association; Atlantic Tire Dealers Association; Independent Garage Operators Association; Western Canada Tire Dealers Association and the Windsor Professional Automotive Repair Association. The list also includes associations in Kawartha, Sudbury, and western Canada. 
I would be remiss if I did not thank John Sawatsky and Dave Santing from my local riding who have been pushing this issue and have been doing some very good work in terms of public policy.
The bill is not just about being fair to consumers, it is also about public safety. Repairs to municipal vehicles, ambulances and regular vehicles are being done In Dave's garage, in my riding. To keep his business going, he specializes in certain vehicles, as well as regular vehicles in order for him to make ends meet. It is important to note that not all car companies are like this but some are better than others. 
I would note that General Motors is not opposing this bill and is one of the better companies that has provided information about this. There needs to be a clear accountability system. People need to access some of these programs, services and tools.
I spoke with Nancy Suranyi in Edmonton, Alberta. She had recently sent a team of employees to the United States to get the training, qualifications and equipment because they were not available here. There is a grey market aspect. Companies would love to train Canadians on their own soil. That is part of what is necessary to make sure we have a modernized fleet and will continue to see the issues addressed.
One of the issues is emissions. In Ontario there are a number of different clean air and drive programs. We need to make sure that small and medium size businesses are certified as well so that greenhouse gas emissions are lowered. A lot of vehicles will stay on the road for many years and they need to be function as cleanly and efficiently as possible. It is critical for controlling smog and greenhouse gas emissions.
Pollution Probe is supporting the bill. I want to read a statement that it generously provided to me:
 Pollution Probe supports the “Right to Repair” Act presented by...M.P., Windsor West. Minimizing emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from vehicles into the environment is a responsibility shared by government, automakers and drivers. An important step that drivers can take to minimize emissions is to keep their vehicle in a state of good repair and ensure that their vehicle's emissions control system is functioning properly. It is important that drivers have effective access to required vehicle maintenance and service in this regard. To the extent that the “Right to Repair” Act facilitates this objective, Pollution Probe supports this action. 
That was written by Mr. Bob Oliver, executive director of Pollution Probe.
That is important recognition as we move toward cleaner running vehicles. There are more on the market. Hopefully we will see some of the newer models. Some of the better vehicles are emerging but many Canadians will not be able to purchase new vehicles. What do we do about that situation? Do we allow a slow strangulation of independent associations, or do we provide a set of rules so they can compete? It is critical for consumers who have bought vehicles. They may have extended warranties or they may decide to go to an independent facility later on to obtain that service.
It does not make any sense for our air quality that because a simple program cannot be downloaded in one facility, a tow truck has to be hired to transport a vehicle across the city to a dealership. That does not make any sense. It is also a drag on productivity in Canada. We need to make sure the individuals working in the facilities are doing so in an efficient way. Adding extra hours of labour on top of a simple procedure like that is not helpful to anyone. It is not going to make Canada competitive. It is certainly going to cause more congestion and will lead to more problems. It does not make any sense.
Nobody understands our roads better than the CAA. The CAA has been a very active element in Canadian society. It has provided the following statement:
 CAA represents over 5 million motorists across the country. Our main concern on the “Right to Repair” issue is to ensure that automobile owners have the opportunity to choose and get the best possible service at a fair price. This bill will benefit the consumer by allowing for increased competition and consumer choice. 
I want to thank all the individuals who have put their support behind this bill. The bill is intended to make significant improvements in terms of our economy and create a level playing field. Other countries have done so and I do not think Canada should be put at a disadvantage because other people cannot get their act together.
I have spoken about the automotive industry in the House for a number of years. I have been pushing for a greener, stronger automotive industry in Canada. The bill fits with that. That is why I hope it will pass this stage and go to committee. I believe it is an improvement for Canadians.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, as you know, prior to being elected to the House, I spent my adult life on the retail side of the auto industry. I served on the CADA's industry relations board and I served as chair of the Suzuki Dealer Advisory Board. I can say unequivocally that an overwhelming number of manufacturers, including Chrysler, are opposed to this bill. It is deeply flawed. It is very wide ranging and makes seriously flawed amendments to things like the Competition Act and so forth.
I would like to ask the member if he has considered the implications on the Chrysler dealer network. He stood yesterday and talked about 1,500 Chrysler workers being laid off. Has he considered the implications of his bill on the Chrysler new car dealer network right across this country and what negative effect it has on dealers when the cars are sold that his CAW members built?
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comment.
First of all, it is 1,200 workers that get laid off, but I am sure that with their policies, the Conservatives will make sure it is 1,500 in no time.
We have to have a level playing field. This will not hurt car sales. This will not provide some type of a downturn. In fact, it will provide for a fairer system. 
There are other government policies the member could bring in but chooses not to, to get better procurement out there. His party's former minister, David Emerson, promised an auto strategy. He promised that when he was a Liberal and then he flip-flopped and crossed the floor to the Conservatives. He promised that policy and never acted upon it. Canada does not have a plan right now for our auto industry. If it is suffering right now, it is because we have no plan. 
There are ministers wandering around Washington right now. I would encourage the member, just like General Motors and ironically, Suzuki, to provide access to this information. All we are asking for is a fair set of rules for all of those out there, and that can be done in an accountable way. All we are asking for is a fair set of rules. 
I believe the member's family has a dealership. They should think about this issue because General Motors has set an example, but the problem is that the rest of the automotive groups out there have not been able to form a consensus.
The hope of this bill is to bring forth a policy that is accountable and fair so that people can compete in an open market.
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for introducing this bill in the effort to find a balance. I reflect on the debate we had between generic and non-generic drugs.
My question is similarly intended. The individuals who have come to see me who are opposed to this bill have indicated that in one particular respect, that is, the investment with respect to software proprietary rights and so on, there should be some consideration given to the manufacturers that have made those investments. Then there is the commercialization issue that comes into it. Could the member express how that balance similarly can be achieved through this bill?
The issue of training and safety has been brought forward. The member has talked a little about that, but does he think that training and safety will be placed at risk in terms of protection for the consumer?
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, there will be a purchase requirement through the actual element of this bill, so that one would have to pay for that service or equipment, or that actual information. There would be money going back to the proprietor. It is very important to protect that element.
With regard to training and safety, that is a great point. Many Canadians head down to the United States every single year, and if they have car problems, they get the car fixed at different places by people who have fewer qualifications than Canadians. They come home and they cannot get the same services here by those same independent organizations. It does not make any sense. Over here on the Canadian side, we have better training, better scrutiny, and we also have a process that is blocked. However, if one heads into the United States and has a car problem, the vehicle can be fixed by someone who could be less qualified and that vehicle will be back on Canadian roads.
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to start by commenting that the member just answered the Conservative member's question with a little bit of rhetoric. He did not mention the fact that he voted against the $12 billion for the secured credit facility that is needed so desperately right now for dealers, but I will not mention that to start. 
Instead I will say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this important issue. The issue is a complex one. At hand is automotive repair and service. It involves a fair and competitive marketplace and the legitimate proprietary concerns of manufacturers, as well as the interests of consumers.
This bill attempts to legislate access to information for the repair and services of vehicles to independent automotive aftermarket on the same basis as franchised auto dealers. Essentially this would require the vehicle manufacturers to make information and tools for the repair of the vehicles they build available to vehicle owners and independent repair facilities.
Independent aftermarket service providers are asking for the same access to information, training, software and tools as provided to dealerships. As we know, new vehicles are increasingly equipped with computer control systems and onboard diagnostics, making software as or more important than parts in vehicle repairs.
These independent service providers claim that manufacturers provide more information to their dealerships, which they say threatens the long term competitiveness of the independents. On the other hand, many car makers believe they already share the necessary information and that legislating beyond this affects their dealer networks.
Dealers also have concerns about this issue. They believe that this information sharing will cut into revenues. In fact the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, which represents some 3,500 dealers in Canada, opposes legislating on this issue.
In the middle, of course, are vehicle owners. Consumers want choice. They want competitive pricing, but they also want assurances that the work being done on their vehicles is done right. 
According to data shared by automotive consultant Dennis DesRosiers, the average age of vehicles on the road in 2007 was 8.2 years. It is estimated that over the course of a vehicle's life it will accumulate about $14,000 in aftermarket repairs and service. That is a lot of repairs, service and revenue.
Of the 18 million vehicles on Canadian roads today, 59% are equipped with onboard computerized diagnostic systems. This percentage naturally is expected to increase as older vehicles are relegated to the auto graveyard. While new car owners tend to remain affiliated to their dealership, especially during the life of the warranty, this affiliation tends to weaken as time passes, and especially with second and third owners of a vehicle. Owners of older vehicles generally like to find the cheapest cost in repairing their vehicles.
This is what we are faced with. On the one hand, independent aftermarket service providers are demanding access to critical information and access to tools and training. Car makers believe they are already providing necessary information. Consumers want the choice and the best price, as well as the comfort of knowing that those servicing or repairing their vehicle have the best knowledge and tools at their disposal.
The automotive repair and services sector covers non-warranty automotive repair and service. It includes autobody and collision service. This work is performed at over 30,000 establishments located at either new car dealerships, independent garages, specialty shops, such as those dealing with transmissions, mufflers, glass, et cetera, and branded retail outlets like Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart. The total employment in this sector was about 220,000 in 2004, with more than half in the independent and specialty shop sector. This represents a sizable group and substantial employment. 
The government is certainly very much aware of the aftermarket industry concerns and is engaged with stakeholders on the issue in an effort to ensure an efficient and competitive marketplace while protecting consumer interests.
According to a February 2006 study by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants for the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, of the 25 assemblers and importers operating in the Canadian market, 10 at that time permitted varying levels of access to this information from within Canada.
Car makers have made their own decisions about how they share their technical information. Selected special tools, including diagnostic scan tools, are also available for purchase by independent repair facilities from either the original manufacturers or from third party manufacturers or distributors of aftermarket tools to service most brands and models of vehicles that are beyond their warranty period.
However, there is no doubt the technology that goes into today's automobiles has become increasingly more sophisticated. There are highly specialized and specific tools that require technical training and diagnostic information, as well as the proprietary software from manufacturers, which their dealers are privy to.
These specialized resources do not come free or cheap. Dealerships make significant investments in necessary modern facilities, staff, specialized tools and training. Independents, who service a wide variety of vehicles, have not made the same level of investment, so there is a question of fairness when it comes to commitment and investment.
There are also a number of other issues with legislating that the information, tools and training be provided widely. These issues include safety and security concerns ranging from anti-theft access key codes getting into the wrong hands to the possibility of knock-off parts being manufactured and sold, especially safety equipment like airbags and brake parts. 
Today consumers do have a choice, and mechanisms out there provide for a competitive marketplace. Could it be better? Absolutely. That is why the government is reviewing options that will take into consideration small business and consumer interests, as well as environmental interests and the legitimate proprietary rights of manufacturers.
Once such option is the voluntary approach. This approach would be industry-led and industry-based. It is an approach that is consistent with the National Automotive Trades Association, NATA, an association of provincial and local associations representing the automotive aftermarket and repair sector in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. 
What the voluntary approach would do, other than keep government out of telling businesses how to run their business, would be to harmonize our approach with the approach taken in the United States. Mr. Speaker, as you know, our automotive industry is highly integrated with that in the U.S. This integration encourages standards, regulations and processes across Canada and the U.S. to be as consistent and complementary as possible.
NATA cites the U.S. National Automotive Service Task Force voluntary agreement as an example of how such a system can work effectively while safeguarding the concerns of assemblers. All automotive manufacturers voluntarily agree to provide all non-emissions-related repair information and diagnostic tools to any independent repair shop through an online portal with a non-profit volunteer task force created as the oversight body.
The bottom line is that we must ensure that consumers are protected, while allowing a free and competitive marketplace to operate. 
Competition is about consumers. When competition is present, consumers have choices. In the end, the issues that we will have to address are whether the instruments used in this bill are the appropriate ones and whether legislation is the best way to approach the issue. The provisions in the bill related to the Competition Act may not be necessary and may create negative, unintended consequences. The changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act may fall outside the scope of this act.
As we all know, the auto industry overall is in the midst of an economic crisis, with some manufacturers fighting for their very survival. Auto dealerships are having trouble moving the inventories they have. While this industry treads water, trying to keep its head above the water, this bill, as well-intentioned as it may be, proposes to hit them with a binding regulatory burden. 
The government continues to review options and to engage with stakeholders on this important issue. We need to look at the best possible solution for consumers while ensuring a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace.
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a new member of Parliament I have to say that I was somewhat surprised by the amount of discussion generated by this private member's bill within my party and by the number of representations made to me in the last several weeks. Certainly Bill C-273 has generated a great deal of debate, and I think this is something we should welcome.
I would like to commend the member for Windsor West for bringing forward this bill, because I think at its heart is the desire to offer a greater choice to the consumer.
It is also clear that on the face of it, the bill is commendable in the sense that it argues that implementing the bill will provide us with safer, cleaner cars and that the consumer will have a greater choice.
At the same time, obviously there are always two sides to every coin and to every argument, and certainly in the last week I have heard many arguments from groups that do not support Bill C-273.
I certainly welcome the opportunity to hear more, because I think it is important for us to have a full debate. The bill was presented before, but it did not get as far as it will hopefully get this time.
I think what is important here is that we allow a full airing of all issues. One of the things that has surprised me, I must admit, is that diametrically opposite viewpoints are being presented on the same issues. On the one hand, one group will argue that we will end up with safer cars, while on the other hand, those who are against it are arguing that we will end up with cars that are less safe. On the environmental side, arguments are presented by one side that we are going to end up with cleaner cars. On the other side are groups that say we will end up with cars that are less clean. If one looks at the cost side, on the one hand there are groups who say that this is ultimately going to cost the consumer less, while the other group, predictably, is saying that this will actually end up costing the consumer more.
Therefore it is very clear to me, as the hon. member of the government pointed out, that this is a very complex issue. Strong arguments have been brought forward by both groups.
I personally would like to see this debate continue. I would like us to air it more fully and bring the groups together. I believe that one way to do so is through the legislation proposed in this private member's bill.
I would like to argue that what is important at this point is that we bring all the players together and continue to discuss the bill. Hopefully we can come to some arrangement, perhaps through modifications to the bill, that will satisfy all the groups. Ultimately I think it is important for us to always be mindful of the importance of trying to make a bill that will offer the consumer a greater choice.
Robert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today in the House of Commons, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, about Bill C-273. To begin, I would like to point out that we are in favour of this bill in principle and feel that it deserves to be studied in committee. I salute the efforts my colleague from Windsor West has made to encourage competition in the automobile maintenance sector so that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to affordable, accessible and good quality services. This legislative measure will allow consumers to choose the business they want to use for vehicle maintenance.
As my colleagues have mentioned, cars and trucks are becoming increasingly complex. Some of the businesses that sell automobiles in Canada offer specialized information and tools needed to repair and maintain the vehicles they sell, but others do not. If a business does not do so, the customers are locked in to getting their cars fixed there. Such businesses then have a monopoly on the repairs and maintenance done on the vehicles they sell. A monopoly often means higher prices for the consumer, but above all, it means less choice. In this type of situation, the consumer cannot take the vehicle to any garage of their choice. They have to do business with the dealership. Without this legislative measure, the consumer has no other choice but to do business with the dealership.
The people of my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, elected me to represent their interests and this bill is a step in that direction, since it aims to promote accessible, affordable, good-quality maintenance services. Without this important legislative measure, Quebeckers and Canadians will be forced to continue doing business with dealerships for their vehicle maintenance. The situation is particularly difficult for Quebeckers who do not live close to a major urban centre.
More and more, vehicles require electronic diagnostic tools and as a result, garages in more remote regions do not have access to the information needed for proper maintenance, and repairs to vehicles can therefore be limited. People who live in rural areas must travel great distances to have their vehicles serviced and repaired. The numbers on this speak for themselves. According to a study by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants, the number of motor vehicles and the concentration of dealerships is increasing in urban centres. Yet 21% of vehicles but only 12% of dealerships are located in rural areas, and this discrepancy will only become more pronounced over time. I therefore ask my hon. colleagues the following question. When was the last time any of us saw a new car dealership open up in a rural area?
This bill would allow garages in the regions to service vehicles for Quebeckers and Canadians in the very communities where they live. As a result, these people will no longer have to travel to urban centres to have their vehicles serviced.
As I pointed out, under this bill, independent mechanics in rural regions will be able to compete in the vehicle maintenance sector and do work for vehicle owners. This bill will ensure that local garages continue to be part of the landscape.
Neighbourhood garages in all regions of Quebec and Canada are important. Two of the largest replacement parts distributors, NAPA and Uni-Select, are located in Quebec. Together, they employ hundreds of Quebeckers in a Montreal plant, and their activities rely on neighbourhood and rural garages.
We think that Bill C-273 will be good for consumers because it will enable them to decide where they take their cars for service and repairs. Vehicle manufacturers want consumers to come to them, but the Bloc Québécois believes that car owners should have the right to choose their own mechanic.
This bill will ensure that consumers are not forced to go back to the dealer for repairs and maintenance, unless the committee finds, in its study of the bill, that some vehicle parts should be serviced exclusively by the dealer. That is why we think it is important to study Bill C-273 in committee.
We have to wonder why the solution currently before us has not yet been implemented. The United States has been looking at a similar bill for a few years now. They implemented a voluntary system that enables anyone to access the information for a fee.
In Canada, vehicle maintenance and repair technicians cannot get that information. I would like to ask the members of the House a question: if vehicle manufacturers have refused to supply the information to Canadians to date, then why should they start now, given that they make more money by forcing people to come to them for maintenance and repairs?
Some dealers even imply that if clients do not use the dealer's services, vehicle safety could suffer. However, members should know that to work in a car centre anywhere in Canada, technicians must have a valid licence. Whether they work at a car dealership or the corner garage, they are responsible for the safety of their clients' vehicles.
The bill gives consumers the right to choose where they have their vehicle serviced and repaired, and it enables neighbourhood garages to continue serving local communities.
The bill is not designed to deprive manufacturers of innovations in which they have invested a great deal of money. However, it does establish that when a consumer purchases a vehicle, the innovations it contains are included in the price.
In conclusion, Bill C-273 allows consumers to choose where they have their vehicle serviced and repaired and will prevent people from paying monopoly prices. It will also enable rural Quebeckers and Canadians to continue having their vehicles serviced and repaired at local garages.
In Quebec, the vehicle maintenance industry, which does $3.5 billion in business annually, could continue employing Quebeckers and contributing to the health of our economy.
Companies will be able to compete in the vehicle maintenance sector, and consumers will benefit from quality services that are more affordable and accessible. By giving vehicle service and repair technicians access to the training and tools they need, we will help the market work better. 
Lastly, companies will benefit from healthy competition, which will be good for consumers in Quebec and Canada.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this issue. I believe when private members' business was first designed some decades ago, this was the way it was meant to work. A member of the House of Commons was able to receive ideas from their constituency, from people interested in the issues upon which the member was elected, and then present ideas to the House for consideration.
The right to repair bill proposed by my hon. colleague from Windsor West accomplishes a number of things that go to the heart of what it is to be a New Democrat, and that is the idea of consumer advocacy.
We see around the House of Commons and in Parliament many groups advocating for many things. Many outside lobbyists spend a great deal of time, money and effort trying to influence and convince members of Parliament of their issue and their slant on that issue. If people are in the oil and gas sector or some sectors in pharmaceuticals, they can spend a great deal of money without the need to have a great deal of Canadians on their side. They simply can have a limited number of partners, go forth and spend much money on dinners and cocktails.
In going through some of my emails this afternoon, I note that average every day ordinary Canadians hearing about the issue are writing asking how this thing works and how they can we make it better.
The NDP has done this on ATM fees, interest rates on VISAs and Mastercards, on the ripoff of consumers at the gas pumps. We have time and again stood up for the folks who do not necessarily have a lobby group organized around them. They are people who pay their taxes, who go to work, who get their kids up to go to school. They have to deal with everyday life. They do not have associations or groups of people willing to try to influence members of Parliament. This is the role New Democrats have taken on, not just in this Parliament, but in many parliaments before.
In advocating for the right to repair, the member for Windsor West has been able to bring together an unlikely consortium of groups and individuals represented in the millions by these associations, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Association of Retired Persons, Pollution Probe, environmental groups, people interested in making things cleaner, greener and more fair for Canadian consumers when it comes to repairing their cars.
There will be contention around the bill, and we have heard some of those contentious pieces already. It is incumbent upon all members of the House that if they agree with the principle that is provided here, which is to allow for the free and fair distribution of information about how to fix a car or truck, then that idea should be promoted to committee. 
 At committee, we can hear from witnesses on what the repercussions may or may not be for certain sectors. At the very least, we can look at the listing of groups that are interested in hearing about this, that have both direct connection to the automobile sector and that are more tangential, like the environmental groups. Then we can look at our in boxes, phone messages and letters from constituents who, when they hear about the issue as promoted by the member for Windsor West, think it is a good idea. Why does Parliament not do what Parliament so rarely does, which is work together on behalf of ordinary working people to get something positive and constructive done in this place. 
It is very easy to tune into the evening news. We can listen to the Prime Minister on a daily basis rattling his sabre and screaming over the heads about the need for another election and that it all must end. It is destructive debate. The “my way or the highway” approach of government is not in the best interests of the country, particularly at this time.
I note the desperate economic times and the fact that Canadians are scrambling to keep it together. When one or more members of a household have lost their jobs or have had their employment severely reduced, or the when the quality of their employment is severely reduced, they come to us. I hope members are in their constituency offices listening to these families and individuals. They are saying that making it to the end of the month is becoming more and more difficult. 
I represent a rural riding in Canada, the great northwest of British Columbia, the entire quarter of that province. I have to travel approximately two hours, 220 kilometres, to get to the car dealership for the most basic repairs to keep the standard required of the car I leased a number of years ago. That is a simple fact of life for many rural Canadians who do not have dealerships in every community.
When those dealerships are holding onto the manual and people walk into an independent dealership needing a small repair, they are unable to get that repair done and unable to have the servicing they need. As the member from Windsor pointed out, people near the border who have the same vehicle from the same manufacturer simply go across the border and experience another reality entirely. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Canadians realize this, and they want it fixed. It is one of those issues that one does not realize until one bumps into it. A lot of Canadians who live in a large metropolis where it is very easy to get to dealerships may not have faced this situation, the moment when they hop across to the repair shop down the road, a shop where they have some relationship and trust with the mechanic, and are told that the car simply can't be fixed because, in this modern age of the Internet and information being everywhere all the time, the mechanic cannot get access to fix the car. They are told they will have to go over there, that they have no consumer choice, that they have no right to repair with the company they choose.
It baffles many when they step back and ask why this situation exists. What is the role of government in this place? What is the foundational and functional role of government?
As I pointed out at the beginning of my comments, when it was around ATM fees and interest rates on credit cards, when it was on the measurement of gas at the gas pump, with some companies jimmying with it a little, and government throws its hands up and says it is not its duty or responsibility, one wonders what its duty or responsibility is. 
If basic consumer protection is not part of a government's mandate, then what is the mandate? Are these folks just here as sleeping gatekeepers who no longer pay attention to what is going on?
One of my hon. colleagues is suggesting that the government's role is to listen. I would then suggest that it listen, because on this piece of legislation people are saying they would like that right. They would like the government to consider that option. I am hearing support. I could not quite decipher and parse the government's words. I know we will be hearing from more members as to whether they are supportive or not.
 I suggest there will be some sort of fierce negotiations going on in the lobby as this bill comes to a vote, but I encourage members, even those from the Conservative Party who have some concern, to look at the merits of this bill. I encourage them to hear the hopes of their constituents, those within the sector as well as those who just own a car in Canada, are hoping to buy a Canadian-made car, or are hoping to help that part of the economy, that there is not going to be some sort of extra penalty.
It is important for folks to realize just how large this market is. We take a step back and realize that the aftermarket in Canada is a $16 billion market with 225,000 Canadians employed. About 40%, about 90,000 of them, are general automotive service technicians, and they are very well-trained people.
For those of us who have lived in other countries and have had the misfortune in certain nations to try to get a car repair, it is a worrisome prospect. In Canada, we actually enjoy an extremely high level of service, both in the dealerships and in the independents.
Having at least a few measures and rules in place that allow us some protection as consumers to get good service for fair pay and fair price actually leads to a productive economy, whereas in a lot of other countries in the world, it is hit-and-miss and the buyer must beware at all times.
For those areas of our country and those constituencies that are very hard hit, which I would assume is almost everywhere right now, this measure does offer some hope. It offers some hope particularly to people in those rural sectors of the country who do not have immediate access to a dealership because they are three or four or five hours down the road from the dealership that offered the car and model that was best for their family,
The nuanced government concerns presented so far can be ameliorated. There are ways to work this through. 
Again I congratulate my colleague from Windsor for figuring this out, for presenting to the House of Commons a good idea, an idea we are supporting, an idea that will be accepted and encouraged by Canadians.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to discuss the issue of the right to repair.
According to the provisions contained within the bill, automobile manufacturers who sell cars in Canada must provide unrestricted access to all the service and training information relating to its vehicles. 
New vehicles are increasingly equipped with computer control systems and on board diagnostics making software more important than mechanical parts in later model vehicles. Independent or after market service providers are claiming that manufacturers provide more information to their dealerships which threatens the long-term competitiveness of the after market sector.
The manufacturers feel that some of the information that the after market industry demands is proprietary and that they already provide service and repair information for all but the newest of vehicles.
There are also a number of other issues with legislating that the information, tools and training be provided widely. Issues such as safety and security concerns, from anti-theft access key codes getting into the wrong hands to the possibility of knock-off parts being manufactured and sold, especially safety equipment like air bags and brake parts.
Furthermore, the bill provides an amendment to the Competition Act to add a definition of product in section 75. It says:
 --to make it clear that that term includes technical information that is required by a person in order to provide a service to a customer. This ensures that the Competition Tribunal is able to require a supplier to provide this information to a customer in accordance with section 75 in cases where the supplier has previously refused to do so. 
First off, while this bill is well intended, the provisions of the bill related to the Competition Act may not be necessary and may create negative, unintended consequences. 
If the information, diagnostic tools and capabilities referred to in the bill are products; that is, goods or services actually exchanged for value or consideration, then they are already covered by the provisions of the Competition Act and no amendment is necessary.
If they are not products, the amendment would import an exception into the Competition Act that would undermine the key and widely accepted competition law concept of requiring a product in order to define a relative product market.
The issue that needs to be addressed is whether the instruments used in this bill are the appropriate ones and whether the legislation is the best approach. The provisions of the bill related to the Competition Act may not be necessary and may create negative, unintended consequences.
The government is very much concerned with consumers' best interests. The aims of the bill I believe have consumers' best interests in mind. However, it is not clear the instruments the bill intends to use are in the right direction.
We need to ask ourselves, under the current process, are consumers protected by allowing a free and competitive marketplace to operate? Competition is about consumers and when competition is present, consumers have choices.
With that in mind, the government has introduced reform to the Competition Act. The changes proposed will modernize the Competition Act, which has not been significantly changed for nearly a quarter century, and better protect Canadians from the harm caused by anti-competitive acts like price fixing and misleading advertising.
The reforms will promote an efficient marketplace by better protecting consumers, improving the competitiveness of Canadian businesses, and making Canada a more innovative and productive country. With this reform, the government will ensure that consumers' interests are respected and promoted. Canada's laws and policies must protect consumers and focus on delivering the benefits of economic competition to all Canadians.
Obviously, business benefits from a competitive environment. Vigorous competition creates efficiencies and successes. It improves productivity and the ability to take advantage of market opportunities whether at home or abroad. 
The technology that goes into automobiles today is becoming increasingly more sophisticated.
The technology that goes into automobiles today is becoming increasingly more sophisticated. In order to repair and service newer vehicles, there are highly specialized and specific tools that require technical training and diagnostic information. Manufacturers also own proprietary software which is made available to their respective dealer networks. These dealerships in turn make significant investments to ensure their facilities have the modern capacity and the specialized tools to service these vehicles, and into staff and training.
Therefore, car company A's dealerships become experts on its vehicles, gained by its investments into the proprietary information tools and training from its parent manufacturer. The same goes with car company B on its own vehicles, and so on. Consumers have come to accept and expect this. Owners of car company A vehicles know that by going to the A dealerships, they are being serviced by an expert on these A vehicles.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an independent after market business to have the updated information and training on every manufacturer's products or be able to make the appropriate investment to service all makes. 
There is also a concern that by legislating access to this information, training and tools, consumers could automatically assume that all after market service providers are indeed experts on all makes. Respecting the legitimate property rights of manufacturers does not necessarily diminish competition or choice for consumers. 
According to data shared by automotive consultant Dennis DesRosiers, new car dealerships have a 32% share of the parts and service marketplace. That means after market providers take a vast majority of the business. Consumers are also protected for new vehicles through the manufacturers' warranty. Typically, most repairs that fall under the warranty are done at the dealership.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
 (The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)