Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, when members are in opposition everything seems simple because they do not have to follow through.
I would indicate to the member opposite that we are in negotiations, that we are working. This is not something that the Government of Canada can do solely on its own. It deals with the city of Windsor and other governments.
Everything is easy when members are in opposition.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, that was a very amusing tirade from the member. I am not suggesting that they can decide whether they want to do it or not. I am talking about the negotiations. The member should understand that negotiations, and I believe in free collective bargaining, means that both sides are putting their views forward without a prejudgment.
I believe that at the end of the day they have to come to an agreement. When they have agreed upon the levels, they will indeed live up to their agreement. I am not talking about whether they might or might not do it. I am talking about the way in which we reach the final agreement.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Yes, it is 20% of the market, but it is an important part. We are sitting down at the table negotiating. When they talk to us, they understand that they are 20% of the market. We are asking them what they believe is achievable and what will meet common goals.
I think through voluntary negotiation, given that they understand that they are only 20% of the market, and given that they understand what our needs and requirements are, we can come to a solution that is satisfactory to both.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is we are in negotiations with Canadian--
Supply February 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate today. By way of setting the stage, I would like to remind members that I represent the riding of Whitby--Oshawa in the region of Durham. The region of Durham is home to General Motors and to the head office of BMW Canada.
My constituents are concerned not only about the health of the auto industry in Canada but also the health of the environment. The government has made a commitment to Kyoto and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of working with all sectors, it is extremely important that we get a general buy-in from the public.
My problem with the motion on the floor today is the notion that the only way to achieve any reduction in greenhouse gases and the only way to get the auto industry to comply is through a mandatory regulatory regime.
I spent a number of years in the education profession working with people. It has always been my view and understanding that if parties can sit down and negotiate a settlement, they feel they are part of the solution.
I talk to members of the automotive industry on a regular basis. They have never suggested that they do not want to be a part of the solution. The fact that we are currently in negotiations says something about the state of the relationship between the auto industry and Canadians and government. I am not just talking about General Motors or Ford. These negotiations involve all groups. The member across has told us that Toyota is in his riding. It is one of the parties at the table, together with Ford and General Motors and many others.
The automotive industry is a very competitive industry, but it has managed to get by that for the common good. It understands that good economic policy is not exclusive to good environmental policy. The industry wants to be a part of the solution.
A voluntary company average fuel consumption program has been in place for many years. I would like to give the House a couple of facts which the opposition does not want to acknowledge. Since 1986, passenger cars have averaged 8% better than the voluntary CAF targets; 2003-04 passenger cars averaged 8% better than the voluntary targets; and light trucks were 3% better.
There has been an improvement, but perhaps not as great as we would wish. That is why we are now currently at the negotiating table. We are talking about approximately five megatonnes. Nobody in the industry would say that is not an appropriate amount to be asked to reduce. Industry is asking us to find ways to do it, and it may not necessarily be through a regimented mandatory system. There should be an opportunity to put various things on the table.
The suggestion that somehow industry is bad and never wants to do its part belies the fact that currently there are about 14 memorandums of agreement in place with respect to the automotive industry. Industry is not reneging on those. There has been compliance. To suggest that if we do not have mandatory requirements, there will not be compliance shortchanges the industry.
A suggestion was made that we on the Liberal side are only supportive of big business and big corporations to the exclusion of the environment. I would remind members that big business needs the very people that they say they represent, workers and families. They are my constituents. I want them to have good jobs. I want them to have a clean and healthy environment. I am a mother with a child who has asthma and allergies. I want to see a better and cleaner environment. All sectors need to work together to see that happen.
We should also put on the table that while no one is suggesting that the emissions from autos are not causing some problems to the environment, I would also indicate that one cord of wood burned in a fireplace this winter will create more smog-causing emissions than the entire lifetime emissions produced by 10 Tier 2 SUVs. In fact one would have to drive 37 new Tier 2 SUVs around the earth's circumference to equal the emissions from one cord of wood that is burned. There are a number of things that we are doing in every day life that are adding to smog or emissions. Any approach we take has to take all these things into consideration.
One could paint a room, use one gallon of oil-based paint, and that would generate more smog than a Tier 2 vehicle moving from Toronto to Vancouver and back. Are we going to suddenly say that there are mandatory limits on how much paint an individual can use? No, but it is important and appropriate that we get the message out in terms of some of things we are doing with the one tonne challenge, to indicate to individuals what they can do.
It does not matter what kind of a vehicle an auto industry produces. The fact is someone has to buy it. I do not think we want to limit people's choices. What we should be doing is putting forth the options that if a person buys this, these are the benefits to the environment. At the same time, I am encouraging my government to look at ways we can encourage people to do the right thing, to look at making comparisons about the advantages of buying vehicles that are much more fuel efficient.
To suggest that we do not have an auto strategy is ludicrous. Talk to Ford. It knows we have an auto strategy. General Motors will soon know that we have an auto strategy. We are working very closely with those people, and part of it is for research and development so they can continue to put a better, more efficient vehicle on the market for all of us.
I am a little concerned that somehow we are painted as being anti-environment and against reduced emission strategies. I want to see this happen. I want to see it happen in many areas, but I do not think we should be picking on this one and saying it has to be mandatory. We need to work together. I would encourage us all to continue to work together to try to get what is best for our children and future children. That is part of the reason why Canada signed on to the Kyoto accord. It understands and appreciates that if we sit back and do nothing, what will we leave to future generations?
One party across the way says that this is job-killing, that this is inappropriate and that we should not be doing it. The other says that we have to regulate and make it mandatory, that we should not have a buy-in, that we should not get people to understand that everybody needs to do their part. I would challenge members on one side to say, “Have you met the one tonne challenge? What are you doing to promote it? What are you doing in your own daily lives to assist?”
I am not here as an apologist for the auto industry. I am not saying that we should let it off the hook in terms of coming to the table, of doing its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and of meeting the challenge that we have put before it in terms a five megatonne reduction. We absolutely need to do that. Do we need to be tough at the negotiation tables? Absolutely, but we do not need to be so entrenched that there is only one way to do this. I think through voluntary negotiation we could achieve the very targets the member wants to see happen.
Toque Tuesday February 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, each year on Toque Tuesday, Raising the Roof volunteers take to the streets to raise funds for local agencies working directly with homeless men, women and children.
Since 1998, more than 80 grassroots agencies across Canada have received funding from Raising the Roof to provide much needed long term solutions to homelessness.
Raising the Roof is a strong partner of the Government of Canada's national homelessness initiatives. These initiatives reach out to those who are most vulnerable: seniors, persons with disabilities, aboriginal people, new immigrants and low income families. They address not only those who live on the street, but the hidden homeless who sleep on a friend's couch or live in substandard accommodation.
All in all, 1.7 million low income Canadian families are poorly housed and at risk of becoming homeless.
Toque Tuesday February 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, today is Toque Tuesday and across the country Canadians will be buying and wearing toques as a reminder that too many Canadians are homeless.
Each year--
Literacy February 4th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in recognition of family literacy day which was marked across the country on January 27.
Family literacy refers to the many ways families develop and use literary skills such as reading, writing, computation, communication, and problem solving skills to accomplish day to day tasks and activities, including sharing a bedtime story.
Literacy and the other essential skills are linked to quality of life, employment, health and self-esteem, and are critical to Canada's social and economic well-being in the 21st century.
Literacy begins with the family. When parents read to their children and provide a literacy rich environment, they show them that the written word is key to learning and that learning can be fun.
Children whose parents spend time reading to them achieve higher success in their education and their careers.
I encourage my colleagues in the House and all Canadians across the country to read to their children. I congratulate those who are dedicated to advancing family literacy skills in Canada.
Canada Labour Code November 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the discussion on the debate on Bill C-263, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). Even though I do not agree with the content or the intent, it is nevertheless an interesting topic worthy of considered debate.
We should discuss the issue of replacement workers in the context of the economic times we find ourselves in. To say we are living with challenges to industry and labour would be an understatement. The past decade has been one where the forces of globalization, trade and instant communication have changed the labour landscape forever. These forces, along with the corporate and economic restructuring, have placed great pressure on employers and employees and also on the existing collective bargaining environment.
Our economy is ultimately and intimately connected to our ability to manufacture goods and provide services to the world at competitive prices. Mad cow disease, SARS and disputed tariffs on our softwood lumber are just three examples of how industry can be undermined overnight. We are at the mercy of many things that we cannot control, including the price of imported oil and gas, the fluctuating value of foreign currencies in relation to the Canadian dollar, and unfair trade practices. All of these put our industries, including federal jurisdiction industries, at risk in the blink of an eye.
The workers that fall within the purview of the federal labour legislation are not immune to these changes. As the whole notion of work and the expectation of workplace partners change and evolve, the process of collective bargaining is just that much more complex.
Having legislation on the books that bans the use of replacement workers during an industrial dispute remains very contentious, so much so that 8 out of 10 provincial jurisdictions have chosen not to take this route. It is clear that it is a very polarizing issue for the stakeholders. Employee representatives and unions typically support a complete ban on the use of replacement workers. On the other hand, employers invariably argue in favour of their use. That was the position they held during the Sims consultation almost a decade ago.
I can appreciate that both sides have legitimate reasons for holding the positions they do. The extensive industrial relations expertise brought to bear during the Sims task force did not result in a unanimous recommendation on the use of replacement workers. However, when that report was released in early 1996, I believe it provided the best possible compromise, one that strikes the best balance between the competing expectations of the stakeholders.
Let us be clear on what those recommendations were all about. Sims said there should be no general prohibition of replacement workers but that there should be legislative recourse in the case of an unfair labour practice. That is why the task force recommended that the use of replacement workers in a dispute for the demonstrated purpose of undermining the union's representational capacity should be prohibited.
It also went on to say that in the event of such a finding, the Canada Industrial Relations Board should be given specific remedial powers to order the discontinuance of the use of replacement workers. Parliamentarians who were around at the time of the debate on Bill C-19 were also at odds over this provision, but in the end the consensus of most was that they should vote for balance. That is exactly what they did.
It seems to me that for our part as legislators it is not for us to take sides, but rather to come up with a rule of law where the needs of one side are not met at the expense of the other. That is why the legislative changes made in 1999 so closely mirror the task force recommendations. I would have great concern if we were to now arbitrarily, in isolation of other considerations, ban the use of replacement workers along the lines suggested in Bill C-263.
Banning replacement workers would reopen that old argument and dissension, and for no apparent purpose. It would jeopardize the compromise that was reached with such efforts and considered debate almost a decade ago. The long battle for a reasonable settlement on this sensitive issue would be reignited. New battle lines would be drawn. The debate would start all over again.
If it is indeed the case that the labour and management stakeholders in the industrial relations group will never find unanimity on this matter, then perhaps the very lack of agreement speaks to the need for us to continue to go on with a reasonable compromise. For us now to prohibit the use of replacement workers entirely would set back the course we set out with the changes in part I, implemented in the 1990s, which sought balance and compromise.
That is why the government is disinclined to make changes to the legislation that is working relatively well. Even though the hon. member's bill changes just a few provisions of the legislation, its potential impact could be substantial in upsetting the balance of expectation on the part of stakeholders.
I remain firmly of the belief that our current legislation is worded exactly the way it should be. The considerations of all parties at play are kept in balance. Both sides are evenly served. If the legislation is not broken, I do not think we need to fix it. Let us not go down that road again.
For these reasons, I cannot lend my support to Bill C-263.
Housing November 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that November 22 is National Housing Day.
Shelter is a foundation upon which strong and healthy communities and individual dignity are built. While the majority of Canadians are well housed, there are still 1.7 million Canadians in need of affordable adequate housing. Therefore the government is committed to ensuring that those Canadians who are most in need can access safe and affordable housing.
Over the next few years we are investing $1.8 billion to address the increased need for affordable housing and housing for the homeless, as well as renovation of existing housing stock.
So far, more than $286 million has been claimed for the provision of over 12,700 affordable housing units across Canada. Through our national housing agency, we provide an additional $2 billion a year in housing assistance through long term agreements primarily in support of some 636,000 lower and moderate income households.
In the recent Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada committed to extend and enhance existing programs such as affordable housing, RRAP and SCPI.