Peggy Nash

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today unfortunately to express that we will not be supporting this bill. Substantial progress was made at the committee stage, but Bill C-7 still emphasizes cutting costs rather than improving safety standards. There can be no compromise when it comes to airline safety.

Bill C-7 constitutes a major change in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come. It would enshrine in aviation safety the safety management system, or SMS, as part of Transport Canada's agenda to implement SMS in all modes of transportation, sometimes with disastrous effects as we have seen in the case of rail SMS with the escalating number of train derailments. We have all seen terrible examples of train derailments and other safety problems on the railway system. We believe that the introduction of SMS has been a factor.

Specifically, SMS is intended to allow the industry to increasingly decide the level of risk that those in the industry are willing to accept in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety set by the minister acting solely in the public interest.

SMS is also designed to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high numbers of projected inspector retirements. As the former chair of the government operations committee, I know that there has been and continues to be an examination of the generational change in all of the public sector positions.

This is an opportunity now for the people who are in these jobs today to pass their skills, experience, knowledge and expertise on to the younger generation who are looking for more skilled and better paying jobs.

I spoke earlier today about the disastrous layoffs that are taking place in the manufacturing sector. Young people are trying to support themselves and their families. They are trying to pay their mortgages or their rent, but the jobs that would pay them enough to be able to do that are being lost. Quite frankly, while the government has said that lots of jobs are being created, a minimum wage job in the service sector does not pay the bills of the average Canadian family today.

We have an opportunity with a generational change in the public service to offer good jobs, interesting jobs, highly skilled jobs, decent paying jobs to a whole new generation of young people, but instead, the government is looking for ways to deny those opportunities. It is looking for ways to eliminate those job opportunities, to get rid of the need for jobs in what I would argue is one of the most safety sensitive sectors of our economy, the transportation sector.

Clearly, because Canada is such a vast country, airlines, rail, interprovincial trucking, shipping, all forms of transportation are fundamental to our economy. They are fundamental to who we are as a nation. They rest upon the absolute security that the utmost is being done to protect the safety of those who are using the transportation system, but also to protect the communities across Canada that would be very vulnerable to an erosion of transport safety, especially in the airline sector.

SMS will let the government increasingly transfer responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own standards, because the government will have less and less of its own resources to do these activities.

Again I have to ask about the logic in cutting taxes for bank presidents and giving more money back to the oil and gas sector. The government tries to hide an embarrassment of riches rather than investing in communities, investing in people, investing in social services, investing in infrastructure, and investing in the generational change that the government is facing. Baby boomers are retiring and young people are looking for decent and secure skilled jobs so that they can make a contribution to this country. This is an opportunity in the transportation sector that is being squandered by the government.

This bill was originally a Liberal bill sponsored by the former transport minister. The Liberal and Conservative members were initially willing to pass the bill without further amendments. Then the chorus of opposition began and there was real concern from the witnesses who were heard by the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Those witnesses included: Justice Virgil Moshansky of the Dryden crash inquiry; two Transport Canada inspectors unions, the CFPA and UCTE; the Canada Safety Council; some smaller air carriers and operators; Ken Rubin, an access to information expert; and unions representing flight attendants, the Teamsters and CUPE.

Their criticism focused on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada and the greater ability for the industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny, among other issues. It is unfortunate that the only time transportation safety seems to make the front pages of the newspapers is when a disaster takes place. If the average Canadian knew that this bill was transferring responsibility for safety regulations and enforcement over to the very companies that increasingly are engaged in the incredibly fierce competition in the airline sector, they would be concerned. Canadians would be concerned that perhaps the temptation would be too great in some instances that the needs of the operation, the need to have the business imperatives would take precedence over public safety.

Having said that, we have some of the best airlines in the world. We have award winning airlines. We have an excellent record of safety, but that is because we have had stringent safety requirements.

I remember the debate around the deregulation of the airline industry. What was stated by the government of the day was that fundamental in a deregulated airline environment was the requirement to make safety absolutely paramount. It was argued at the time as a way of reassuring Canadians that there would be no compromise to safety. Under no circumstances would safety requirements be slackened or would there be any undermining of regulations or safety inspectors that protect Canadians in the transportation sector.

Here we are many years later and I fear that is exactly what is happening. The people who work in this industry, the ones who are closest to it who see airline operations every day, are the ones who are expressing concerns about this bill. As parliamentarians we have to listen to their concerns and take their concerns very seriously.

As I said, this bill has been amended. Some amendments were adopted unanimously, but unfortunately, the amendments only go part of the way.

The other half of the work has been left undone and it represents serious flaws in the bill that continue to jeopardize Canadian aviation safety and the safety of the travelling public and aviation workers. We have been proposing further amendments that would actually improve aviation safety, not reduce it.

Part of the problem with the bill, which I will highlight, is that it heightens secrecy. When there are public regulations and enforcement, there is public scrutiny. When safety requirements, their determination and enforcement are left to individual companies to determine, then a veil comes over the safety provisions and we will not have access to safety information.

Our amendments would have preserved the operation of the Access to Information Act in key areas but that proposal was defeated at the committee stage, which makes us very concerned about the secrecy provisions.

We are also concerned about the lack of whistleblower protection. While a form of whistleblower protection has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who face reprisals taken against them, other than a warning or possible fine.

However, it is small comfort to a person who, out of concern for the travelling public, raises an issue of public safety and then is penalized for doing so, potentially even losing his or her job, which is disastrous. It is a potential outcome that most people would simply not risk. I would hate to think that safety concerns are not brought to the attention of the public, especially if they have been brought to the attention of the airline and no action is taken.

Employees are granted immunity from prosecution for reporting violations only under certain conditions but conditional whistleblower protection is really no protection at all and this ought to be of great concern to all Canadians.

The bill would provide the airlines with the same opportunities as whistleblowers to divulge breaches in SMS regulations with impugnity, but under the new hands-off enforcement policy of Transport Canada under SMS, no action will be taken against corporate offenders if the problem is corrected in a timely fashion. It is like someone travelling down the highway at 150 kilometres and, even though it comes to the attention of the police, by deciding to voluntarily slow the car down under the speed limit no action will be taken. It is not the way the law of the land should work.

The government contends that companies will no longer divulge safety problems without this provision. This is unconvincing. It is kind of an unwillingness to enforce what ought to be strict, visible, clear public regulations that assure Canadians and the travelling public of the utmost in safety.

I want to quote Dave Ritchie, the president of the machinists union, which represents mechanics and ramp workers who are very concerned about safety. Mr. Ritchie says:

Without constant and effective public regulation, corporations will constantly push the limits of safe operations, at growing risk to the traveling public.

While the government’s intention to download the regulation and monitoring of safety to the private sector is dangerous, we are particularly concerned about the use of SMS in foreign repair stations. If the effective monitoring by Transport Canada of SMS in Canada is problematic, it is even more unlikely at foreign worksites.

Canadians rely on transportation and they have confidence in their transportation system. I believe we must maintain that integrity but that is not the case with the bill. I regret that the proposed changes that would have made the bill acceptable have not been adopted in their entirety. Canadians will be the worse off for it.

I regret to say again that we will not be supporting the bill. It is a real missed opportunity to reassure Canadians about their transportation safety.

[Manufacturing Industry, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government is sleepwalking through a crisis.

The Prime Minister has admitted that the manufacturing sector is “in crisis”, but he will not do anything about it. Canadian auto executives have already told me that these corporate tax cuts will not help them because they are not in a profitable situation right now.

There are 1,100 good Chrysler jobs in the Brampton area gone. These are young people with families to support and mortgages to pay. For every one of their jobs, another three jobs in the auto parts sector will be lost.

Now that the government has finally acknowledged the crisis, how long will it take it to address it?

[Manufacturing Industry, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the mini budget's corporate tax cuts take Canada in absolutely the wrong direction. The headlines make it plain and clear, “Chrysler eliminates jobs in Ontario, more job loss expected”.

The mini budget will make things worse for manufacturing. The oil and gas sector is driving the dollar higher. The higher the dollar goes, the harder it is for manufacturers.

Why did the minister choose to ignore our manufacturers and instead make things worse by helping his friends in the banks and the oil and gas sector?

[Governor General's Awards, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being present at the Governor General's residence this morning to witness one of my constituents, Rose Fine-Meyer, receive the Governor General's award for excellence in teaching Canadian history.

She created an interdisciplinary studies course entitled “Archives and Local History”. It is accredited as part of the Ontario curriculum and couples an understanding of primary historical documents with first-hand research of communities and local history as they stand today.

This teacher being honoured today discovered that historical documents from World War I are not being scanned and housed electronically for safety. Rather, these old documents are being left to crumble with age. These precious documents tell the stories of many brave Canadians who gave their lives for this country.

We need to preserve the memory of our veterans and their sacrifices so that we can pass it on to our children like Ms. Fine-Meyer has done for so many years at Humberside Collegiate.

The government needs to take urgent action so that our veterans' stories and the sacrifices of the past can serve as a lesson for future generations of Canadians.

[Economic Statement, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to keeping its promises, the government was going in the wrong direction. Now that the Liberals have rolled over and joined with the Prime Minister, it is heading in the wrong direction faster than ever.

With billions of dollars in surplus, the government had an opportunity to keep its promises from the last election.

Could the government explain why the mini budget cuts corporate taxes by another $14 billion, something it did not promise, but fails to create child care spaces or transfer 5¢ in gas tax to municipalities, two things it did promise?

[Post-Secondary Education, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, average undergraduate fees broke the $5,000 mark last year. This year they are up another $184, more than double the measly textbook tax credit.

Every hike in tuition fees widens the gap between kids from wealthy families and everyone else. Low and middle income families pay significantly more through student loan interest than those who can afford to pay up front.

The Canadian Federation of Students is our country's primary voice for post-secondary students, with 700,000 members and over 25 years of action.

Many of the members live in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. They are on Parliament Hill this week to tell Conservative and Liberal MPs what the NDP already knows: that students need lower fees and a national system of need based grants to replace the expiring millennium foundation.

A fraction of the $14 billion surplus could restore the affordability and quality of Canada's public universities and colleges. Ottawa's debt to its students is long overdue and the government needs to start repaying it.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the government made cuts to women's programs, 12 out of 15 Status of Women's offices were closed, $500 million was cut from the court challenges program, and cuts to literacy programs.

It almost seems as though these very small amounts of money are cut from socially useful, important equality seeking groups, and yet we are talking about transferring billions and billions of dollars to corporations, most of whom are already extremely profitable and well off.

My question is, does she think this is fair and just, given the serious need of these groups for funding?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in the city I come from we have a waiting list for subsidized housing of 70,000 families. I see that all that time. I see families with two and three kids who are in one bedroom apartments.

We talk about kids needing the best start in life, but how can children come home from school and try to get their homework done and have some space to be creative and develop and live a normal life when they are living in substandard housing? I see private apartments in the Parkdale area with mould growing up the walls. I see infestations of rodents and cockroaches. I see absolutely terrible conditions. It is a national shame that the government should correct.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I did just comment on that in my remarks. I made the point that we are elected to stand here and vote in our places and act in the best interests of Canadians, but I do want to challenge the member on his rose-coloured glasses approach to Canada's economy. The numbers simply do not tell the full story. How can we say our economy is in great shape when the people in it, in many cases, are not doing very well at all?

In my city of Toronto we have more than one million working people who make less than $10 an hour and therefore are below the poverty level. Tell me that is economic success.

Yes, our national debt is being reduced but quite frankly that debt is being transferred on the backs of average hard-working Canadians. Families have a higher level of debt than ever before. In the long term, it is not sustainable.

What is most shameful is to see young people starting out at the very beginning of their adult lives saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt in post-secondary education costs at a time when they should be free of that kind of fear, worry and insecurity. They are starting out in their lives unable to have the confidence to embark on their careers, to establish a family and to look forward to many working years.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time today with my colleague from London—Fanshawe.

It is unfortunate that the motion before us today misses the mark at a time when our manufacturing sector is in such a crisis. My colleagues from the Bloc have been describing the impact of this crisis in Quebec. It is at a time when our Canadian dollar has appreciated by 60% over the last five years in addition to high energy costs and fierce global competition. Frankly, I have trouble distinguishing between the approach of the government that got us into this crisis and the approach of the opposition with the motion.

Corporate across the board tax cuts, such as are being proposed or affirmed with the motion, simply are not needed and they rob the public purse of much needed revenue. Today the banking industry, for example, is making record profits. The last I read it was something like $16 billion. This is at a time when the average person still gets dinged every time he or she goes to the bank with high ATM fees, about which the government has done nothing.

It makes no sense to give tax cuts to oil and gas companies, banks and insurance companies with no strings attached. Surely we should not be subsidizing highly profitable industries that are largely insulated from international competition.

The corporate tax cuts of recent years have not led to increased corporate investment, in spite of many arguments to the contrary. Therefore, why should the average taxpayer be subsidizing tax cuts to highly profitable industries that are insulated from competition and thereby forgo billions and billions of dollars of federal tax revenue? This revenue is so desperately needed and should be invested in our communities for services and infrastructure across our country.

There already have been significant corporate tax cuts over the last several years. In 2000 there was a corporate income tax rate cut from 28% to 21% to be achieved by 2004. This was a huge tax cut, but it provided no savings for manufacturing because it had already reached that level. This is the one sector that continues to need protection from international competition. Thousands of manufacturing jobs continue to leave Canada and all the Conservative government and the absent opposition propose is another series of tax cuts that simply have not worked.

Those members pay no attention to the crisis in manufacturing. There is no strategy for the manufacturing sector, or the auto sector, or shipbuilding, or the many other Canadian industries, which are thrown into unfair competition because of the factors I earlier described. Yet these tax cuts cost Canadians billions and billions of dollars in lost revenue, from about $5.4 billion in 2004, now up to over $7 billion a year. Our corporate tax levels are not particularly high. One study I saw put them at the third lowest in the G-8.

The other problem is those members are affirming the GST cut in the throne speech, and the government will go ahead with it. The last thing we need to be doing right now is stimulating consumer spending when consumer spending is already quite high. The fear is this kind of increase will drive up interest rates and therefore be counterproductive.

I do not support the GST cut. What it will mean is that if a millionaire wants to buy a $100,000 Porsche, he or she would get a nice $1,000 tax break. However, a family that puts some money together and spends $500 on a new dining room set saves a measly $5. Those families would need to spend $10,000 in order to save a measly $100. The GST cut is not a solution. With that cut, which all economists agree is not the way to go, we will lose $5 billion in revenue, basically subsidizing the Porsches and the Ferraris. It could have been spent differently.

One of the many letters I have received from constituents talks about the desperate need for investment in our cities and in the services Canadians need. I get many letters calling for a national housing strategy and for investments in infrastructure, especially in transit and in water infrastructure, and also in our social infrastructure to ensure that our kids get the best start possible, that working people have the best chance to adjust to a changing economy, and that seniors and people with disabilities get the best care possible.

I believe the motion is contradictory. It calls for reinvestment in physical infrastructure, new technology, R and D, better access to post-secondary education, et cetera. Where is the money going to come from? From giving tax cuts to companies that do not need it? It makes no sense.

The Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction. We saw in the throne speech that their direction will increase inequality and the prosperity gap. Middle class families will see their debt rise and their children's future narrow. We are already finding the quality of life in our largest cities diminished. They ought to be engines of the economy and hubs for cultural, economic and environmental excellence and yet we find our cities boxed in at every turn, neglected and underfunded.

It is sad, then, that the Liberals have abandoned their role of opposition. Last night on the vote on the throne speech, they sat in their seats motionless, mute and, frankly, muddled. At a time when we see the need so high among citizens across our country, I would like the opposition to tell the 70,000 families on the waiting list for subsidized housing in the city of Toronto, or the students who are seeing tens of thousands of dollars in debt pile up on their backs before they even get a start in life, or the people in our city who are stuck in gridlock with air that is increasingly polluted from the lack of transit, that the Liberals could not be bothered to stand in their places and vote in the interests of all Canadians.

I believe Canadians are looking for real leadership. They want a government that speaks to their interests. They are tired of political self-interest trumping the interests of Canadians. Corporate tax cuts and cuts to the GST limit our ability to make progress as a country. They take us in the wrong direction. I am very proud that our caucus stood opposed to that direction. We will continue to stand up for the principles and represent the interests that are to the benefit of the vast majority of Canadians.