House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Mr. Speaker, now that we know the Liberals will support the budget, I would like my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague to explain how the women of the Liberal caucus manage to sleep at night, given that this bill is detrimental to women, that is, to Quebec women and Canadian women alike.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his question. I do not know how they manage to sleep, but they must not be sleeping very well, given the little respect women receive here. They will vote in favour of the bill. The Liberals will vote, with the Conservatives, in favour of the coalition. They formed a coalition and will vote for the bill. So, they have little respect for women.
That is my opinion, it is the opinion of all women and it is the opinion of all the men who will oppose this bill, those of the Bloc and the NDP.
It is both inconceivable and unacceptable to us to lose our rights this way. I will never stop fighting, my life long, so that my children, my daughter, her children, her daughters have the same rights and opportunities as men, one day.
The right to court challenges is vital for women, and it was taken from them. I will never forget that. We will work accordingly to eventually recover that right, which is essential for women facing problems of pay equity.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton.
I stand to speak to this budget bill with some reluctance. I have many concerns that this budget may have come too late and may be too inadequate to deal with a rapidly worsening economic recession.
However, there are some positive elements in this budget, such as the infrastructure programs, the child tax benefit increase, funding for universities, housing for seniors and aboriginal people, and the availability of credit for troubled businesses and for some people who may need to look at home ownership or mortgages, and an investment increase in regional development issues. Those elements, which are Liberal elements, prompt me to swallow hard and hope for positive results.
At the same time, I am concerned. I am concerned about pay equity and the bill that would take away access to justice for those people who seek pay equity. I am concerned about promises to provinces on equalization that have been broken. I am concerned about inadequate changes to employment insurance that would not address the escalating job losses. I am concerned about the lack of a national housing strategy when we know that in every municipality in this country there is a huge housing deficit.
I am concerned that this is a lost opportunity to invest in green investments, in new technologies that would bring about green investments. I am also concerned that there is insufficient money for research and development. In fact, there is a cut to the major granting organizations for R and D in this country.
This is not a time to tip Canada's already precarious balance, and it would be irresponsible for us to play politics and call an election now. Therefore, as I said, I am speaking to this budget with reluctance.
I will discuss some of the things that concern me about this budget. This is why we put the Conservative government on notice and on probation. There are many elements in this budget that we are concerned about simply because they were elements in past budgets which never materialized. In other words, promises were made and there was never any money for implementation and none of the things actually occurred. There is also some smoke and mirrors, which is repetition of old programs that have been rejigged so that they sound like new programs but they have not changed at all.
That is why we are going to keep tabs. That is why we are saying that come March, come June and come December, we will not only look at accountability from the government but we will look at outcomes and results. Did the government achieve what it said it was going to achieve? Was this a good enough stimulus package? Did that money flow? Were the investments actually made?
I will give an example to show why I am concerned. There was an announcement in past budgets of $33 billion in infrastructure over seven years. In year one the money never materialized. In year two we only saw $80 million of that money materialize, and 78% of those infrastructure projects were in Conservative-held ridings.
The question is, do we trust the government not to play patronage games, not to pork-barrel in some of the ridings? Is this really helping? Are they good infrastructure projects? What happened to the $33 billion over seven years? Has that gone? Is it being replaced now by something new? We are waiting to see whether this money will flow.
On EI, up front it looks like there is going to be more money for more people to get EI, but is it going to happen? The government promised that it would deal with maternity benefits for women who are self-employed. Now the government says it is going to study it again. We have been studying these things for quite a while. The question is, what are the results going to be and is it adequate enough?
I come from B.C. The three major sectors that are impacted right now are the manufacturing sector, the automotive sector and the forestry sector. Most of the forestry industry in Canada has been hit hard by an American dollar that was lower than we expected, by a softwood lumber deal that left $1 billion on the table and was completely inadequate, and by a recession in the U.S. where building is not occurring so we cannot sell our wood.
There was one other big thing that happened to make B.C. worse off than any other part of Canada with regard to forestry. That is the pine beetle which we could not stop. It is there eating away at 75% of the pine forest. In 2006, the government promised $200 million toward the pine beetle issue, for restructuring, job retraining and new economies. In 2006, the government promised another $200 million. We are talking about $400 million promised over two years. One hundred million dollars of that has been seen. Where is the other $300 million? Now we see in this budget that there is going to be $85 million a year for two years for the whole of Canada. Is that in addition to the $300 million that is missing?
These are the questions we want to ask. What is happening to that money when whole towns and communities in British Columbia are closing down? People are walking away from their homes. What is happening with the B.C. forestry industry? Are we going to do anything to help British Columbia survive? It is losing more jobs than any other province in Canada at the moment.
These are real people that we are talking about who are walking away from their homes, whose kids cannot finish college. This is a real problem.
There is trade and the gateway coming from British Columbia. We saw Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal government build relationships with China and with Asia because at the moment we do 80% of our trade with the United States. This is nice, but who does good business with only one client? We cannot put all of our eggs in one basket, however, we did. Now that our client is in a recession, and we hear the IMF saying possibly a depression, we are losing business. We are not selling. About 45% of our GDP depends upon trade. What are we doing about this?
We could have continued the relationships that Mr. Chrétien started. We could have built the gateway that Mr. Martin talked about under Liberal governments. That has not happened. Now we find that the relationship has gone backward because the Prime Minister of Canada has instead actually created negative relationships with China.
We are putting money into tourism. The biggest middle class today that is spending money as tourists are the Chinese. Canada is not a most preferred destination because China and Canada have lost a relationship that was so strong dating back to Bethune, and this Prime Minister has created a problem in the relationship.
What are we really going to do here? How are we going to make a difference?
I want to talk about arts and culture. This is an industry that brings $84.6 billion into the gross domestic product. This is an industry that creates 1.1 million jobs. This is an industry with $5 billion worth in trading and cultural products. Instead, we see smoke and mirrors again.
The minister did put in new money. The minister put in money for cultural spaces, which is a one-time boost of $30 million a year. We see him put $25 million into awards, which is a new program, and we see him put new money into festivals, but that is not all that arts and culture is about.
We see him repeat the things that are already there. He called them something new but it is not new money. It is the same thing reiterated in this budget, for instance, $100 million to the Canadian Television Fund. That has been there forever. There is $15 million for magazine publishing. That is what we have been putting into that every year for the past 10 years. There is $15 million for the Canada music fund. That has always been there.
We are wondering about the smoke and mirrors. We are wondering whether the government will do something about the cancelling of the trade routes program because for every dollar lost in those programs, $5 is lost to the GDP in Canada, and thousands of jobs have been lost.
Let us talk about some of the things that will cause an economic stimulus.
Finally, there are jobs, jobs, jobs. This is the saddest cut of all.
I came into politics in 1992 as a physician because I had no pill to help the people who came to see me who had just lost their jobs or their homes. There was the 55-year-old man who had no other job but the one he had worked at for 30 years and did not know what to do. He had to take his kids out of college. There was the young couple who overextended themselves to get a mortgage and now have new baby. One of them lost a job and they do not know what to do.
These are real people. We are told that there were 71,000 jobs lost in December and 129,000 jobs lost in January alone. That is a nice statistic. That is a scary statistic, but real people are hurting. It is real people who have nowhere to go.
It is at this time when government should come to the rescue of its citizens. It is when citizens have to depend upon their government to be there for them. When I came here in 1992, the government had abandoned its people. I am suggesting now that we cannot stand by and watch government abandon its people again. Those real people are somebody's kids and somebody's parents.
This is why this party is putting the government on notice. We are watching it. We are monitoring its results. We are making sure it does what it said it was going to do. We are going to see if it makes a difference. We are going to see if instead of reacting constantly, there is a proactivity, there is a keeping track of what is happening, and there is change made so that we can help real Canadians to get back to work and to move this economy again.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on the needs of people in an economic crisis, and I asked myself a question.
We are probably at the dawning of another election campaign. When the Liberals were in power, they plundered between $50 billion and $55 billion from the employment insurance fund and took money from the old age guaranteed income supplement fund. So they owe income money to seniors.
Should the Liberals be next in office, could the money from the old age guaranteed income supplement—money taken from seniors, the $55 billion or $56 billion taken from the unemployed over the years they were in office—be returned to these people, since they seem to be very sensitive to persons in need?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the part first and foremost about the GIS. The Liberal government put money into GIS in the last two budgets before we stopped being government.
I want to talk about employment insurance. It used to be, as we well know, unemployment insurance. We had to deal with changing it to meet the needs of people who were no longer in for six months collecting unemployment but for whom unemployment had become a way of life under the last Conservative government. We had to shift the way the program worked.
I think there is more than just putting money into employment insurance right now. We need to look at whether employment insurance as it stands today will meet the needs of a totally changing job structure, a totally changing reality in terms of job losses and in terms of new jobs. We need to be able to be progressive in terms of meeting the needs, not only of people who work in the employer-employee type of work but people who are self-employed, people who do not know what to do when they can no longer find clients.
We need to rejig the whole employment insurance system and make it work for people.
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for the last couple of weeks to Liberal members standing in the House and railing against the budget. Quite frankly, I have to tell them that I am getting emails and phone calls from people in my riding saying that the Liberals and the Liberal Party in their stance are becoming a bit of a laughing stock. I would like to ask the hon. member, why does she and the other Liberal members continue to storm the barricades and ask for reports?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think there are certain times when political parties have to put aside partisanship and ask themselves what is in the best interest of the country and of its citizens, and I think this is such a time. It would be irresponsible at this particular time to just throw away a budget that has some very important Liberal components in it and say, “Oh, no, let us play political games”.
What we are saying is that we are buying this, but we want to see if it actually materializes into real programs, into real projects, and if that money actually flows, and if it does flow, what are the results?
Now that the government realizes that we are in a crisis, is it actually going to stop waiting for the shoe to drop before it responds? Is it going to be proactive and progressive in the way it does things?
Therefore, we are going to be keeping tabs. As a physician, I can say that outcomes are what matter. The government can do rhetoric, it can say what it wants, but at the end of the day we are looking for outcomes. If we see there are no outcomes forthcoming, if we see that the government is not keeping its word as it said it would do, then we will take steps. However, right now it would be irresponsible to do any such thing.
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address some key points that were outlined in the budget presented by the government.
The Minister of Finance introduced a variety of initiatives that the government feels would benefit Canadians while stimulating our economy, and creating and maintaining jobs. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have been telling Canadians and Parliament conflicting stories about the record of the finances of this country. Little of it was actually true.
In September the Prime Minister told Canadians it was a good time to buy stocks and he was wrong. The Prime Minister said Canada should not run a deficit and said that if we were going to have a recession, it would have happened by now. He was wrong again. The Minister of Finance further confused the matter by saying a deficit was the only way to get through these challenging times.
Then came the economic update delivered last December. In a statement by the Prime Minister, after convincing the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, he said that over the coming weeks the government would begin consultations and focus on the budget. I am very concerned about what was being done leading up to the financial update.
Since then, Canada has lost 213,000 jobs and we are into the most severe recession since the 1930s. In January alone, another 129,000 jobs have been lost and more than 71,000 of those jobs in the last year in Ontario. Canadians reluctantly gave the Conservatives another minority government. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were busy denying the obvious fact that the country was headed into a recession and failed to plan for imminent job losses.
It was not until the threat of losing power that the government started to take any action on the economic crisis that was right in front of their eyes. Only after pressure from the opposition and proroguing Parliament did the government actually get to work on preparing a budget and stimulus plan.
Three weeks ago the Minister of Finance delivered Canada's economic action plan designed to provide just the right amount of economic stimulus, while attempting to spark more spending by banks and Canadians. The Liberal opposition felt there was still more that could be done and, as a result, we have placed the government on probation to ensure that the necessary spending by the government will actually happen this time and not be just another series of empty promises. We will demand that the government shows us exactly what it has done in three separate intervals in March, June and again in December.
While much of the budget could be considered acceptable, the need to protect jobs was overlooked. The Liberal caucus has repeatedly stated that we need to protect the jobs of today while creating jobs for the future.
Every day we are getting more reports of job losses in every part of Canada in almost every industry. More Canadian companies are expected to lay off workers with the recession worsening. We know that reports of dismal earnings often go hand in hand with job cuts and economists are telling us that it will only get worse before it gets better.
After careful review of the budget labelled as Canada's economic action plan, we have discovered some critical omissions in the action portion of the plan. For example, the Minister of Finance is telling us that the government will invest millions of dollars in more opportunities for workers.
We were told the government will increase funding for training delivered through employment insurance and invest in strategic training. When we read the fine print, we discovered that the funding would only make its way through the system and into the hands of Canadians over two or three years and, in some cases, as long as five years.
In my riding, Formulated Coatings Ltd. laid off 60 workers two weeks ago when the company announced it was bankrupt. The employees did not get any severance or financial packages and were asked to leave with only 10 minutes notice.
In most cases, there is little to no notice given, other than a meeting in the employee lunch room and being told that they no longer have a job.
The Chrysler plant in my riding also announced it would suspend production and temporarily shut down for about a month to save money.
For these men and women, losing their jobs could not come at a worse time. It is difficult enough dealing with the loss of employment and the stress of trying to find work in a crumbling job market, but the budget did little to address the minimum six weeks before these workers would see any money from EI.
Based on the way the looming economic challenges were dealt with, is it fair to think that the government will take the same foot-dragging approach in delivering the EI funding and training as well as the education and retraining so desperately needed by Canadians?
Statistics Canada suggests that our unemployment rate is at 7.2%, and even if all the measures in the budget were implemented in the next few months, it will not see a return to a 6% or lower unemployment level until sometime in 2013 or 2014, 2014 being a long time to wait for workers who have mortgages and payments and families. Five years is a long time to wait for assistance from the government.
The Conservative budget proposes to create 190,000 jobs over two years when Canada has lost 213,000 jobs in the last three months alone.
This is why the Liberal Party has put the government on probation and will carefully monitor the actions of the government. The country depends on a strong plan and a government that can deliver on its promises, and we will ensure the government keeps its promises to Canadians.
Canadians need our support and assistance to weather this financial storm. They want all parliamentarians to put aside partisanship and make a principled decision on the budget.
This is the Conservatives' budget, but it is our responsibility to ensure that the job of government gets done and that Canadians are well-served.
The mismanagement of the economic crisis and failure to act has rightfully given Parliament and Canadians a reason to question the credibility of the Conservative government on economic matters.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton has been a member in this place for 15 years. He has outlined some important considerations for Canadians.
The budget is not perfect, but we do have to put the interests of people ahead of political interests and continue to work together. It is unfortunate that Parliament has been unable to work because of the comedy of the government's actions since last summer when the House rose.
There are a few things that are not in the budget and maybe the member would like to comment on them.
In prior budgets we talked about important things like foreign credentials recognition and the need for doctors and health care providers. This budget is silent on some of those ongoing issues.
Has the member seen in his own riding, and through his own experience, the need to continue to sustain the important opportunities we have by credentials recognition and the need for a strategy on how to deal with this?
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. There are problems for newcomers, especially with respect to the recognition of their foreign credentials. I do not think the Conservatives mentioned much in the budget about the immigration backlog.
Our top priority is to find a way to protect the jobs of Canadians and their pensions at this time of crisis.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Speaker, the lapse rate of the government on infrastructure last year was about 50%. In other words, for every dollar it promised, 50¢ went out the door. For every $100 it promised, $50 went out the door. For every $1 billion it promised, $500 million went out the door.
The hon. member's riding is in an area of the GTA that is growing quite rapidly and is in need of enormous input of infrastructure of all kinds.
Is the hon. member concerned about the discrepancy between the promise of infrastructure and the reality of the government's record?
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton, there are many new developments and definitely the infrastructure program is very important, especially with new immigrants coming from so many places, for my riding. As I mentioned earlier, our first priority, as well as the infrastructure program, are the jobs. That is why I have talked about the jobs. If we have an infrastructure program, then we have more jobs for new immigrants and people who have been laid off and have no jobs, which they need. That is the first priority.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Speaker, the good people of Bramalea—Gore—Malton had the good sense to return the member to this place, and he is a member of the Liberal Party.
On the government's record of infrastructure money that actually gets out the door, there seems to be a bit of a diversion as it goes out that door. Seventy-five per cent of whatever money does go out, which is about 50% of what is promised, ends up in Conservative ridings.
Is the member somewhat concerned that ridings that did not vote for the government party will be shortchanged in whatever infrastructure monies might be delivered?
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, in fact, last year, with regard to citizenship and immigration, the Conservatives cut staff from the riding, staff that would have delivered, especially in the Mississauga and Toronto area.
In the same way, I notice the government is delivering money only to Conservative ridings. The government should consider other ridings, too. It should be after the partisans and it should consider other people as well. Whether they voted for the Conservatives, the government should give equal opportunities to all ridings in the country.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, which is an important document. Canadians have been looking for leadership from the government to deal with today's economic climate and the problems we face.
It is important to point out, as I start this discussion, that the New Democrats do not support the bill for a number of different reasons, but we are doing our job. We are showing leadership on what we should have in the country. The country should have a more balanced approach with regard to a budget that not only deals with the economic crisis, but deals with some of the systemic issues the country faces with previous legislation and lack of action as well.
We have an interesting case with regard to democracy. Last year, when the Liberals consented to the Conservative budget changes, the Immigration Act was changed. We have to remember that with the passage of the budget bill last year, the immigration minister received a blank cheque to change the immigration system, without going through the normal, democratic process in the House of Commons.
The normal process is the minister introduces a bill which then goes through a reading in the House of Commons. Then it is vetted at committee and comes back to the House of Commons. If passed, it goes to the Senate and if there are changes, it comes back here. Now we have avoided that consultation process under our immigration policy, which is truly unfortunate, because there is economic opportunity. It is a social justice issue to ensure Canada does the right thing with its immigration policy. There is also an opportunity to engage the public and the private and not-for-profit sector about how our immigration policies work of do not work for our country.
By agreeing to that, the Liberals gave the government a blank cheque to change it. We have seen the effects, and it has not been an improvement in our immigration system. We have seen greater lineups, greater delays and it has reduced our capacity to respond in this global climate.
There are a couple of issues. Interestingly enough, through Bill C-10, the government is changing the Investment Canada Act. It also changing other legislation with regard to pay equity, for example, which will unfairly hurt women. Women will no longer be able to go through the court system to challenge pay equity. They will have to go through another process that will not be as fair. It takes away from the judicial system, which is the appropriate process.
It is important to note that this sends a message across the country that women's issues are secondary. It can be done on a one-off, with no problem at all, by the government. It sets the mandate for how it feels and how it goes forward to deal with serious matters.
Avoiding our legislative review process is truly unfortunate. Members of the House of Commons collectively are supposed to review bills. We are supposed to have input. We are supposed to garner the witnesses. We are supposed to go through a process to improve a bill.
Often we find common ground. Sometimes we get amendments put forth and avoid some unintended consequences. Since 2002, I do not know how many times I have been in committee reviewing a bill and our party or the government has found errors in it, whether it was the Liberals in the past or the Conservatives currently. We go through the legislation to fix those errors. Instead we have legislation being rammed down our throats, which is unacceptable.
With respect to the budget implementation bill, it is ironic. After the G20 summit, the Prime Minister talked with other world leaders and said that he would come back with a package for Canada. Instead he set off a political crisis by cutting the provinces and a number of different services and putting in some other elements, which still cannot be explained today, for example, billions of dollars for sales of public buildings. The Conservatives cannot even name the buildings or what they will do with them. That really set up a firestorm in the politics. Hence, the government took a time out.
The Prime Minister went to the Governor General and told her the Conservatives needed a time out because everybody was upset with them. The Conservatives misled the world by saying they would do something, but did nothing. Apparently they thought nobody in Canada was paying attention to the international news, or they did not have access to the Internet or something else. Canadians quickly realized that the Prime Minister said one thing and came home and did another. However, the Conservatives had their time out. In that timeframe one would have thought they would have come back with a plan.
I come from the automotive sector and I have spoken many times in this House of Commons about a plan for the automotive sector. One would have thought the government would come back with proper legislation that would actually address the issues. It decided to go to Washington. The Minister of Industry went down to Washington, but nobody would meet with him.
The Americans are going to do something for the automotive sector to assist in filling the gap caused by the economic crisis and liquidity issue. There is a difference between what is happening here and what is happening in the United States. The United States had two sets of public hearings on the auto sector. Last year the U.S. had a series of hearings on the energy act and created a $25 billion low interest loan program for the auto industry to get new technologies and cleaner vehicles. Then there was the actual bridging legislation for the loans. Whether or not one agrees with the loan program, at least the Americans went through the process. The United States passed its legislation. There were hearings and input was received. It made a lot of news. The Congress and the Senate had the opportunity to vet the legislation. The legislation went through that process and was actually delivered to the public. What do we have in Canada? We only have promises from the minister. There has been no input at the industry committee. We have not had that type of vetting process.
When one looks at the plan that the United States passed, it is a plan with different rules and things that are changing. The document, “A Call for Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy”, was produced by the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, CAPC, back in 2004. The auto industry, unions, suppliers and many other auto industry components warned the then Liberal government of the potential failure of the auto industry in the future if we did not lay out a plan. It put forward a simple and straightforward plan where results could be measured. It had a series of strategies calling for action. What have we done since then? Nothing. We have not done anything on it. That is unacceptable, because this plan could have been tabled with the budget bill. It could have been more extensive. The government had the time to do it.
What has happened in between is quite astonishing. We have seen the collapse of the auto industry, not only here but also in other parts of the world. There have been success stories. I reference the United States and its $25 billion low interest loan program which was passed last year. The U.S. is already seeing results. General Motors is going to build the Volt in Detroit, Michigan. The state of Michigan recently signed on to assist in the battery procurement policy. The battery for the Volt will be produced in Detroit as well. Despite the challenges of the industry and where it is going, the Americans have already laid out the game plan.
What have we done on the Canadian side? In the last budget, money was cut from the auto sector. On top of that, the government imposed a new tax on vehicles. It kept the tax component of the eco-auto feebate program. For those who are not aware of that program, it was an unbelievable disaster. There was about $116 million in that program. Most of that money went to vehicles produced overseas. That is the irony of what the Conservatives did in their first budget. They created this incentive program to buy certain vehicles. It did not work. On top of that, they ended up sending money to Japan, China, Korea and other areas where vehicles are produced. It is not acceptable in terms of a policy.
The Conservatives also brought in a tax on vehicles. They kept the tax, which represents around $50 million a year in revenue for the government. That is the estimate from the industry. The United States laid out a plan that is very progressive, and which is focused on cleaner new vehicles, production, manufacturing and low interest loans that are recoverable for the taxpayers. Here in Canada, the government added a new tax. It put some of that money into a new program of $50 million per year for five years for a total of $250 million. Basically, the industry had to go through h-e-double-hockey-sticks just to access it. That happened leading up to an election.
The government is sending the message that Canada is closed for business and partnerships to revolutionize the industry and that if people want to take advantage of one of the government programs, the Conservatives are going to make them squirm, beg and crawl. They are going to punish people pubically for wanting some type of a procurement element.
These things are not foreign to North America. Germany is the second largest auto producer and Japan is the third largest. Japan is a major exporter. Germany has major exports too, but it also does a lot more domestic. Germany and Japan have procurement policies that actually work for their industries. That element is out there. If the government wants to assume that a free market economy with no actual incentives is some type of carrot with which to approach the industry, the Conservatives are alone in the world in that. Even the United States does not do that. Nobody does that. If the Conservatives want to change that policy, then great, let us engage the world about that practice.
Until that time, if we keep our current automotive policy, we will see that what is happening will continue. We have gone from fourth in the world in assembly to eighth. What does that mean? It means that not only auto workers and their families are losing out on economic development, but so are those in the mould-making industry and the tool and die industry.
The tool and die industry has made an appeal to the Minister of Industry. That industry is owed about $1 billion. The industry needs that money to prevent bankruptcy from happening.
There are other victims in this mess if we do not have a viable auto industry and one of the most value-added industries will disappear. It is going to cost money for things such as the United Way and skills training.
It is also important to think outside the automotive box. If all that industrial development goes into new technologies, they can actually revolutionize other industries, especially looking at some of the new technologies in the use of battery and other elements. It is an exciting time despite the challenges. Some new and interesting products are coming on line that will meet new customer desires. It is also going to provide an opportunity to have a greener, cleaner industry, which is really critical because we put so much faith in that.
It was interesting to see the minister, when it came to the budget, make a big to-do about the shoes he was going to buy. We saw him on TV when he bought some workboots. He came to work that day and decided that they did not fit right and they hurt his feet. It is ironic, because it is the same with this budget. It hurts a lot of Canadians and it does not fit right for what we need to do.
It is not even a question about how much money we are or are not spending. It is also about the way we actually spend. That is why it is important to recognize that this was an opportunity that was wasted.
I will point to one of the more interesting cases we have had recently and what could have been in the budget bill but is not. Today the New Democratic Party introduced a bill to respond to that. A procurement policy could have been part of it. I know that some people will say that the NDP wants to put up trade barriers and do something that would set off a trade war and create all kinds of problems, but that is a bunch of nonsense. Since the Great Depression, the United States has had a procurement policy in place. I would have liked to see one in this bill. What we could do openly and accountably is a percentage of that could go into Canadian manufacturing when there is a government procurement policy. That is done all over the world. Our partners do it. I do not regret that the United States does some of that. It is a challenge in some respects.
The most important example that has recently shown how poor we are in Canada in terms of strategy is the Navistar truck contract. I have spoken extensively about that, and I am going to keep talking about it because it is a great example of a missed opportunity and the lack of leadership.
Navistar, for those who are not aware, is in Chatham, Ontario. It produces trucks. A number of years ago, I and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh fought along with the CAW to get a modest investment from the federal government in that plant. It was saved, and it has paid back its worth. It is a windfall, not only with regard to the tax revenues to the nation but also to the workers and their families who have been contributing taxes.
What has happened is the government is not dealing with procurement policy, which is totally legal and which many municipalities endorse across the country right now. They back it because they understand it. We understand the rules. We can do this. The United States will not get upset with us for doing it. The Americans have a policy in place that has similar elements, and we accept that.
The Navistar truck plant in Chatham could produce the next load of defence vehicles, trucks that are necessary for our military. Ironically the government tendered it out, and what ended up happening is that Navistar International won the bid and the truck building component is in Texas. Texas is getting 300 million dollars' worth of work from the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, and at the same time the workers in our communities are losing their jobs. Those are good paying jobs, jobs that this country invested in. The trucks we make are the best and we are going to lose out on that opportunity because of the ideology of the Conservative government.
The government is going to award a $300 million contract to Navistar in Texas when that contract could have gone to our own community. The excuse is that there was $800,000 of retooling necessary for that facility in Canada, but Canadians would have been doing that retooling. The value-added components would have been manufactured in Canada. There would have been economic benefits for Canadians who would have been paying taxes.
That investment would have been understood by the United States. The Americans would understand that Canadians want to build Canadian trucks for our Canadian men and women who are serving in our military. They would understand that. We understand when they do defence procurement for the same reason.
The Conservatives are allowing this to continue and are not cancelling the contract. It is unacceptable. Sending work down to Texas is not a solution for this country. It sends a message to all the others concerned with defence procurement. The government is saying that Canadians cannot be the ones who build for our men and women who serve in the military. That is the message the government is sending to people in Chatham, that they are fired and they are not going to be the ones who produce the vehicles for our military, that Texans can do it. That should have been in this bill. We could have done it.
What is also important in connecting the dots on this is that this country needs to have a manufacturing capacity for its sovereignty so that it includes components for shipbuilding, trucks, airplanes and other elements that are important for national infrastructure. A country needs to make sovereign decisions about what it does. The United States does that. I do not begrudge the Americans for that. If they want to build their military trucks in Texas and not in Chatham, I understand that because it is part of a plan for their country.
What do we have in Canada? We have no plan. Other contracting is being looked at right now. The plane contract is being examined. The Department of National Defence is eyeballing a single source contract that would exclude all Canadian aerospace manufacturers. It would be created and assembled in Italy. How is that possible? How can we have single source contracting for companies outside Canada?
What does that tell those companies that actually cluster and try to build around our manufacturing bases here in Canada? It tells them that if they invest and make that type of commitment to the Canadian people, if they do the training that is vitally necessary for the post-production development, they may not benefit from it, that we will simply have it built in Italy. That is the wrong message.
It is important that the government reverse the Navistar decision. It would send a message that we are serious. I expected that to be in the budget bill.
I spent a lot of time talking about Navistar and the auto sector, but I want to touch on one thing in the bill that is symbolic and important to me because of my background in developing programs for persons with disabilities with respect to employment and home services. Ironically in the bill there is a new program for home retrofit. Those who do some work on their houses get a 15% tax break on the first $10,000 spent on their homes. It includes some really interesting things, such as, sod and decks. However, those who rent are excluded from this. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians rent their accommodations. I think about seniors in my riding who have rented houses or apartments for a long time. They are not eligible to upgrade their bathrooms or other areas to make them accessible. Meanwhile, those who want to put new sod on their lawns or expand their decks in Muskoka are going to get a tax break. Ironically those people are the ones who have to subsidize that program with their taxes in the first place. It is wrong. That is why the budget needs to be defeated.
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Mr. Speaker, I could tell by the emotion in the member's voice that he is very concerned about the people of Windsor West. What could the government do to make the auto industry viable in Canada?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think one of the first things the government needs to identify is the need for a national auto strategy, something we have been advocating for a long time.
Interestingly enough, it was this party that worked with Greenpeace and the CAW a number of years ago to come up with a green auto strategy, one of the first of its kind in the world. It is important to note that even a number of years ago, we could see the writing on the wall in terms of where the industry needed to go and the challenges that were there.
We believe in that strategy to this day. It is one that would be very important. Also, “A Call for Action”, the CAPC report, is still viable in many respects, so we would like to see it implemented as a national auto strategy.
It is interesting, because I remember that when David Emerson was a member of Parliament and a minister sitting with the Liberals, he said that if the Conservatives ever came to power, they would destroy the auto industry. How ironic is that? He then flip-flopped across the floor and became a Conservative, and he has certainly fulfilled that prophecy.
Right now in the United States we see a whole series of initiatives being supported. The Americans are not attacking their system right now. They are actually trying to work with it.
We have to change our attitude here on a national auto policy and look at the CAPC implementation levers that are there. Once again, that was done with a lot collaboration.
A second important front that we have to support is the parts, tool and die, and mould-making sectors. They are owed a lot of funds right now. They need to be supported with some low-interest loans that will pay back.
To those who are critical I can say that I understand the complications of supporting this type of initiative, but I want to remind the general public that when Chrysler was in hardship back in 1985, there was a small loan package at that time. Not only did Chrysler pay it back, but it paid it back with interest and profits for the country. Since that time we have had a very successful manufacturing facility, the minivan plant in Windsor, which is arguably the best one in the world since World War II.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member has laid out a number of points of interest and concern.
At the end of his speech he talked about things that were not in the budget. As I have followed the debate on the budget and now on the implementation bill, one of the things I have been thinking more and more about is if we look a little further down the road, what do the people of Canada look like? What is their condition? I am wondering about the stress and the despair and the general depression in those who have lost their jobs, and the impact on their health and on their need for social assistance and social services.
The last recession, in 1990, showed us that a property crime wave follows the unemployment rate. It is all a reflection of despair. All these things have a cost to them. The budget implementation bill does not provide for any increases in transfers to the provinces, which are ostensibly responsible for delivering health care services and social programs for those in need, as well as policing.
I wonder if the member shares the view that we have to look forward at the consequences of going through a protracted and deep recession.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, in Canada and as New Democrats it is important to recognize something the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has often mentioned in the House, and that is the shrinkage of the middle class. We witness Canadians having to work longer for less. We are seeing an erosion of our quality of life.
That is what I am concerned about, especially when we look at the stimulus package and the elements of the budget. I really think it fails because it provides no legacy push toward where we need to go to regain our middle class.
That is why I use the Navistar example all the time. It is because all those United Way donations will be terminated as people are fired and no longer work. Then we miss out on the civil society measures. Interestingly enough, I commissioned a research paper to see what other countries were doing with regard to their laid-off workers. Germany is actually spending a lot of its money on social infrastructure. It is doing renovations to schools, hospitals and even day care, and it is also adding capacity.
We have had a number of economists claim that investment in social infrastructure will create more jobs. For example, a child care job will create three jobs, in contrast to other types of tax cuts, which would create only one job.
In Canada we have drifted away from our middle-class principles in understanding that we want a balanced civil society that includes social justice and social infrastructure. That is the best way for us to be productive.
I think that when we look at the challenges ahead, the budget fails on that measure.
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the excellent intervention by my colleague from Windsor West in the House of Commons today and I support virtually everything he said.
I would like to ask him to explain the Navistar situation a bit more, because I have also raised this matter in my role as defence critic for the New Democratic Party. I do not understand why the government would give such a big contract to build vehicles for the Canadian Forces to Texas rather than to a plant here in Canada, a plant that obviously has done this kind of work in the past and could continue to do this work in the future and supply the Canadian Forces with the needed vehicles.
My colleague talked about the people in Windsor West who are affected by this decision. I want him to know that I have received letters from people right across Canada who are opposed to this decision of the government. I would ask him to explain how we could change this and what his interventions have been with the Conservative government over this issue.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work as well as the question.
I have actually written the minister. We have had interventions, and we can tell that the Conservatives are clearly uncomfortable about this because they know what they have done is wrong. They know it, but it is time for them to fix it. They can no longer hide and run away from it; they need to fix it.
Canadians can build for their men and women of service. They can do that. They are competent, capable and able to do so. Why does the government fail to see the value of its own workforce, a workforce that could actually procure and develop this? That is not acceptable. It needs to be reversed.
People really need to understand that this issue is not only about Windsor and Chatham-Kent—Essex, but about our entire country. We look at the potential for some new ships being built, often described as rowboats or tiny boats because they are small craft. Where are they going to be built? Everything counts at this point in time.
The rules are very clear. The United States does a lot of its own defence procurement, and we respect that. As a nation, we have not challenged the Americans. We have not taken them to court. We have not tried to renegotiate these elements. We have accepted it as a country, and they would accept the same from us, because that is part of a partnership. What is good for one is good for the other, unless we want to engage in a wider discussion. If we actually had the policy, maybe that would happen with the United States, and we would engage in discussion and go down that road. However, simply doing nothing is not acceptable.
How we can tender a $300 million contract to a source company outside this country at the same time that trained people are being handed pink slips to go home? They are trained and doing it right now. They are doing truck production. In fact when Navistar tried to move some production down to Mexico, where it had been doing some of this, for a period of time it had to send those vehicles back to Chatham to be fixed, because Mexico was not doing the right job.
The people have the qualifications and experience. They want to produce the trucks for our men and women in military service. They want to be part of the procurement, not just because it is a job but because it is a mission for our country. It is about the connection and the bond of people being able to do procurement for their own military and having pride in a nation. Why the government does not understand that is beyond me. Why can it not just say that it made a mistake and is going to fix it, and that Canadians are the ones who are going to be doing the procurement?
In terms of actually retooling the facility, $800,000 is nothing. Interestingly enough, we would then have the capacity to increase the volume if necessary, to fix vehicles with additional parts, and to service the vehicles. All those things would be done here. The United States would simply understand that, because they have it in their system, and we respect it.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
I will bring to the attention of members that having completed five hours of debate, we will now be moving to 10-minute speeches and a 5-minute question and comment period.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, once again I am honoured and humbled to serve my beautiful community of Etobicoke North and raise the issues of my constituents in this, their House of Commons.
Five women--Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Nellie McClung--contested the notion that the legal definition of persons excluded women. In 1929 they took their quest to the highest level of appeal, the British Privy Council, which ultimately pronounced women as persons. It was a remarkable victory for equal rights, and as a result, the five courageous women were immortalized on Parliament Hill in 2000.
At the unveiling of the bronze statute in their honour, Governor General Adrienne Clarkson said she hoped that the monument would inspire people to continue the work of the famous five. “Never retreat; never explain; never apologize”, Clarkson said in repeating a quotation from Nellie McClung, or in Emily Murphy's words, “We want women leaders today as never before, leaders who are not afraid to be called names and who are willing to go out and fight.”
Many of us walk past the statute of the five determined women each day on the way to this very House. Each year on October 18 we celebrate Persons Day, and on March 8 we recognize International Women's Day.
Recently December 10, 2008, marked the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a time to take action on the urgent human rights violations which continue to exist today.
Instead of waging a war on Canada's gender pay gap, which violates article 23 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the government instead chose to narrow legal options open to women and to take aim at a woman's right to use the courts to obtain pay equity.
The government says that the present system of using the courts for pay equity is long and costly, so it wants to modernize it by removing the right of women to use the courts to achieve pay equity. If the government achieves its goal, pay equity will be settled at the bargaining table, and not in the courts.
What would this mean to Canadian women who work outside the home and do not have a union? What would it mean to women who, as we know, fare poorer than men in the bargaining process? What would it mean to the 23% of families that are single-parent and headed by women in my riding of Etobicoke North, the women who scramble every month just to make ends meet, yet lose almost a quarter for every dollar a man is paid? What would it mean to the children who are poor because their mothers are poor, and to child care, and to early child education?
Today one in six Canadian children grows up in poverty. Research shows that for every dollar a country invests in giving children a good start in life, the country saves seven dollars in spending on health and other problems that arise when children's basic needs are not met. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and UNICEF place Canada last among industrialized nations when it comes to availability and public funding of child care services.
What would it mean for a woman's pension? Let us remember that women lose on every pay and on every contribution toward retirement.
The government is also planning to pass legislation that would limit annual pay increases in the public sector at a time when women are still catching up after years of discriminatory pay practices.
This attack on equity should come as no surprise. Canada fell from 18th place in 2007 to 31st in 2008 in the latest gender gap rankings released by the World Economic Forum last November. Canada's performance went unacknowledged in Ottawa.
A person's pay, particularly in this fiscal crisis, is critical to family, community and national prosperity. Women control 68% of consumer spending in Canada and are, in fact, the keepers of the household budget. Sadly, women are concerned about the current crisis and leery to spend. Sixty-five per cent of women plan to cut spending, compared to 58% of men. Forty-one per cent of women feel they are too much in debt, compared to 27% of men. Thirty per cent of women are insecure about their finances, compared to 19% of men.
Those statistics have tremendous implications, as consumer spending is the largest contributor to Canada's economic health. It accounts for 55¢ of every dollar of national productivity.
If the government's economic stimulus package does work for women, it will not work for Canada. In order to keep cash circulating, the government needed to address women's anxieties, such as EI eligibility and equal pay to put food on the table, to pay for their children's education and to save for their retirement. Investment in child care helps women and their families participate in the economy.
Canadian researchers calculated a 2:1 economic and social return for every dollar invested in child care. American researchers demonstrated a 3:1 or a 4:1 return for low income families and showed that childhood development programs could have a substantial payoff for governments, improve labour skills, reduce poverty and improve global competitiveness.
How can the government claim to protect the vulnerable when it provides nothing? In terms of the national child benefit supplement for families making $20,000 and for families living on $25,000 to $35,000, it provides only $436, which is the equivalent of 12 days of rent for a one-room apartment in my Etobicoke North riding.
While the government was working to undermine pay equity in Canada, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act, recognizing equal pay as an important economic issue that affects not only women but entire families. It was the first piece of legislation to be signed into law in the new presidency. The new president said, I intend “to send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone, that there are no second-class citizens in our workplaces, and that it’s not just unfair and illegal — it’s bad for business — to pay somebody less because of their gender....
Last week I met with our riding youth group. A young man wanted to know, “why the government was launching an attack on women”. He said, “I just want the same as a woman; nothing more, nothing less”. I did not have the heart to tell him that when he graduates university he is likely to make $5,000 to $6,000 more than his female counterpart and that this gap will accrue week by week, year upon year.
The government should be working tirelessly to ensure that this economic crisis does not create further inequalities.
The future of Canada depends considerably on investment in women as their economic health and social well-being determines the health of their children who are the adults of tomorrow. As the first step to protecting the next generation, the government needs to fight for pay equity, so long overdue. Next time parliamentarians walk past The Famous Five, we should all be inspired to do the right thing.
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Etobicoke North on a thoughtful presentation on the needs of Canadian women in our society today. She gave some of the history of the Famous Five women who ensured that women became full citizens of this country. I do not think that story could be repeated too often.
When we look at what is happening in the budget implementation bill, the government is taking away a woman's right to take her pay equity complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is opening up Canadian industry for foreign ownership. It is even putting a for sale sign on Air Canada. It is punitively going after our students who carry Canada loan guarantees from the government.
This is a budget that totally fails to protect the vulnerable in our society, including the women she spoke of and including children in our society.
In the past, the Prime Minister and the government made a commitment to the House of Commons that they would not include, unnecessarily, legislation for confidence motions but the government has done just that by sliding into a budget these changes to human rights legislation, the rollbacks of the RCMP wages and a number of other very critical issues that impact upon women and families in this society.
Why is my colleague going to support this budget implementation bill when she herself has laid out a number of very critical reasons that it is not worthy of support?
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, the first six months of this year saw Canada have the worst economic performance of the G8.
In September, we were told that a recession would not be coming. In October, we were told that there would be no deficit. At the time of the economic statement, we were told that there would be a small surplus. Twelve days later, we were told by the Bank of Canada that we were in a recession.
In the last three months we have lost 250,000 jobs. The time for action is now. We need to protect Canadians and we need an economic stimulus now.