Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk on the motion presented by the member for Hamilton Centre.
However, in listening to the Conservative member speak, it sounded more like a budget address than one dealing with the motion before us. I will spend a few moments commenting on that before I get to the guts of the motion.
When the government talks about the economic action plan and some of the initiatives it is taking, I believe it provides very little, if any, comfort to the individuals who are waiting, and have been waiting for years now, to try to get an outstanding issue resolved.
I am very sympathetic to individuals who are looking forward to retirement, a number of them with a great deal of fear or anxiety, because of a sense of uncertainty. What will take place? There is a huge question mark there. I think it would have been more appropriate to have heard from the member on where the government stands in regards to the three points that have been raised.
When the member refers to issues like trade and so forth, there is no doubt that we, as a political entity inside the House, have been very supportive of the principle of trade. At another time, perhaps I will be able to spend a little more time espousing where the government has fallen short on the trade file, but for now I will just say that the government was handed a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. The Conservatives can say whatever they want on all the trade agreements they have signed off on since being in government, but they have turned that multi-billion dollar trade surplus into a trade deficit, which means real jobs.
When the member talks about the industries and how well Hamilton is doing, he is right that Hamilton is doing exceptionally well as a community. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for that. However, what we are really talking about is the importance of an industry, the steel industry. More specifically, we are talking about the Government of Canada's actions related to problems Stelco was having back in 2006-07.
With the government's engagement on the issue, there was doubtless a general feeling among the employees that at least some of their interests would be genuinely looked after. I think we often find within the private sector that when a government at whatever level, provincial or national, gets engaged in an issue of this nature, there is a sense of comfort provided to the employees.
I am not a historian, but through a basic understanding of Canada, I do know that Hamilton has often been referred to as a steel city, and the member for Hamilton Centre has made reference to that fact. In my teenage years, that is how I saw it. Maybe it was somewhat slanted because I went to the CFL Hall of Fame, which is located in Hamilton, among many other wonderful attractions. However, there was something that took place after close to a hundred years. Stelco, I believe, was getting close to a hundred years old as a company. It provided many thousands of good, quality jobs that contributed immensely to the development of our country. It provided steel for all regions of our country, and obviously exported a great deal of steel, particularly to the Untied States
The steel industry is an important industry. Most people would say that with the size of Canada and the resources we have, we would expect to have a very successful steel industry. As times change, it is important that steel companies become modernized. A lot of people were shocked when we found out that Stelco was having serious financial problems and ultimately was not able to move forward. As a result of that and the turmoil that followed, a number of things occurred.
The motion is actually very specific, and I would like to deal with it in the three parts, as has been stated. It is asking for the government to:
(a) apologize to the people of Hamilton for approving the 2007 foreign takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel, on the grounds that it has failed to provide a net benefit to Hamilton and Canada...
Let there be no doubt that when the national government in 2007 made the decision to get involved, it raised the bar. There was a greater sense of expectation that not only would those jobs be saved but that the company would continue on, although obviously under another name. I think that is the reason the Government of Canada got involved in 2007.
It did not meet that expectation. It did not demonstrate to Hamiltonians and Canadians as a whole that it was successful in achieving what it was supposed to do, even though I am sure there was a fairly substantial cost one way or another, directly or indirectly, in terms of tax dollars, so it seems fair for an apology request to be on the table.
The motion continues:
(b) make public the commitments U.S. Steel agreed to under the Investment Canada Act in respect of the acquisition of Stelco Inc. in 2007, and the 2011 out-of-court settlement, concerning employment and production guarantees and maintenance of the employee pension system...
I thought the member for Hamilton Centre, who moved the motion, expressed that particular issue quite well. I can understand why that information should become public, and I support that idea.
The third point in the motion states:
(c) take immediate action to ensure pension benefits for the 15,000 employees and pensioners remain fully funded and protected, including amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act to protect worker pensions in the event of bankruptcy.
I have walked on picket lines along with workers from companies both big and small, and without exception, whenever I have walked in strike situations in support of the workers, the pension issue is always important. I would go as far as to say that often it is the number one issue. I have said inside the Manitoba legislature that we as politicians need to focus more attention on pensions, both private and public. We are not doing enough to protect pensions and we need to explore other ways in which we might be able to do so.
I take great pride in the fact that whether it is the GIC, the CPP, or the OAS, those pension programs were brought in through Liberal administrations that realized and understood the importance of pensions. That is why I was so upset when the Conservatives increased the age for collecting OAS from 65 to 67, and I will take that to the doors. We know pensions are important.
It is a reasonable motion, and I would suggest that members would be best advised to support it.