Debates of Dec. 4th, 2014

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate that we are having around Bill S-6, and I do not think we should lose focus of what is happening here.

This is a perfect example of where the government members opposite are ignoring what first nations people in this country are saying. They are ignoring what aboriginal self-governments in the Yukon are saying. We only have 24 aboriginal self-governments in this country. They have very specific, special legal rights, and there is an obligation by the Government of Canada to honour those rights. What Bill S-6 would do is violate it and disrespect it.

I would ask if my colleague could speak to that particular issue in terms of how these first nations governments have such a legal constitutional right in our country to have every bit of the say that they currently have. Why is that being stripped from them at this time by the government opposite?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by my colleague. The member for Labrador has been a very strong advocate for the north and first nations, not only here in the House of Commons but also at the provincial level. She has an excellent understanding of just how important it is that we do consult.

One of the comments I made in my speech was on a common theme in the government's dealings with first nations and aboriginal peoples, namely that it has not done and is not doing anywhere near the type of consultation it should be doing. That pretty closely applies universally to all of the legislation the government has brought in dealing with first nations and aboriginal people.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador just asserted and the member for Winnipeg North also mentioned in his speech that the bill somehow violated the Umbrella Final Agreement.

I would invite the member right now to point to the section of Bill S-6 that violates a section of the Umbrella Final Agreement. To date, no one has been able to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the stripping of the rights of first nation governments, the member can stand up and wave the agreement, and I appreciate that he has a copy of the agreement in his hand. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is a bigger issue that supersedes it, which is the attitude of the government in dealing with issues of this nature. This is where the Prime Minister and his ministers have been caught falling short.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Winnipeg North, there are numerous times in the House when we have not agreed on things, but this is one of the times that we are in agreement.

When the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board was first envisioned and put together, there was 60 to 70 days' worth of hearings across the north. I have to give credit that it was under a Liberal government when that took place.

Bill S-6 is coming from the Senate. However, the Senate did not do any travel for it. However, if the committee chooses to travel, the NDP will support that travel. I would ask the member very clearly, would he support such an idea by the Liberals?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Given the significance of this, I know that the Liberal Party would be quite supportive of it. My colleague, the member for Labrador, has been fairly clear in explaining that to me. We believe that this is something that would be of great benefit.

Therefore, we have two parties in the House that are saying that we should move forward and do that. Maybe in response to the next question, the government will make that commitment, and so there would unanimous approval by the three major political parties in the House today.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it was the member for Yukon who first asked that the aboriginal affairs committee travel to the north. We have been quite willing to do that.

Yesterday, the member for Northwest Territories was quite clear that this was not on the table. I guess he has been told that he did not speak for the party, which is not the first time that has happened.

However, yes, I will leave the comment that it was this party that brought it forward. We are glad to have the opposition on board for travel to Yukon.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, Mr. Speaker, you heard it first.

We now have unanimous support among the three major political parties. I suspect that the Liberal Party critic will follow through. Hopefully, we will see the committee actually go up north to Yukon and explore other potential opportunities.

At least the debate is coming to a close on a very positive note.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that the debate was ending, I did not know whether that meant the House was ready for the question. However, I see there are other members who are interested in carrying on.

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou know that there are about 12 minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon, and so he will not have his full 20 minutes. Of course, if he chooses, the remaining time will be available to him when the House resumes debate after the end of government orders today.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of your comment, I will try to wrap up this debate on a positive note. I hope I can. As always, I am very honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-6.

I am honoured in the sense that I always have the opportunity to raise issues that are important to me as the member for the northern riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which is home to a diverse population. I would like to point out that the riding includes 14 Inuit communities, nine Cree communities—soon to be 10, I hope—and two Algonquin communities. In addition, the cities in the riding depend heavily on natural resource development.

It is therefore always a privilege for me to rise to speak to these issues that are important to the constituents in my vast and magnificent riding.

I am particularly honoured to speak to this bill because I would like to raise two critical issues relating to the debate that I am wrapping up. The first is the fact that, in a way, Bill S-6 dismantles the environmental assessment process developed by and for Yukoners. The second is about the whole issue of consulting and accommodating first nations, which has been debated at length this afternoon.

I keep telling the House that these issues are constitutional obligations that we have as a country and that the government has towards first nations. We cannot ignore these very serious issues. They are not fluff and, in fact, I think they are very important.

This very morning, I introduced Bill C-641 in the House. The bill would ensure that the laws of Canada's Parliament are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That international document is the only one that specifically covers the rights of the 370 million indigenous people around the world. I believe that we need to find a way to embrace this important document in the House.

When the declaration was adopted in 2007, the UN Secretary-General spoke of this document as the path to reconciliation between states and indigenous peoples. I wholeheartedly support this declaration. It would keep us from going through the kinds of situations we are seeing right now concerning the whole issue of consulting and accommodating aboriginal peoples when legislation is studied in the House.

Article 19 of the declaration states that indigenous people must be consulted and accommodated, in addition to providing their consent, when legislation that would directly affect them is being considered.

I introduced Bill C-641 this morning, and I am very proud of it. It would put aboriginal people and all Canadians on the path to reconciliation, which is so desperately needed in this country right now.

What will happen remains to be seen, and I hope the House will support and pass this bill. I also hope for the support of every Canadian, as this affects us all.

In the Delgamuukw case, the Chief Justice clearly indicated that we are all here to stay. That is a statement I believe in, so let us try to find a modus vivendi so that we can live together in peace and harmony.

I can speak from experience about the environmental assessment process we are talking about in this bill. I chaired the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment, which is provided for in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This committee oversees the implementation of the environmental and social protection regime outlined in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Having chaired this committee for many years, I could speak at length about it because I currently understand the importance of having a clear, independent and impartial process.

The James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment for the southern part of the James Bay area is made up of Cree representatives, members appointed by the federal government and others appointed by the provincial government, the Government of Quebec in this case. It is therefore a clear process.

In this regard, when the environmental assessment process and the powers and mandates of the assessment committees are clear to everyone, development goes well. Development in northern Quebec is going well because people know what to expect. They know the rules and standards set out in the the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. When these things are clear, everyone understands the rules and knows what to expect, whether it is the aboriginal people who are directly affected or the natural resource developers, particularly in the territories. Everything goes well.

Since I will be concluding the debate, I would like to quickly address the issue of consulting and accommodating aboriginal peoples. That is an essential point that has been discussed all afternoon. I was here all afternoon and I listened carefully to both the speeches and the questions and answers on this topic. It is important to consider all of these issues.

My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan quoted a few examples of the objections expressed to this government concerning the changes it wants to make with this bill. First, she quoted the Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada. She also quoted the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, which expressed its opposition to the bill and its support for the aboriginal peoples in the context of the changes to be made under Bill S-6. I want to quote that tourism association, which is in the territories:

TIA Yukon asserts that taking land use planning decisions away from the Territory will ultimately give tourism operators in the Yukon less of a say over land use issues where resource extraction interests conflict with interests of tourism businesses.

I would also like to read from a letter written by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon Chapter. This letter was sent to the government and to other members here in the House, including some opposition members. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society says it is against some of the proposed changes in Bill S-6, and mentioned four points in particular. The first is, and I quote:

...providing the federal minister new powers to give binding policy orders to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board as this amendment undermines the independence of the Board....

I just talked about the independence of these processes.

I will close by saying that the first nations directly affected by this bill complained that they were not properly consulted and that their concerns were not reflected by these changes.

We must never forget that we have a constitutional obligation to the first nations. We cannot deny that obligation, simply say that the first nations were consulted and then do nothing to address their concerns. We have a dual obligation to consult them and accommodate them. We must never forget that.

Again, our fear is that these matters will end up before the courts yet again and that once again the courts will side with us. That is our concern.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Takeover of Stelco

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (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; (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; and (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.

He said, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring my motion before the House. This will be the first hour of discussion on the motion. If plans go accordingly, early in the New Year there should be an opportunity for the second hour and then hopefully not long after that an actual vote.

My reason for bringing the motion forward is not because I have suddenly become delusional and believe that we can muster a majority on our side to make what we want happen, although I wish we could. With optimism, I look forward to the next election when we may have the opportunity to do that, but it will not be just motions, it will be bills that would make a difference for the people of my community of Hamilton and the rest of Canada.

However, we will do everything we can in this struggle to ensure that, at the very least, the government is not allowed to let this item just quietly slip away, because what is at stake is just too important.

Canadians know that Hamilton is Steeltown. It is changing now if we look at employment and where most of the jobs are, but nonetheless for the time being and in our proud history, we are Steeltown. It was known as the home of Stelco and Defasco. For the most part, things went along fairly good for the community, with some give and take. Then all of a sudden in 2007, the government approved the takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel and it has been darkness ever since.

I want to read into the record an extract from the Investment Canada Act, so we understand exactly the government's responsibility in this regard. The Investment Canada Act says in part the following:

—the purposes of this Act are to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in a manner that encourages investment, economic growth and employment opportunities in Canada...

The takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel has been anything but a net benefit to my community and the citizens who are there, and the smaller businesses that support that corporation. There is no net benefit, not when one of the corporation's earliest acts was to lock out the workers. This was not a strike but a lockout. Why did it lock them out? So the corporation could attack the pension plan of workers. That alone, in my view, warrants an apology to the people of Hamilton by the current government.

I see my friend over there wants me to quiet down. It is not his constituents and their pensions. The last thing the people at home in my community want is for me to be quiet on this issue. They want noise. They want attention. They want action. That is why the motion is here. The importance of this issue is not going to be lost. Whether we win or not ultimately remains to be seen, but we are not going to lose this.

That is why I put in the motion that its the government's responsibility, its sacred responsibility, to review potential foreign takeovers to ensure that exactly what happened in Hamilton with U.S. Steel does not happen again. It is not supposed to happen. Under the legislation, it is the responsibility of the federal government, when it reviews these kinds of buyouts, to ensure that does not happen. The government let Canada down. It let the workers and the pensioners of Stelco and U.S. Steel down completely, not to mention the city of Hamilton, and I will get to that in a moment.

The other thing my motion asks for is that the secret deal that got U.S. Steel out of court for not honouring its first set of commitments needs to be made public, unless the government thinks that it can just brush that off as just being the opposition, or that it is just Rolf Gerstenberger, the president of Local 1005, who says those kinds of things, that it is those kinds of folks. It is not the case.

Let me put on the record a letter dated September 24, this year, to the federal Minister of Industry from the provincial Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Brad Duguid, and he said:

As the CCAA process continues, it would be helpful for all parties to better understand the details of the 2011 settlement between the Government of Canada and US Steel Corporation related to the company's Investment Canada Act obligations and potential implications for Ontario and Hamilton. We fully recognize that there may be legal challenges to releasing commercially sensitive information, however, it would be helpful for all parties if the federal government could share this information with all levels of government to ensure that we are all well informed. Anything you can do to assist in this matter would be most appreciated.

I am doing what I can to try to assist. I sure hope the minister is listening.

I said it was more than just a few voices in Hamilton or in Ontario. Hamilton City Council has a special committee on this issue, on the steel industry, and it is very seized of this issue. Up until now, Councillor Scott Duvall has been the chair of this, and by the way, he is a steelworker himself and certainly understands the issues.

The council has been calling for this information, because the impact on Hamilton's revenue is huge. Millions and millions of dollars stand to be lost if this corporation closes and those jobs are lost. The city is quite worried, because like every other older city, it has all kinds of challenges already without suddenly having millions of dollars of tax revenue being taken away.

In terms of the broader community, The Hamilton Spectator, on September 26, 2014, just within the last couple of months, under the heading “The Spectator's View: Ottawa should come clean on U.S. steel deal”, said:

Is it possible the federal government will heed the growing calls for it to lift the veil of secrecy covering the deal it struck with U.S. Steel back in 2011? The most recent demand for that comes from Ontario's Economic Development Minister, Brad Duguid, who wants the secrecy to end in order to protect provincial interests.

It's a reasonable demand. The chronology is as follows: U.S. Steel bought Stelco in 2007 and, amid foreign-ownership concerns, made promises around minimum employment and production. Not long after, it idled production in spite of its commitments. The federal government sued to enforce the promises and won a preliminary round. But suddenly, in 2011—

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You should pay attention, David.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody wonders, it is Butt.

—the government dropped this suit in exchange for new commitments that have not been kept.

Now that U.S. Steel aims to sell its Hamilton operations and pull out of Canada, the agreement should be made public. There may be legitimate reasons to redact some portions, but not at the expense of the truth.

U.S. Steel workers, pensioners and the citizens of Hamilton deserve to know what our government agreed to, and why it never enforced the agreement, not to mention what it plans to do now.

They sign their editorials, and that one was signed by Mr. Howard Elliott.

I read that to point out that this is not, again, just the opposition raising an issue and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. This is already a mountain. This is huge.

So far, I have addressed the fact that it calls for an apology, because in our view, the Conservative federal government has let Hamilton down and let the workers and pensioners at U.S. Steel-Stelco down completely, and we demand and deserve an apology for that incredibly bad decision.

Next, the government owes it to the people of Hamilton, the pensioners, the workers, and the rest of this country to make public the deal that got U.S. Steel out of court. Remember, it was in court. The government was winning, holding U.S. Steel to account on its first round of promises. What got U.S. Steel out of court and out of trouble was this deal, but what is in the deal? It is at the heart of everything. What commitments were made, and are those commitments being honoured? In the event of a breach, what happens? We do not know.

That is why we local MPs are raising the issue. That is why I am putting forward the motion here in front of us. That is why Hamilton City Council has time and time again called for the government to release this information. Now the provincial government has also said that it believes that this information needs to be made public.

That deals with the first two issue. The last one strikes at the human level. It calls for amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, so that in cases of bankruptcy, unlike right now, workers' pensions will not be at the bottom of the list of things to be paid out from whatever assets remain. That is wrong. It is wrong, and here is why.

Corporations and companies can withstand the financial hit of one of their suppliers or clients going bust a lot more than the steelworkers can, who have worked 30, 40 or 45 years and then find out at the end of that grinding life that the pensions they were guaranteed are gone. Anyone who has ever worked in a factory will know and can imagine what decades in that plant are like. Those workers said that they would not take every hour of their wages in pay, but wanted some of it going into a fund that would accumulate over the pay periods, months, years and decades, so that they would have a little bit of a retirement, live in dignity and enjoy whatever remaining years they had in a decent retirement.

This is not to mention those pensioners who have already been retired for 10 and 20 years and now face the prospect of their income being cut by 20%, 30%, or 50% or more. I know what would happen in this place if someone said that MPs should get 50% less than they get right now.

Can members imagine what it is like and how frightening it is for people in Hamilton who worked at Stelco all those years and are about to draw their pensions or are already drawing on them, but which are now in jeopardy? They cannot go and re-live the 30 years. They cannot fix that problem. A company has some means to plan for the future, but what does a working person do when they have put their whole life into a company and are told that the pension money has gone? It is terrifying.

This motion draws attention to what needs to be done. It draws attention to how wrongly and shamefully the people in Hamilton have been treated, and it calls on the government to do the right thing. The government needs to apologize for what has happened to our community and our citizens. It should make the information public; the government does not own it.

Lastly, we need to change the legislation, to protect our pensioners. If we do not step in and protect them, we can see pretty clearly that U.S. Steel and others will not do it. If we do not do it, who will? The people in Hamilton, those steelworkers, are looking to this place to help them.

Approving this motion and following what it asks for would go a long way to bringing dignity, respect, and fairness to the people of Hamilton and the workers and pensioners of Stelco and U.S. Steel, who deserve to be treated better than how they have been treated at the hands of the Conservative government.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I waited for the hon. member to complete his speech because I respect the fact that he should have the right to do that on this issue.

I believe he referred to me by my surname in the House. That is not an appropriate way to refer to members of Parliament. We are referred to by our titles or the ridings we represent, and I would ask the hon. member to apologize for that and retract it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair heard the comment but was not exactly clear on what the hon. member for Hamilton Centre had said. At the time, the Chair was also mindful that the hon. member for Hamilton Centre was replying to heckling from the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville, which also falls outside the rules.

I did not clearly hear what the member for Hamilton Centre said. If that is what he said, then I would encourage him to retract it. It does happen from time to time in this place. The Chair can review the tape to see whether that is in fact what was said, but the Chair would also remind all hon. members that when one of their colleagues has the floor, they are to respectfully listen and not heckle. That is also an expectation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are very fair-minded and always have been.

There was heckling. It was juvenile. I did use his name as a retort, and I apologize and withdraw the comment.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague putting forth this motion. Dubreuilville, for example, is one of the communities where the workers are still trying to figure out if they are ever going to get their severance packages and pensions. The company closed down, and they are in limbo. The issue is similar to the one with the Nortel workers.

I want to thank my colleague very much, because transparency is something we have been asking for on this side of the House for quite some time. The government keeps saying that it brought transparency in; however, it keeps hiding everything. We saw that with this type of legislation.

I am wondering if the member could talk a bit more about the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, because I know that many people are having trouble making ends meet and are still wondering where they are at the end of the day, having worked all those hours without receiving what is rightfully due to them.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I know that there are members from all across Canada who can tell stories of exactly the same thing that in one degree or another has happened to their constituents. That is why New Democrats have always taken the position that this legislation needs to be amended, because at the time of crisis it is too late. The legislation needs to be in place at the time that these things happen so that workers have the security that right now banks and bond holders have.

They have that security. They get whatever amount of money. It may not be all of the money, but it is whatever amount is available. They are at the top of the list, the front of the line. We are saying that those workers should be at the front of the line, because we cannot repair the damage that is done to them when their pensions are cut in half or there is not enough money to even pay out a pension. New Democrats have always felt that this is the kind of legislative change that needs to be made.

As an aside, interestingly enough, when I was doing an interview with Mr. Steve Arnold, a reporter at The Hamilton Spectator, he asked me, “Hasn't this been put forward for about 30 years now? Why does it never happen?” My answer to him was it is because we have not had an NDP government yet. If we get an NDP government in place, we will get the kind of protections that workers need.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments and was actually astounded by the level of hypocrisy in his remarks. He was a member of the Bob Rae government in the early 1990s that reopened collective agreements and chose not to pay civil servants an agreed-upon wage.

I am absolutely astounded that the member has the audacity and temerity to stand in his place in the House and not make reference to his own past when he was part of a government that reopened freely negotiated collective agreements and stabbed workers and public servants in the back in the province of Ontario. How does he explain that hypocrisy?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government would like to change the channel and talk about something else.

The member is talking about the social contract. The social contract was wrong and should not have happened. That is a given. I would like to hear the government stand up and say that it has done something wrong, and fix it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the member's remarks. He is correct; this is not the only industry or company that has been lost to Canada.

I could not help but sit here while the member was talking and think about what Mel Hurtig would be saying about this issue. Thirty years ago, he warned about these kinds of takeover and the loss of Canadian industries. That is what we are seeing.

I just want to congratulate the member for standing up for the steel industry in Canada. We need to see more of that. We are seeing an erosion of Canadian workers and Canadian industries with the current government. It is a serious problem.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member underscores the fact that, as I have said, there are those of us from all across Canada who can point to examples of where this has happened.

We can look at other economies in the world and see that they are trying to create steel industries. They are trying to make sure they have the ability to do that.

Under the government, we are slowly but surely letting go of whatever little bit is left of the steel industry in Canada. As a wealth-generating country, having the state-of-the-art, world-leading steel industries was to our benefit. The government allowing that to change and be watered down is a harm to our future.

The hon. member is absolutely correct. If we continue down this road, it is going to do more and more harm. We need to change the ways, change the laws, and change the government.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion from my colleague regarding the acquisition of Stelco by U.S. Steel in 2007 under the Investment Canada Act, I rise today to make a couple of points.

The current set of challenges that U.S. Steel faces are not unique within the North American steel industry, nor a result of government policy. In fact, competitive pressures have been changing the types of markets that the Canadian steel industry serves and the types of specialized products it makes for decades now.

My second point is the importance of foreign investment and strategic investments such as those our government has made under the economic action plan to Canada's continued prosperity, the kind of growth that we continue to see in my hometown of Hamilton, Ontario.

This motion implies that U.S. Steel's current situation is indicative of a flawed foreign investment policy. I profoundly disagree.

Before I get into some more facts, on this side of the House, we are very concerned about anyone who does not have employment or is concerned about their employment or their future. That is the heart throb of every kind of initiative that we have taken to try to ensure we create jobs, growth and prosperity.

It was our government that took U.S. Steel to court in 2011 to ensure it fulfilled its commitments under the Investment Canada Act. It is the Minister of International Trade and our government that has been charging hard against the protectionist buy American legislation we are seeing south of the border, which has impacted the Canadian steel industry, as well as many other sectors of the Canadian economy.

This government is engaging the Obama administration on all levels because we know, and we always point out to the Americans, that these buy American policies are short-sighted and harm the economic interests of both countries. I should add that the Canadian Steel Producers Association has acknowledged the Minister of International Trade and his work on this issue.

For the purposes of debate on this motion, I should also note that in October, members of Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers in Hamilton voted 86% to accept a new 30-month contract from U.S. Steel. Both the union president and the U.S. Steel president cited stability as the key reason for the favourable vote and long-term contract. This stability is what the company and its workers need as they restructure in the face of serious competitive pressures with which the entire steel industry is dealing, so it can continue to do business in Hamilton and safeguard those good jobs

It is also important to the context of debate on this motion to talk about the renaissance that is currently taking place in Hamilton, at least before we get into the nuances of trade and foreign investment policy.

The greater Hamilton area has transformed itself in the past few years. It is now a much sought after place to live, work and raise a family.

I have known for many years that Hamilton is the place to be, and my colleagues opposite know that is the case as well. Now the secret is out. The Hamilton economy is on a roll. New jobs are being added to the Hamilton market every month. People are moving from Toronto to Hamilton. There is an unprecedented amount of construction taking place, including much of it in the hon. member's riding of Hamilton Centre.

Notwithstanding the global pressures that the steel industry faces, there is no reason to be down on Hamilton. Here are some facts.

Hamilton has the busiest Canadian port on the Great Lakes and it is growing. The Hamilton Port Authority has an aggressive strategy to diversify the cargo in and out of this port. In fact, the port is a driver of almost $6 billion of economic activity and 38,000 jobs for the Hamilton area. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.6% in October, a full percentage point lower than the national average. The value of building permits in Hamilton has topped $1 billion more than once in the past few years. Business magazines have pointed to Hamilton as a great place to invest.

To sum it up, the economist with the United Steelworkers Union was quoted in the Hamilton Spectator on October 11 saying, “Overall the numbers are pretty good for Hamilton”.

Why is this? Why the strong employment picture, busy and growing port and commercial investment that is taking place in Hamilton? Because this government is getting the economic fundamentals right, including an economically sound trade and investment policy. The fact is that trade and investment, both in and out of Canada, provide the foundation for Canada's continued economic growth, wealth and job creation.

Yes, there are significant competitive pressures weighing against some of our industries, but I have every confidence in Canada and Canadians to rise to the challenge to compete with the best in the world. That is why we believe in free trade, and it has benefited our country and economy greatly.

Investors have recognized that Canada is open for business under this government and have been attracted to the opportunities provided by a strong, dynamic Canadian economy.

We have created a transparent, stable, and predictable economic climate that benefits Canadian business, foreign investment, and frankly, Canadian workers.

In 2013, Canada leapt from sixth to second place in Bloomberg's ranking of the most attractive destinations for business, and Canada currently holds one of the strongest job creation records in the G7.

Our government is committed to creating the market conditions that will continue to attract international capital, technology, and innovative ways of doing business.

The positive benefits of foreign investment are well recognized.

First and foremost, foreign investment creates high-paying jobs for Canadians that contribute to our overall economic productivity.

Second, foreign investment provides new capital, which Canadian firms need to fuel growth and make the investments needed to thrive in an increasingly competitive global economy. This includes introducing new technologies and innovative business practices to Canadian enterprises, which as a result, can prove crucial to the expansion and development of important sectors of the Canadian economy, including our domestic manufacturing base.

Third, foreign investment also provides Canadian businesses with valuable access to new markets.

In order to reap the benefits, Canada must maintain the economic conditions necessary to attract investment, in the first place, and foster a welcoming environment for such investments to thrive.

In a global marketplace with strong competition for foreign investment, it is crucial that Canada provide an economic climate in which Canadian and international companies can succeed and thrive. Our government has worked hard to create the necessary conditions for Canadian businesses and workers to succeed. We have kept taxes low for Canadians and Canadian businesses, to support job creation, growth, and investment in all sectors of the economy.

Our government's economic action plan has resulted in significant investments to promote innovation and to foster research and development, and measures to ensure that Canadians are equipped with the skills and training they need to succeed in a globalized economy.

In Hamilton, the federal CANMET labs are one such example of a strategic investment in research, because the research there in new metals technology represents the competitive advantage the steel industry needs to compete on a global basis.

History has shown that trade is the best way to create jobs and growth and boost our standard of living. Our government and our Minister of International Trade have worked tirelessly to open new markets, increase exports of Canadian goods and services to global markets, and provide new and diverse opportunities for Canadian companies.

The government will continue to bring the benefits of foreign investment to Canada by maintaining favourable economic conditions.

At the same time, the government recognizes that not every foreign investment will benefit Canada. The foreign investment review regime under the Investment Canada Act is a key part of Canada's economic framework. It promotes investment and ensures that Canadians reap the benefit of those investments.

Under the Investment Canada Act, Canadian businesses can capitalize on international trade opportunities, tap into deeper pools of global capital, and obtain greater access to the resources and markets they need to expand, innovate, and create.

The foreign investments that have been reviewed and approved under the Investment Canada Act have boosted Canada's productivity, created jobs, and enhanced research and development. Once again, they have also demonstrated to the world that Canada is open for business.

In conclusion, our government has demonstrated its commitment to ensure that Canadian businesses can compete in both domestic and international markets.

In order to prosper, create jobs, and maintain a high standard of living for Canadians, it is important to adopt policies that encourage trade and investment.

Please allow me to quote the president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, Ron Watkins, who wrote in an opinion editorial in The Globe and Mail this week:

We support the government’s efforts at international trade liberalization, including fair competition and increased market access in government procurement.

Through our trade agenda, overall economic policies, and foreign investment review regime under the Investment Canada Act, we are working to ensure that foreign investment continues to contribute strongly to the economic well-being and long-term prosperity of Hamiltonians, Ontarians, and all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.