Lloyd St. Amand

[March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of sectors that are doing poorly, the manufacturing sector is doing very poorly as well.

I asked the Minister of Industry a question on November 23, 2007, which was dealt with by his parliamentary secretary. I pointed out, and this is beyond dispute, that hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs were disappearing at an alarming rate, and, I dare say, particularly in Ontario. I also indicated that the government had taken little by way of action.

In my riding alone, many well-paying jobs have been lost. These were jobs that paid $20, $22 and $24 an hour. The Minister of Finance, in particular, and, to an extent, the Minister of Industry, continue to trumpet the fact that thousands and thousands of new jobs are being created.

New jobs are being created in the service sector, in retail and in hospitality. It is true that all work is noble but the reality is that the jobs which are being created today are paying people, in many cases, about half the salary that they were earning, earning at places that have closed their doors because of lack of assistance from the government.

I am talking about Canadian Blue Bird Coach in Brant. A terrific entity, which had been in Brantford for some decades, has had to close its doors. It has relocated to the United States. GenFast, another long time solid employer in my community, has gone. Easton Coatings has gone. DURA Automotive is gone.

Yes, some jobs are being created. Wal-Mart, for instance, in my community, has decided to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Yes, there will be jobs created at Wal-Mart probably paying $8 or $9 an hour. That is fine enough but, for an individual trying to maintain or support his or her family, receiving an hourly wage of $9 an hour is not commensurate to having received $22 an hour a few months ago.

The answer from the government, I presume, is that it has done lots, that it has reduced the corporate tax rate and it has made provision for accelerating the capital cost allowance. Those measures are of some benefit but they are only of benefit to manufacturing entities that are yielding a significant profit. It is only of benefit to entitles that have the financial resources to buy new equipment or new technology, in which case the accelerated capital cost allowance provisions help.

However, this is at a time when other countries are targeting their manufacturing industry and are providing direct incentives to manufacturing, such as in the United States where the state governments and the federal government are injecting billions into the manufacturing sector to preserve jobs and to preserve manufacturing entitles.

Again, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry not recognize that there are hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs that have been lost? What exactly is the government doing or intending to do to keep still with us those jobs that remain?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, I certainly enjoyed the speech of my colleague. I am not rising to in any way correct the speech, but rather to ask him to embellish it. As is typically the case with this member, he always brings to the fore in one on one discussions or to this House, and by extension to Canadians at large, that unique and special Atlantic perspective. The member has contributed so much over the years in bringing forward that Atlantic perspective.

He is absolutely correct: at some point the government will come to understand that we have to wean ourselves off reliance on fossil fuels and look beyond fossil fuels. He has touched on wind energy. With respect to solar, we are lagging behind. The member opposite, as a member of the natural resources committee, knows that we need to do more with respect to advancing solar and wind.

I would like to ask the member who made the artful speech what he would see as an appropriate level of funding. What would be the appropriate trigger or signal from the federal government that it is actually serious about promoting a wind energy industry there?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of a situation that has become known as Caledonia. It is a land claim dispute that needs to be resolved as soon as possible. It is affecting homeowners, businesses and is most certainly eroding what had been a harmonious relationship between residents of Six Nations of the Grand River and residents of nearby communities, not just Caledonia.

My riding of Brant has been affected. There have been occupations on sites currently under development in the city of Brantford.

All are frustrated at the slow pace of negotiations. All are disturbed at the lack of reporting from the table. Is progress being made? We do not know.

I am calling on the federal government to do more to accelerate and intensify efforts to achieve a settlement sooner rather than later. Both sides deserve nothing less.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government did a great deal for students. The Liberal Party has well understood the importance of education and investing in it.

I agree with the question of the member opposite, at least in so far as, yes, the federal government should have done more in this budget to make it easier for Canada's students to continue their education. Brain power is the order of the day. Without assistance from the federal government, Canada's students, and by extension the economy at large, may well be left behind.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the GST reduction clearly benefits the wealthiest Canadians. Those who have the most disposable cash, those who spend the most and those who can afford luxuries, then yes, they will largely benefit from the 2% reduction in the GST. However, those Canadians who are at the lower income level, expenses for whom are free from GST in any event, groceries, et cetera, the reduction in the GST will not benefit them at all.

I do not know about the riding of the member opposite, but in my riding of Brant many seniors live on their own. They have been widowed. I presume it is the same in the riding of the member opposite. I have heard from a number of single seniors who have said, in so many words, “What about me?” They are entitled at age 75 or 80 to say to the government, “What about me? I do not have a partner. I have been widowed.” Pension splitting, income splitting, is of absolutely no benefit whatsoever for the single senior. That is the short-sightedness, frankly, of the government's approach to assistance for seniors.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance, a budget that sprinkles some minor benefits to a few sectors but, on balance, has done relatively little for any sector and nothing whatsoever for many sectors.

The task of government is to address imbalances and unfairness. Economically, the fundamental task of the federal government is to, however incrementally, narrow the gap between those who have enough and those who have too little; between those who have abundant resources and those, for instance, who are homeless; and between those who have abundant opportunities for employment and those who have lost employment through no fault of their own. On balance, the gap between these various groups has not been narrowed by this budget, or at least has not been narrowed to an extent which could have been achieved.

The Minister of Finance himself has conceded that Canada's manufacturing sector, particularly in Ontario, has been dealing with unprecedented forces, aligning itself against manufacturing; forces including the Canadian dollar, essentially at par with the U.S. dollar; the significant growth in manufacturing in other countries, including China, Brazil, India and Mexico; the difficulty in locating skilled workers; and, in addition, the reality that our manufacturers are forced to compete on a playing field that is most definitely not level.

The harsh reality is that manufacturers are in very serious difficulty and certainly the auto industry is in particular difficulty. In my riding of Brant, hundreds of high quality, well paying jobs have been lost as a result of plants closing their doors and relocating or simply closing their doors as they could no longer be profitable in light of the combination of factors which have confronted them.

I am referring to Canadian Blue Bird Coach, Easton Coatings, Genfast, Dura Automotive and others. Some of these plants were in existence for many decades and provided solid, well paying jobs for hundreds of individuals and, by extension, their family members. Certainly the city of Brantford and the surrounding area of Brant county benefited greatly from these jobs, which are obviously accompanied by spinoff benefits for entities such as retailers and restaurants.

Most important, it is obviously jarring and upsetting, to say the least, for an individual who has worked most of his or her adult life at the same plant to be told after 20, 25 or 30 years that the job is no longer there, that head office has decided to expand into South Carolina or has relocated to Mexico or Brazil. There is an obvious economic loss for these individuals who hoped for and counted on finishing their productive working lives at the plant or factory to which they had devoted their time, skill and energy.

Capital is the most portable commodity in the world but capital is not patriotic nor is it sentimental. Capital will be invested where it will receive the most yield and it is important for the government to understand that on occasion particular sectors of Canada's economy need assistance. The manufacturing sector, including the auto sector, needs assistance now and the budget does not provide the necessary assistance.

For companies that are showing large profits, a reduction in the corporate tax rate is of assistance. For companies that have the financial resources to purchase new equipment, the accelerated capital cost allowance is of some assistance. However, for companies that are not showing a profit and do not have the current resources to buy new equipment, those measures, although widely trumpeted by the Minister of Finance, are essentially of no benefit whatsoever.

Although the government seems to have an aversion to providing help to particular sectors, it has clearly forgotten the very beneficial effects that have been felt by communities such as Oakville, Woodstock and Alliston in Ontario.

In Woodstock, for instance, just outside of my riding, the former Liberal government saw fit to invest $60 million in Toyota's investment in Woodstock and the surrounding area. How tremendous has that federal government assistance been for the entire community? Growth is occurring at a rapid rate and well paying jobs are being provided all because the former Liberal government, in partnership with Toyota, saw fit to invest.

The $250 million spread over five years, as mentioned in the Minister of Finance's budget this week, is only $50 million per year. This sum will only very marginally help the auto sector. Would that the Minister of Finance understood that the sector is in real difficulty and needs help.

He continually talks about the number of jobs that have been created, but does not paint the full picture. The full picture would show jobs being created, yes, but a majority of those jobs are in the service industry, paying significantly less than the jobs that are being lost. The jobs being created are often accompanied by no benefits, no pensions and no security.

Quite apart from the auto sector, manufacturing generally is facing difficult times. I conversed recently with Dennis Hewko, the chief executive officer of Eagle Precision in Brantford. Mr. Hewko is an astute business person and is well familiar with the manufacturing sector, certainly familiar with the problems faced by the sector. He advances the thought that a decrease in employment insurance would have been of assistance, but unfortunately the Minister of Finance chose not to realistically assist the manufacturing sector. There ideally would have been programs available for manufacturing. Without federal government leadership, the sector will continue to deteriorate.

The government seems rather obsessed with the so-called free market, ignoring the fact that the market worldwide is not so free after all. It is well recognized, for instance, that governments in the United States, the supposed free market capital of the world, are providing substantial inducements to industry to locate in the United States. Governments at both the federal and state level are providing incentives. At a minimum, Canada's government should provide assistance to the manufacturing sector so our manufacturers can compete on a playing field that, if not perfectly level, is at least more level than would otherwise be the case.

I have some other points.

No mention was made in the federal budget of assistance for tobacco farmers, in spite of the comment from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the House only two weeks ago that action would be taken sooner rather than later and that tobacco farmers should, in his words, stay tuned. Tobacco farmers have stayed tuned and there has been no show for them to watch. They have been left completely out of the budget and their disappointment was expressed in a tangible fashion by their demonstration yesterday afternoon at the office of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Other groups have been left completely out of the budget. There is no support for arts and culture and local museums, no measures whatsoever to deal with the reality of physician shortage and no mention of incentives for companies and employers to hire persons who are disabled.

Last, there were $11 million per year to accelerate the waiting times for immigrants. There are 900,000 people waiting to come to Canada. Many of those are in the skilled worker category such as physicians and engineers. The wait time is 64 months to come to Canada.

If one is a 30 year old professional, an engineer for instance in Asia or another country, who wanted to go elsewhere to pursue a career, he or she could go to New Zealand in one year. One can be accepted into Australia in 18 months. In Canada it takes almost five and a half years. It is a problem that the government has not faced. It has done nothing except to provide a measly $11 million per year to accelerate the wait times, $11 million from a government that spends $240 billion a year. It is not enough. It is clearly inadequate.

Other sectors have also been left out.

[Ontario Senior Achievement Award, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Henry Hedges, recipient of an Ontario Senior Achievement Award which recognizes seniors who have made significant contributions to their communities through voluntary or professional activities.

By any gauge, Dr. Hedges has contributed very significantly to his community. He is an accomplished author, professor, horticulturalist, environmentalist and an advocate for people with special needs.

Well before the terms became fashionable and used rather indiscriminately, Dr. Hedges was and continues to be visionary, innovative and progressive. He is a person of very considerable accomplishments but is a man of modesty, humility and obvious dignity.

How appropriate it is that this very fine man be awarded the province's highest recognition for seniors. There is truly nobody more deserving than Hank Hedges.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, tobacco farmers are in desperate straits. Some are losing their farms. Some have fallen so deep into despair that they have taken their own lives.

Last week in committee I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food what his government was going to do to assist tobacco producers. The minister claimed that he would take action sooner rather than later.

So I ask the minister today, what action and what does he mean by sooner rather than later? How many more lives must be destroyed before the government takes action?

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member opposite. He knows, of course, that this is an emergency debate, that livestock producers are looking for immediate assistance, hence the term “emergency”. The phrasing “long term” is really not why we are here tonight. We are here to talk about short term, immediate relief for a sector which is in very difficult straits.

I would like to ask the member if he is hearing from his producers what I am hearing, which is that feed prices are so high that hog farmers cannot pay their feed bills, that the government, in the view of producers in my riding, is doing nothing to allow hog farmers to access loans, and that the present restrictions stop producers from getting money out of any government programs. That is what I am hearing from many in my riding.

I will ask the member opposite to comment not on long term solutions, which will be talked about another day, but on an immediate short term basis, what does the government intend to do for producers who are facing very difficult times right now?

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech from the member opposite. He started in a fairly articulate fashion describing the perfect storm that is facing livestock producers.

He talked about some of the very difficult factors which they are facing and the very high price of grain. He talked about the high value of the Canadian dollar. He seems to have convinced himself that he realized the gravity of the problem and then he said toward the end of his remarks that his government had basically done all that it is prepared to do.

I do not know to what extent the member opposite is really informed about the very difficult situation that livestock producers, particular pork producers, are facing. I do not know whether he heard, for instance, Clare Schlegel of the Canadian Pork Council make a presentation at committee. I do not know if he has heard or read what Curtis Littlejohn of the Ontario Pork Council said about the very difficult straits in which this sector finds itself. It is in unprecedented difficult straits.

He did talk about the highs and lows. Livestock producers are at the very low point of their farming careers, the very lowest point that many of them have faced, and with which they are now having to deal. The government needs to do more on an immediate basis. I am asking the member opposite, when is more going to flow by way of loans to these producers?