Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said it was great that the opposition has come on side.

I want to remind her that as New Democrats we did not support the free trade agreement specifically because of the type of situation we are facing right now because the Government of Canada negotiated a flawed agreement. When people negotiate on behalf of Canadians, we want them to negotiate for the benefit of Canadians and not end up in a dispute such as the one on softwood lumber. The Liberals are back at the table because they bungled the first job and it is time they fixed it.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am aware that a number of things have been happening to try to get the representatives of the U.S. government to see exactly what has happened to the U.S. people. I mentioned the number of organizations in the U.S. that have been lobbying to see the support of Canada's position, because it is the right position. I am certainly aware of that.

As I indicated, I am pleased that the minister is standing firm and is saying that he will stand firm. This is supported by the provinces nationwide.

Even though we will stand firm with the U.S., we have to make sure that we will support our industry as we take this fight. We have to make sure those frontline troops in the battle on the forestry and softwood lumber issue are able to survive the fight with the U.S. That is what is crucially important right now.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there was a rule when I was growing up that if one does not have anything good to say one should not say it. I will go beyond acknowledging there are people in our country, even members of parliament, who are so blinded and naive and ignorant of reality that they will make statements that just are not accurate.

As I indicated in my comments, the NDP has never been opposed to trade. We have never said there should not be free trade or there should not be any trade. What we say is that there has to be fair trade. There have to be rules in place that are beneficial to both sides or to all the partners involved.

When rules are put in place that only benefit one side, it defeats the purpose. From the early days, from the beginning of the New Democratic Party and the CCF, we have strongly supported trade with our neighbours. We have strongly supported it and my hon. colleague should have been listening in his history classes in little Unity, Saskatchewan. I know that they were being taught about what was really happening in Canada within political parties because one of my assistants went to the same school, I believe. Somebody was listening, but it was not my colleague from the PC/DR coalition. What is surprising is that they have not found a chair even further outside of the House to put him in and then we would not have to listen to his ignorant comments.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated previously I think it will have an impact if we do not stand firm when we know we are right and in a strong position. What would that say to our neighbours to the south?

We are good neighbours of the U.S. Nobody could ever deny that there has not been an excellent working relationship between Canada and the U.S. and there should be an excellent working relationship. However, being good neighbours does not mean becoming the doormat for those neighbours. We are not here for them to wipe their feet on any time they want their way, or when they do not want to treat us the same way they want to be treated if they think something will benefit Canada more.

I would like to suggest as well that we are being good neighbours to the numbers of people and organizations in the U.S. that want to see Canada succeed. They are the lobbying groups in the U.S. who support Canada's position because it allows them to benefit from prices coming out of Canada so that people in the U.S. can afford to build homes and do different things they would not be able to do if they did not have the products coming in from Canada at a reasonable price.

We are not talking about a low cost dumping price, because I think Canada is on the right track and is not doing that, and that is supported. We can be good neighbours, not just to those companies in the U.S. that are lobbying the government, not just to the lumber companies trying to get big bucks for their lumber in the U.S. and wanting to increase their prices. As well we are being good neighbours to the literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who want access to our products at a reasonable price.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak on a very serious issue affecting Canada. This is certainly one of those issues that affects Canada nationwide. Every single province, to some degree, is active in the forestry industry and is feeling the effects of what I consider to be U.S. bullying tactics on the softwood lumber issue.

I think the disappointment that a number of members of parliament and certainly a number of Canadians have felt is that the softwood lumber agreements that were previously in place expired before we ever saw any real action to get the U.S. moving in a way to allow open access. From that perspective, there has been a lot of disappointment.

However, from the perspective of Canada's position I must say I actually have been pleased that we stood firm and I am pleased that the minister says he is standing firm. Because what we so often find is Canada buckling under to the U.S., there is concern that in these last minutes and last hours of the fight, and actually I think it will be the last months of the fight, Canada will buckle under. I was extremely pleased to see the forestry ministers from the provinces put out a firm position yesterday, saying to the minister “Don't buckle under. We must take the U.S. head on”.

The forestry industry companies and those workers are the frontline soldiers in this war against the U.S. and its attack on us regarding trade agreements. Often as New Democrats we are accused of not being in favour of trade and we are slammed for wanting to have all these protectionist measures in place. That has never been the case. What we want is fair trade that recognizes all partners need to have fair and reasonable rules in place so countries can reflect what they value. We are not opposed to fair trade. We are not opposed to there being an even keel on forestry products being sold between Canada and the U.S.

It is not just New Democrats who feel that the trade agreements have not ensured that Canadians benefit from these trade agreements. A proposal was sent to the government, I believe, from the trade lumber coalition. It stated about the forest industry businesses that:

The businesses that will fail will be the victims of inadequate trade agreements negotiated by the Government of Canada with the United States, leaving companies exposed to unfair protectionism and crippling financial harassment. They need, and merit, government assistance and the government needs to provide assistance as part of a sound and sober international trade policy.

The position that we as a country and right now the industry are taking, that of standing firm against the U.S., is the right position, but we have to make sure that those frontline troops, the forestry industry and those workers, have the tools to survive this war with the U.S. The government is failing to do that. The changes to the EI system mean that a number of workers are not able to qualify for EI. There is no additional possibility of dollars going to the forestry workers, but there could be the possibility if the government would see fit to do it by allowing some flexibility in programs to ensure that more dollars could be there to assist forestry workers. The government is not doing that.

There needs to be a system. One was devised in regard to the Export Development Corporation. The proposal was put to the government and stated:

The Government of Canada could extend its EDC loan guarantee facility, presently available for companies to post bonds, to guarantees for commercial bank loans so that companies will be able to post cash deposits should they become required in May 2002. It should be able to fashion the program so that the government assumes some risk, but would not have to make financial contributions to companies. The assistance could have no adverse effect on the current litigation, and might not create any subsidies exposure in the future. Instead, hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs could be saved while Canada stands down unfair U.S. trade practices.

What we are dealing with now is an industry that is standing firm and is willing to take its fight to the U.S. The government needs to support that industry and those workers and it is not doing that. On top of the delay in getting on with the issue of dealing with softwood lumber in the initial days of this agreement coming to an end, the government is now lagging behind in putting in place programs that will support the industry. The government cannot do that. We have to support this industry.

I firmly believe that what happens within the softwood lumber industry and our stand with the U.S. will have an impact on trade deals in the future, whether that be in the steel industry, the dairy industry or the potato industry in P.E.I. What happens here will set the pace for what is to happen in the future. If we can show that we are a strong, united country in doing this and that the government will support its industries, we will have a chance against the bullying tactics of the U.S.

We have a very strong case. It is very strong when an entire industry from one end of the nation to the other agrees that we are doing the right thing, that we are not doing anything wrong and we will win this, but that we need some help along the way. If they are starved out, if those companies are allowed to go bankrupt, we will have accomplished nothing. We will have destroyed our industry. We will have made it open season for foreign companies to come in and buy it up later to do whatever. It is crucial at this time that the government support the industry and put in place programs to do that immediately.

I will not go on much longer because I know others want to speak on this topic and it is crucially important that everyone gets that opportunity. I want to take this time to thank my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. We have had discussions before on the softwood lumber issue. We know the seriousness of the issue and we know that we have to get some action from the government for those support programs. I want to thank him for pushing for this to be an opposition day dealing with the softwood lumber industry. I hope we will see support for the motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have had a lot of input from mechanics in my riding and have discussed with them over the last number of years their ability to deduct the cost of their tools. Coming from a riding with a number of industrial sites I recognize the high cost of tools for trades people.

In answer to my colleague, he is absolutely right. The bill does not seem to address the need of students by only allowing them to claim a certain amount. The legislation is totally inadequate. Quite frankly, I see it as a double standard by the government. A professional worker is able to claim a business lunch, a box at the Blue Jays stadium, or a Senators box here in Ottawa. A dentist and a doctor can claim their tools.

The government is using a double standard by not recognizing trades people as equal and valued partners in society and not allowing them to claim the tools they need for their business. It is disgusting and shows the double standard the government uses for ordinary working people. The government probably thinks these other people deserve a bit more. The member is absolutely right. Mechanics, carpenters, electricians, trades people or any worker who need tools to do their job should be able to claim them as a tax deduction.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty simple. We lost it because we cannot trust whatever comes out of Liberals' mouths.

There was a tacit agreement that there would be representation. The minister's comments were debated at length at the department, in cabinet and in committee. He understood that there would be pressure from labour for dedicated labour representation on the board.

However, there are other parties who are affected by the operations of the security authority. Yes, there are other parties involved and there is the entire nation. I have indicated the number of workers, pilots, flight attendants and other crew people that lost their lives on those flights. They have an extremely important interest in what happens with airport security. They are the ones that are on those planes when something happens with a passenger who becomes enraged. I have yet to see a member of parliament from the Liberal side be damaged or injured on a plane as a result of lack of security. We certainly see it happening to airline workers all the time.

Who has the greatest interest here? They are the workers in that industry and the passengers that quite frankly they are standing up for as well. The government is not.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49 or just pleased once again to have the opportunity to comment on the government's performance and its commitment to Canadians which is sorely lacking.

Bill C-49 was presented as a budget bill. As has been stated in the House, it really does not do a whole lot to provide the funding needed for Canadians in a number of areas.

It does not provide the dollars needed in health care funding throughout the nation. The premiers of all provinces called on the government to once again take its 50% share of health care funding. Was there even a point to getting to that level of funding by increasing it to 25%? Let us get on the road to improving the health care situation in Canada. That was not there.

There is nothing to assist post-secondary students with funding. However in the past we surely saw attacks on students by not allowing them to claim bankruptcy at the same level as other Canadians if they were in financial difficulty. It must be recognized that something like 92% of students pay back their loans. Compare that to corporations that receive government loans but do not pay them back at near that level. A great deal of dollars are owed.

The government has failed to put enough dollars into the employment insurance program to provide needed benefits to workers and the unemployed in Canada as well as to provide dollars for training needed throughout the country.

It is recognized that there are huge gaps in our workforce where training is needed. The government could use those EI dollars to do that. Instead it is using employment insurance premiums to provide the finance minister with a surplus that he keeps touting has come about by his great management of funds. The bottom line is that the surplus came about mainly by taking pension dollars and EI benefit dollars.

There was a very minimal approach to put dollars into infrastructure. The $2 billion infrastructure fund does not nearly address the infrastructure needs. The government consistently has not funded infrastructure over a number of years. We all know if a leak is not fixed, pretty soon the roof will need to be fixed, or pretty soon the walls will need repairs and then there will be nothing left. That is pretty much what the government has done to Canada's infrastructure over the last number of years.

Talking about leaking roofs, there is the housing situation in Canada. There is a need for affordable housing throughout the nation.

As far as Bill C-49 being a budget bill, it really was not much. Maybe people do not realize that the bill has over 70 pages on how the government will collect a $24 security tax. There are over 70 pages to get that additional $24 security tax, and it is a security tax. It is not an airline flying tax. It is not a user fee. It is an airline security tax.

The bottom line is we are not just dealing with airline security. What took place on September 11 was not just about airline security. It was about a nation's security. That is what we are talking about.

Have we resorted to charging individuals for their security? Is that what we are doing here? What will happen down the road when there is a robbery in a community? Will we charge the family for the police to respond? Is that what we are talking about in Canada, that individuals pay to get security?

Since when should the victims, and quite frankly I believe them to be the airline passengers, become the victims of the September 11 attacks? Those airline passengers lost their lives. What are we saying to airline passengers now? They are being told they will pay a security tax because by golly those other passengers got themselves killed. Is that what we have resorted to? It is despicable.

It is utterly despicable that any party or any member of the House would support a user fee on security, or even for one minute would suggest that it should be $2.50 or $5 or whatever. We are a nation that should be standing together recognizing that what happens in those airplanes could affect each and every one of us. That was proven on September 11 when those aircraft flew into the World Trade towers. That is what this is about.

I believe that as a result of what happened on September 11 the government is exploiting the airline industry and airline passengers. It is making them responsible for paying for security. It is not acceptable. It will cause devastation to a good number of smaller airlines and a good number of smaller communities and to individual travellers who are already paying high airline costs.

On that note, I have heard the transport minister's comments and answers, that if $24 is too much for people to handle, make the airlines reduce their fares. For crying out loud, he has been trying to make the airlines reduce their fares for years and he cannot do it. He has reduced the airlines. He has certainly been the transport minister while we have watched one airline after the other die in Canada. That is a given. What is his answer? Make them lower their fares.

After years a number of communities finally have low cost carriers which provide those lower fares. Now he is saying they should reduce the fares even more because he wants $24 from them as an airline security tax. If that is the answer the transport minister has, he should not be there. He could not get those airlines to reduce their fares. Actually he could by putting some regulations in place to get them to do it. That may not be the answer either, but the answer is certainly not to say that because he wants to charge a tax, the airlines should reduce their fares.

If I thought for one second that this was strictly an airline security issue and it was because of something the airlines were doing, then I would say we have to do this, but that is not the case. We are talking about national security and about taxing individuals because of that. It will not just apply in the airline industry. If it is allowed to proceed, this is what we will be looking at in each and every instance of some kind of terrorist attack.

What if something happens in one of the ports? Will we charge a security fee for any person hopping on a ship in case something happens? Will each and every passenger on buses crossing the border be charged a security tax? It is not the answer.

The answer is to take those dollars that are needed out of general revenues. The minister touts his surplus. I have indicated where I believe it came from. Until such time as it is realized whether there is a need for the security tax, or if there are additional dollars, it should be taken out of the surplus.

I have listened to the finance minister over the past number of weeks comment that he will review it in the fall. I then listened to the transport minister who believes that somehow the airlines should reduce their fares. That is his answer. I have listened to the finance minister say he will review it in the fall and I have listened to the transport minister say there will not even be a security agency up and operating by the fall. Boy, that is one heck of a picture.

There have been comments. I will read a couple of headlines: “Air security test results kept secret. September 11 attacks make documents too sensitive”. After September 11 we will no longer be able to find out whether there is good security at the airports because now it is a national secret. It is for national security. If it is national security then we cannot release those airport security test results. Why are individual passengers paying for security? “Airline security tax will raise $130 million surplus”. It sounds like a bit of a windfall to me. “Air security fee a rip off. Critics say a $24 ticket charge a revenue grab”. “Air safety tax hits new heights for waste”.

Let me just read from the Toronto Sun . It talks about the bomb detectors. My colleague from the Bloc mentioned the bomb detectors. It states that the leading manufacturer of these particular machines, one of only two U.S. approved suppliers, put out a press release a few weeks back indicating that Canada was ordering maybe five of the devices.

The government had indicated earlier that it was going to get 600 of them. It has ordered five so far and that leaves only 595 more units to order. It has $992,500 or whatever left. The U.S. for all of its airports is only ordering 100 scanners.

There was no impact study done by the government as to what would be the results of its security tax. There was no study done of the impact on the airline industry, the tourism industry and numerous other industries that will be hit by this. There is no understanding that municipalities will have those additional dollars taken out of their local economies any time someone needs to fly.

In the past I have listened to the Alliance members tell the Liberals that every time they cut a tax point more money goes into the local economies. How many tax points did the government just add to dollars coming out of the local economies? It is shameful.

It is hard for me to get my head around this whole picture when the transport minister says it should not be called a tax, that it is a user fee. If it is a user fee I present to the House that yes, the government is charging a security user fee and we can call it a user fee. If it is a user fee there is an understanding in Canada that the government has done some consultation and impact studies. The government members do not pop out of bed one morning and say “How much can we get out of these Canadians? They are afraid, so let us go big. We will not go just for two bucks or five bucks. Let us go big because we will have much more money”.

I and Canadians in general will have to be forgiven for not believing that it will only be used for airport security as such. Quite frankly, just too much money will be coming in. Not for one second do I believe that is strictly what will happen to the money. The way the bill is presented the money will go into general revenues, except for a certain amount which will be allocated to the Canadian air transportation security agency which still has not been set up.

On that note I have a question for the government. I ask Canadians to question the government as well. Why on earth are we setting up a separate agency for security at airports? What ever happened to the solicitor general's office, to the RCMP, the most trusted security people in Canada, those who know the business? Why are they not looking after airport security? Why are they not setting the rules and the guidelines? Why are they not putting the practices in place?

Why are we putting in place a number of government appointees who will get paid Liberal patronage dollars, probably $100,000 to $150,000 to be on this new airport security agency when there is a department that is supposed to be in charge of security for Canadians? Between the RCMP and CSIS certainly we are capable of doing that. Or is it that somehow we have more faith in the transport minister than the solicitor general as the head of that security agency? Maybe that is the case.

It is wrong. If we are talking about the security of the people in this country, a security agency should be in charge of it. It should not be the transport minister. What the heck does the man know about security? He is not even going to be dealing with those who fall under his department and are specialists in security. It was the Department of Transport that was in charge of security when those numerous incidents came before the House. There were numerous cases of failures within the system. The security at airports and the baggage checks went out to the lowest bidder. Is that the transport minister's idea of security? Whatever we could get for the cheapest price, we got it.

We do not have a system in place that is seamless. We do not have a system that people consider safe. I ask the House and Canadians to challenge the government on what it is doing. This is literally the security of the nation and the lives of the people travelling in Canada. We are leaving it up to the transport minister who, quite frankly, has done a very poor job.

Another issue that came up in discussion on the bill and was approved in committee dealt with representation on the board. I want to go on the record as saying that I firmly recommended, as the critic for the NDP on the transportation committee, that this issue should be under the solicitor general's office. It should be under a security agency. We do not need a separate agency of Liberal appointees, making $100,000 or $150,000 a year, using that money which could be used for other things. That is where I stand.

We talk about this security agency and about who would be appointed to the agency. We had a committee agreement that there would be representation from labour groups as well as government appointees. We would have representatives from the airline industry. It was bidding out the contracting of the security services to the lowest bidder. We would ensure they are on there because this is a business decision.

We would have the airport authorities on there because we all know that the airport authorities are not trying to make a buck. Who are we trying to kid? That was recognized. The airport authorities are now competing with each other so if they have to somehow cover the cost of the security they would put it out to the lowest bidder because they are trying to make a buck.

Who is really caring about the security of Canadians and passengers in our airlines? It was suggested that there be some labour appointees to represent the workers in the industry. We have the airlines, the airport authorities, and the Liberal government appointees. We all know that the airport authorities are Liberal appointed airport authorities so it is a double whammy.

It was recommended and agreed to by the committee that we would have labour representatives. What did we see in the House? The government brought an amendment to not have any labour reps. Why? What did the transport minister say? He said that it would only be the one union right now and what would we do when it is representing another union and what if there are other workers involved or labour groups involved? So what? It is a labour rep.

It did not recommend one union, one particular person or individual. All workers involved would have some representation. They are being recognized to have a say in the security. How many members of parliament from the Liberal side were on those planes when they went down? I can say that there were a lot of workers. There were pilots, flight attendants and other crew members. They deserve to have a say in what happens with the airport security after September 11. But not this minister. It is more important that we look at the business aspect. That is much more important.

The government has exploited the September 11 issue, pure and simple, no question about it. It is exploiting the September 11 incident to get more money so the finance minister can talk about a surplus. It is absolutely wrong to charge Canadians for security.

I will not call on the government to lower the tax. There should be no tax. No individual in the country should have to pay for his or her own security. No one industry should be made responsible for the events of September 11. That responsibility belongs to each and every one of us. It is time that we stood firm and said that this should not happen and we should not allow the government to pass the bill.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the area I want to touch on the most, which my colleague from Mississauga mentioned, is the insinuation that the reason big cities like Toronto and Vancouver have so many homeless, and included in that homeless are 35% with mental illness, 15% aboriginals, 10% abused women, 28% youth of which 70% are physically or sexually abused, is that there are shelters and places to look after them.

I would suggest that we are really putting that in the wrong context. The bottom line is any person I knew who ended up in such a situation where they had no home or place to go or shelter to rely on, did so because they usually were leaving someplace that was a hell of a lot worse. They were looking for something better, which was not there. However they were stuck there because they did not have a penny in their pocket to perhaps get back.

To suggest that people with mental will head to that magnet of Toronto, what about looking at the real issue. Our health care system has failed and we no longer have supports in place in a lot of those communities because we do not have the dollars going into the health care system. We have priorized wrong. As a government, the priorities have been wrong. When dollars should have gone to support those small communities so they could keep people in their communities, they were not there. When dollars should have gone into aboriginal communities and education should have been in aboriginal communities, they were not there. They are looking for something better.

On behalf of every aboriginal from my riding who has left a horrible situation on a reserve to look for something better, I take exception to someone suggesting they went there for a free place at a homeless shelter.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but ask my hon. colleague about the fairness in the tax system that his government is dealing with. He commented on the Liberals slashing the income tax on capital gains. I wonder how that compares to the finance minister taking back GST rebates from school boards on school busing services. That is one heck of a fair tax system. Seventy million dollars will come out of school board budgets because the finance minister is retroactively changing GST legislation to get it. Is that fair taxation?