Dawn Black

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has been on the record for countless years in the House of Commons about an industrial strategy for Canada, a strategy that looks at all regions of Canada, promotes and helps industries in every region of the country to fulfill their potential, and meets the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When I referred to the Bloc Québécois supporting the Conservative government in the last budget, my concern was about seeing an opposition party support a government that made no movement on and no commitments in this area of an industrial strategy for Canada. There also was no movement on the environment, nothing, and not even a mention of the word Kyoto in that budget. There was nothing about a comprehensive aerospace industrial program. In fact, there was nothing in that budget about an economic plan for Canada. That is why I was so shocked to see the Bloc Québécois supporting the Conservative government on the last budget.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were still on questions and comments.

Just a few minutes ago, we were at the Standing Committee on National Defence. We heard testimony from Alan Williams, who was the former assistant deputy minister of National Defence responsible for procurement. We also heard from Douglas Bland, from Queen's University.

At that meeting we were able to adopt, unanimously, a motion to ask the Auditor General to look into some of the issues around the recent procurement. I think most Canadians would appreciate that there is civilian oversight to all of this, but a lot of it is in retrospect and not happening in the way perhaps it should, through a very strong and active defence committee having the opportunity to do that.

It was been clear from the beginning of this procurement process that the government really did know what it wanted to buy before it started the process. For strategic lift, the government wanted the C-17. For tactical lift, it wanted the C-130J. For helicopters, it wanted the Chinook. It was not ready to allow the process to happen as an open and public tender. It used the ACANs, the advance contract award notices, and it used the national security exemption to get out of the agreement on internal trade. That is what I was referring to a few minutes ago.

The agreement on internal trade was meant to take out of the process the politics and the opportunity for political decisions being made about where these contracts would go and have a process that was based more on the industrial benefits for the country as a whole, without the suspicion of political interference taking place.

Canada has good laws available for tendering defence contracts. We are one of the only countries that has a mandatory system for the tendering of defence contracts. However, it is clear that the Conservatives took on this massive spending without thinking clearly about the implications on industry, and they brought in a very rushed process.

There are some key needs for the Canadian Forces now, and I think everybody in this House recognizes that. One of the needs is the fixed-wing search and rescue. Right now Buffalo aircraft, which are 40 years old, are doing search and rescue. When I raised this issue with the Minister of National Defence at our defence committee, he said the process was stalled.

The Government of Canada has been proposing new fixed-wing search and rescue planes for at least 25 years, but both the previous Liberal government and the Conservative government have failed to deliver.

All parties in the House should support new search and rescue. This is a huge issue for Canadians at home. It is a big issue in my province of British Columbia. It is one that neither government, the previous Liberal government nor the Conservative government, has addressed sufficiently.

I have proposed a motion in the House, Motion No. 283, which will allow the House to express its support for new search and rescue planes. Sadly, the Conservatives have not made this part of what they are presenting to the House. Nor have they made Arctic sovereignty a goal of their procurement strategy. That is contrary to all of their election promises in the last election campaign.

The Conservatives had promised that Arctic and Canadian sovereignty would be an important component of everything they did, in terms of defence. Instead the Conservatives have focused on the C-17s, which, as members said earlier today, are American built. Therefore, a big portion of the contract for service and maintenance will go to the U.S.

I have asked this question at committee, but I have never received a satisfactory answer from the government. What will happen when a number of American planes, U.S. air force planes, are lined up for important maintenance and servicing in the U.S., which is where our planes will need to be maintained and serviced? What will happen if six American planes and two Canadian planes are in a lineup for maintenance? Logically thinking, which planes would be serviced first?

I will also talk about the manufacturing situation in the country, despite the kind of rosy picture that has been presented by the Conservative government and even the Liberals. There are some very disturbing trends in today's economy. We are losing a lot of good jobs in key sectors. Through the softwood lumber agreement, another mill went down in my community just within the last month. The loss of these good, family supporting jobs really hurts middle class Canadians.

A report came out today from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which shows the prosperity gap is increasing in Canada. Canadian families are working harder and yet the income gap is getting larger. We are told that the rewards of a booming economy are going disproportionately to a select few in Canadian society. This is a very troubling trend. The majority of Canadian families are actually falling behind or simply treading water.

Across Canada, one-quarter of a million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2002. More than one in ten jobs in the manufacturing sector has been lost due to layoffs, plant closures or the non-replacement of retiring workers. One in three of those jobs was held by a woman. Among the hardest hit was Ontario and Quebec. This is unsettling news for working Canadians because manufacturing jobs pay almost 30% more than the national average.

Despite occasional promises by both Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has no concrete plans for the auto sector , the aerospace sector or the manufacturing sector. There is no long term R and D or skills training strategy and no blueprint to seize the massive opportunities that are available for the 21st century green economy. This is why the World Economic Forum has Canada falling from 11th place to 16th in global competitiveness.

The World Economic Forum and others have warned us that there is a need for Canadian innovation and more original products and processes. Adding value to existing products and services is something that those of us from British Columbia have talked about and pushed for in terms of our lumber industry and adding value to our logs.

The NDP supports ensuring that procurement stays in Canada where it can create jobs and build up our industries. What we need for the aerospace industry is the same thing we need for large industrial sectors like the auto sector. We need a comprehensive policy that looks ahead to where the industry can grow, one that addresses skills and financial challenges. Canada's aerospace industry did not fall into place without a plan. On the contrary, Canadian aerospace was actively developed through a strategy that included public and private investment and innovation.

There are opportunities in British Columbia for the aerospace industry as well. B.C. has about 10,000 jobs in the aerospace industry, and these are good jobs. These kinds of jobs are family supporting jobs. They allow families to purchase homes and to have a quality standard of life. My colleague from Abbotsford will be familiar with one of these businesses, Cascade Aerospace.

One thing to note is the average industrial wage in British Columbia is $35,000, but in B.C.'s aerospace industry the average industrial wage is $50,000 a year. There are other companies in British Columbia that may be able to supply some of the military aircraft contracts as well, such as ACROHELIPRO Global Services Inc. at Vancouver International Airport and Delta's AVCORP Industries Ltd. and ASCO Aerospace Canada Ltd.

When decisions are made about how these contracts are awarded, I hope the people in charge will look at the country as a whole and that all regions of the country will have an opportunity compete for and perhaps win some of these contracts.

With the skills shortages that are upon us and with Canada slipping in global competitiveness under both the Liberal and the Conservative governments, the time for a comprehensive aeronautic strategy is here. In the past, many Canadian industries were not left to market forces, and there were strategic investments so we could prosper in key sectors.

That is what helped to build the middle class in Canada and to build Canadian prosperity. This is what provided families with jobs so they could support their families and so working Canadians could have some economic security to purchase a home, look after their children and look forward to a retirement with some dignity. The C-17 contract does not give us those benefits. It is effectively a sole source procurement to Boeing and to the U.S. Air Force.

However, we must look at the position of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc members have been saying for years that they are pushing for a comprehensive aeronautics policy with predictable long term funding covering aspects of the industry. The members of the Bloc have to ask themselves how they are doing that with this motion.

The Bloc has been here since 1990. At times, the Bloc has had nearly 70% of Quebec's seats in the House. It was the official opposition in the House after 1993. The Bloc now has enough seats to keep a minority government in power. It used that power last spring to support the Conservatives' budget, a budget that gave nothing for employment insurance, nothing for Kyoto, only a pamphlet on equalization, and nothing for aerospace.

If the Bloc members were sincere in wanting a comprehensive aeronautics policy, why did they not use their power in this minority government to fight to get one in that last budget? The Bloc could have done what the NDP did in the Liberal minority government to secure overdue funds for cities, international development and the environment, but it did not, and the Bloc members will have to explain that to their voters the next time around.

In 2006, the NDP campaigned on developing industrial sector strategies in sectors such as auto, aerospace, steel, tourism, forestry and shipbuilding. We will continue with this economic vision. We hope other members of the House share our concerns.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, who also sits with me on the defence committee, a question about the issue of the national security exemption, which the government implemented on this contract. It negates the agreement on internal trade that was brought in after the CF-18 contracts left Winnipeg and went to Quebec, and that caused a political firestorm across the country.

Could the member respond to the—

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is really sad that even an announcement from the Prime Minister does not change the tired old lines from the government.

Sending leased German tanks to Kandahar will not improve Afghan lives. These are 30 year old tanks designed for fighting in European forests, not the deserts of central Asia. The chief of the land staff told me that the crews on these tanks will see temperatures of up to 60° Celsius by summer.

Why is the government sending Canadian soldiers into battle with tanks that overheat and armour that does not stand up to the new Taliban weapons?

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there was no plan with the announcement on Afghanistan aid today to change this mission for the better. The recycling of old commitments and a change in the communication plan will not save Afghan lives.

What the government continues to ignore is the role that Pakistan is playing in the insurgency. What the Afghans need is more clean water, electricity and food aid for displaced people, not more tanks.

When will the government make real news and rebalance this mission?

[Cluster Munitions, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday thousands of Canadians will take part in a national day of action against cluster bombs and landmines. Events and demonstrations across the country will include making piles of shoes, representing all the lives and limbs lost to mines and cluster bombs, and collecting signatures urging the Conservative government to take a leading role internationally against cluster bombs.

Late last week the Government of Canada belatedly gave its pledge to destroy its stockpiles of cluster munitions and joined with other countries agreeing to a process that will forever ban these weapons, which indiscriminately kill and maim. Ninety-eight per cent of the victims are civilians and twenty-seven per cent are children.

The Ottawa convention banning landmines came into effect eight years ago this week and Canada led the world in that fight. In the fight against cluster munitions, Canada is being dragged along rather than showing the way. It is time for Canada to show it can be at the forefront of disarmament again. It is time to show real leadership.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the heavy casework that members of Parliament are dealing with on immigration cases is not just a problem for New Democrat MPs. It is a problem for every urban member of Parliament in this House, I am sure. The caseload of immigration problems is just horrendous.

There is one person in my constituency office who deals almost exclusively with immigration work. Thank goodness she is very good at her job. Marja does a wonderful job.

Part of the problem is that again the Liberals made big cuts to the immigration department over the years that they were in government. They have not reinstituted money into the department so that the workers can do all the work that is required in immigration.

The idea of an ombudsperson who would advocate for new immigrants and for visitors visas is a good one. A huge number of people come to our offices regarding visitors visas. They may have a family member in Canada who is dying and the family wants to bring a mother or a sister to Canada for a last visit with the dying relative. Those have been refused, or because of the time involved, the workers have not been able to process them in time.

There are so many issues around immigration where an ombudsperson would be an excellent idea. I support that idea entirely.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the Liberal opposition motion on immigration policy. However, the motion itself is incredibly vague and really does not propose any kind of substantive improvements to immigration policy in Canada. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party had three successive majority governments, from 1993 until just last year, and failed miserably to make the really needed improvements to immigration regulations and policy in this country over all those years, when they had an ideal opportunity to do so.

In fact, it was quite the contrary. While the Liberals were in power, immigration and the environment were the two areas that they most savagely cut and slashed funds from. That leaves us in the position where, for new immigrants, the immigration process itself is deeply flawed.

Some of the issues I would like to address have been addressed very ably by my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas, and I want to pay tribute to him today. He has been in this place for only two and a half years and in that time he has become I think the most well informed member of the House on the whole issue of immigration and refugee policy, and he has been such a strong advocate for new Canadians and for refugees. I want to pay tribute to him today. I am proud to serve with him. I rely on him a great deal for the work he is doing on this file.

The situation of immigrants in Canada today really is very serious. In fact, two of my daughters-in-law are new Canadians. They are immigrants to Canada so I know from a first-hand perspective, through my daughters-in-law, of the difficulties they have faced in coming to Canada and integrating into Canadian society, including the issue of having their credentials not recognized in Canada and the difficulty in finding work. I have seen all of those things through the eyes of my daughters-in-law and have really come to understand, not at just an intellectual level but at a very human level, the difficulties that new immigrants face in Canada.

The situation is a serious one. We know that new immigrants to Canada are 3.2 times more likely to live in poverty than people born here in Canada. That should not be the case. Immigrants, new Canadians, most often come here to try to improve their lot in life, to improve their standard of living, and to make life better for their children and improve their children's opportunities. They should not be coming here and living in poverty. They should have the opportunities they are so desperately seeking.

Our immigration application system gives points to new immigrants for their work experience and for their education. What we are telling them through that process is that their education and their work experience are important and that Canadians value that, but once they are here they find that this really is not the case. Their work experience and their credentials from their country of origin are just not recognized here in Canada.

In my own community of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody, I have worked with many new Canadians on this issue. One who comes to mind is a fellow named Dr. Daniel Hong, a medical doctor. He practised as a doctor in Korea. He worked in the Korean military as a doctor.

Here in Canada he has been unable to have his credentials recognized or to have any kind of re-certification process so that he is able to practise medicine here in Canada. That is a huge loss for Canadians.

It is also a huge loss for the Korean community in New Westminster—Coquitlam, because there are many people from Korea who have immigrated to Canada and who would like to go to a doctor who speaks their first language when they are discussing their medical condition. It would make it so much more comfortable for them to explain in their first language what their symptoms are and what they are looking for from the medical system. It is impossible for them to find Korean doctors because those doctors have such a difficult time getting the certification.

I think this is a real loss. We have people with such good skills now working as taxi drivers and in convenience stores and restaurants when there is real a shortage of doctors in Canada. I have not yet been able to help Dr. Hong get through all of these barriers to have his credentials recognized, and he is just one of many.

The other issue, of course, is the necessity for a new Canadian Citizenship Act. The Citizenship Act has not been changed since 1977 and really needs to be addressed.

Another issue is that of the lost Canadians. Others have spoken on this issue more eloquently than I can, but again, I have dealt with constituents in my community who were born in Canada, who have always assumed they were Canadian citizens, and who then suddenly found out that because of some quirk in the Citizenship Act, a quirk that has not been updated, they in fact are not considered Canadians. It has been a huge blow to them. We need to make the changes that bring all people who were born in Canada or born to Canadian parents the right of citizenship in Canada. That has to be taken care of quickly.

We should also be looking at the oath of citizenship. It is really hard to believe that today Canada is not mentioned in the oath of citizenship. It is a fundamental thing that should be looked at.

There is also the issue of eliminating fees for a citizenship application. Why would we have financial barriers to immigrants who come to Canada and make the decision that they want to be fully Canadian citizens? I have already spoken about the higher rate of poverty for new immigrants. To put up a financial barrier to them becoming full citizens in our country seems absolutely bizarre. It should be taken care of. No one should have to put off making such a fundamental and big decision like that of becoming a full Canadian citizen because he or she cannot afford the required fees.

I have spoken a bit about the issue of international credentials and the loss of the ability for people to work in the professions and jobs they are trained for, but I also want to indicate what a loss that is to Canada economically. It is a waste of talent and training that could work to the benefit of Canadians and the Canadian economy.

My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas has put forward a seven point specific program about an agency to deal with international credentials, including what it should look like, what its responsibilities should be, and how it should work. He has done that in consultation with the member for Trinity—Spadina. In fact, I think she has put the proposals forward. Those seven points would address the issue of foreign credentials and would take us a big leap forward. I really hope the government will take these proposals seriously and adopt some of them.

Another issue that is facing many immigrants is the issue of how family is defined. Family relationships are evolving all the time. I wish we would address that.

I see that my time is almost up. I have a lot more that I want to say about this issue, but in closing I would again compliment my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas. He has proposed an amendment to this very vacuous proposal by the Liberals. He has proposed an amendment that addresses substantive changes to the citizenship and immigration policy in this country. I urge all members of the House to support his amendment.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's presentation was excellent. He has such passion the people in Canada who live in dire circumstances and in poverty. He is a great advocate for working people in the country.

One of the things he mentioned was the issue of women working 20 hours a week and not being eligible for child care. It reminded me of something Rosalie Abella, a Supreme Court Justice, said. She said that child care would be the ramp that would drive single parents out of poverty.

Would my colleague speak to the commitments made in 1993 by the Liberals on a national child care program and again in 1997 and in 2000? They never acted on this. Could my colleague tell us about his experiences with women who are looking for child care in his community?

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

That's not true. I was there.