Bob Rae

[The Economy, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the growing issue in the country is really that we have two Canadas emerging. We have a Canada that is doing well, a Canada that is prosperous, a Canada that is succeeding, a Canada that is able to export, on the one side--

[Justice, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get the Minister of Justice, in this instance, to clarify the comments he made yesterday in committee about the appropriate use of force when people go on one's property.

The Minister of Justice stated that, in his opinion, when faced with a hypothetical, he thought it would be okay for a property owner to shoot a few warning shots in the air or perhaps even over the head of the perpetrator.

I would like to ask the minister this very simple question. What is he going to say to the family of the little girl crossing the road down the street when somebody fires a warning shot at somebody entering his or her property? Does he not understand the danger of promoting vigilante justice in our society?

[Pensions, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of National Defence is saying is exactly the opposite of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about the issue of sustainability.

However, one question the government cannot avoid is in regards to its duplicity and that of the Conservative Party. We are talking about out-and-out duplicity. The Conservatives said the exact opposite during the election campaign. In an election campaign, the Conservatives are prepared to promise all sorts of things, and when they form a government, they follow the practice of the Reform Party. That is this government's true record, a record of reactions—

[Pensions, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in Guelph, in 2005, the Prime Minister was very explicit. When he was campaigning, he said:

My government will fully preserve the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan and all projected future increases to these programs.

Now it was also the same speech in which he promised solemnly that he would not tax income trusts. We know what happened to that promise.

How can the Conservatives stand in their places today and pretend that the Prime Minister of Canada did not specifically promise to do exactly the opposite of what he said to the people of Switzerland in Davos?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have always thought that the hon. member has given a new definition every time he stands to what race to the bottom really means. He creates a new standard for partisanship every time he speaks. When he spoke in debates on free trade, he accused his opponents of condoning mass murders in different countries. He accused us all of not understanding anything at all about life in a variety of countries.

I have to tell the hon. member and all the other members who speak in this House on issues of the economy that I see a real double standard. I do not hear a coherent picture from the New Democratic Party. I do not hear it from the New Democrats' leadership discussions. I do not hear it from him and the other critics with respect to really understanding the importance that yes, there is a necessary tension between creating a competitive economy and creating a fair economy. It is not about simply scoring cheap partisan points. If he wants to engage in that kind of debate, believe me, I can do that as well as anybody in the House. I just do not think it is worthy of us in this House at this point in time to be engaging in this.

This is a tough question. How do we ensure the survival of companies that are in economic difficulty? How do we say to workers that sometimes concessions have to be made? Sometimes they do have to be made to save jobs and sometimes they do have to be made to allow for competitive changes to take place.

What I am suggesting is that with respect to this particular situation in London, that is not the case. Any time the member wants to have a serious discussion about the economy, I welcome it. If he wants to engage in cheap shots for a living, fine, he can go ahead.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, since I was not here at that time, I can only tell the hon. member that from my experience in government there are a lot of instances where governments will engage with companies. They will talk to them about their long-term objectives and what their long-term plans are. That is exactly what needs to happen, what needs to be done.

If the hon. member were to say to me, these are issues that need to be looked at and understood, I would fully agree with him.

To answer his question, I am sure that provincial NDP governments across Canada have had to work with companies, lower taxes, and face the facts. What is going on in Manitoba?

Does my colleague believe that the Government of Manitoba is not interested in ensuring that tax rates and the situation are competitive? Of course it is. But we also have to recognize co-operative citizenship. That is the important issue here today.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend from Halifax West. I appreciate his generosity in allowing me to say a few words today.

I listened carefully to the words of the minister and my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. Although it is difficult in the context of a very partisan House, we have to try to come to grips with some difficult facts about the economy and with difficult challenges that we face. I would say very directly to the minister that if it is the legal view of the government that the Conservatives had no power to review a transaction like the one between the investors who bought the company from General Motors and the fully owned subsidiary of Caterpillar, then we need to take steps to ensure that we can review those transactions. We need to discover exactly the intention of a company that is at the point of purchasing a plant like Electro-Motive.

Like the member for London—Fanshawe, I am familiar with this plant. It was producing locomotives for decades in the province of Ontario. It was a profitable company. It always had a strong relationship with the Government of Ontario in terms of its own mass transit plans. It was an important source of exports, not only in North America, but indeed around the world. The company is well known to me and to many other people. It is a company I visited regularly, as the Prime Minister did on March 19, 2008, when he visited in order to have a photo opportunity and talk about the benefits of low taxes.

The hard fact is that we now realize that there are situations and corporate cultures in which it does not matter what the tax regime is or how far one races to the bottom. The company will still make decisions with respect to its own intentions and its own plans which are exclusively in its interests and not necessarily in the interests of the whole country.

I understand why governments have to say it is not their responsibility, but that of the Government of Ontario. I want to tell the minister that this is not a simple labour dispute. It never was. A labour dispute is when a profitable company and its workers are arguing about 5% here, 5% there or 10% here, 10% there. They argue about going from a defined benefit plan to an employee contribution plan. These are all issues that have been on the table in corporate discussions for a very long time.

When a very profitable company that is not without means, that is not facing a financial crisis, that is not facing a restructuring issue with respect to its operations, tells its workers to take a 50% cut, this is not a labour dispute. This is a company which has made a decision to relocate the plant. It was positioning itself to force the workers to go out on strike and then not have to take it. There was no bargaining with respect to 50%, or 75% or 80%. There was no discussion at any of the bargaining tables, of which I have been aware, of options put forward.

We know that we operate in an open economy, a market economy, an economy in which individuals and corporations have to base decisions on their economic interests.

Since the beginning of this conflict, it was clear that it was not a typical conflict between a company and its workers. The company was demanding wage cuts on the order of 50%, which had never been seen before in the region. The plant was profitable and competitive compared to other U. S. employers, with the exception of some of the company's plants in the United States. Naturally, the workers said that they could not accept a 50% wage cut.

A cut of 50% starts a race to the bottom such that we do not want to see in this country. The harder question for my friends opposite is this: If all the tax cuts in the world do not create an environment in which companies truly embrace the notion of corporate citizenship, do we not then have a problem?

I say to my colleagues from London and from the region, think of the consequences of a 50% cut with respect to mortgages or the buying power of the workers in London. Think of the impact on the whole economy. We are going to see that impact even more strongly, not with a 50% cut, but with the closure of the plant.

There is a challenge to the government, to Canadians and obviously to trade unions. However, this is not just a trade union issue. I think we make a big mistake to say that it is a trade union issue or, with great respect, that it is an NDP issue. The government speech that I heard was not about trying to understand the challenges that we face in this country in remaining competitive, but also in remaining fair.

We have to be competitive. Our economy has to be able to compete and be productive. The question is: Are we going to have an economy that is also fair and that responds to a prosperity that needs to be shared?

What is happening here is part and parcel of a broader trend in our economy. Those who are doing well are doing very well, but those who are doing badly are falling further behind. We have many instances, and the statistical evidence is overwhelming, where we are not moving to an economy in which the rising tide lifts all boats. We are looking at a situation where the rising tide has lifted a few yachts, but it is not lifting all boats. That is the challenge we face.

I know the government would say that the Liberals were in power for 13 years and this is what happened. Frankly, I think we have to get beyond some of that rhetoric and understand that it is not just about scoring partisan points here.

We are saying to the government that it cannot ignore this problem. It cannot say that this is just a labour dispute, not in its jurisdiction, not its problem and that it is doing a great job with cutting taxes. This is not just about saying the government produced 600,000 jobs since such a date. That does not cut it when we look at where those jobs are and what they are.

What is happening to manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario? What is happening to the base of good jobs that pay good wages and produce a standard of living not just for the workers, but for an entire community? That is the challenge that we face.

I certainly do not think we can live in an economy that puts up barriers. We cannot live in an economy that is protectionist. We cannot live in an economy that says we do not want investment. We have to be in an economy that welcomes investment. However, we also have to be in an economy that understands there are certain standards of corporate behaviour that we expect from the most profitable multinationals in the world. Certainly Caterpillar meets that category.

This is where the issue becomes more complex than the one the government is prepared to put forward, or even my friends from the New Democratic Party sometimes in terms of the rhetoric that one hears. It is not about beating up on corporate bad guys. It is about understanding that corporations produce jobs and wealth. If we do not have successful companies, banks and enterprises, then we do not have a successful country.

On this side of the House in the Liberal Party, we accept that 100%. What we cannot accept is that there is no role for governments, both federal and provincial, to play in bringing a reasonable standard of behaviour, whether on pollution, labour standards or employment standards, and to say that there are serious consequences for the community.

I know my colleagues from London understand this question. What is remarkable about what has happened in London is that it is not seen as the trade union versus the company. That is not the issue. It is about some sense of what a reasonable and fair economy is, compared to what we are seeing take place. That is the issue we are facing. Can we have a prosperity that is shared? Can we have a prosperity that is sustainable? On our side, we say we can. These are the things that need to change.

[Pensions, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not accept the report released by this official representative of Parliament, which clearly states that there is no problem with respect to the future of public pensions in Canada, except the Conservative Party's position. It is the Conservative Party that is attacking poor people. It is the Conservative Party that is abandoning the poor and the provinces, and it is the Conservative Party that is trying to change a system that has been working for half a century. The government must change its mind. Now is the time for it to do so.

[Pensions, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, better a high horse than a helicopter.

We are saying to the minister as clearly as we can that it is precisely because the Liberal government of the day recognized a problem with respect to the Canada pension plan that it changed the plan, amended the plan, fixed the plan, added to the plan, added contributions to the plan, and fixed it for Canadians. That is what the Liberal Party did.

The difference is that what the government is now talking about, what the Prime Minister flew over to his alpine perch to talk about, was not the Canada pension plan; it had to do with hurting poor people with respect to old age security.

[Pensions, February 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Reform wing we worry about, it is the whole bloody bird over there that is the problem. That is the issue we face.

Let me turn my attention to the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer today stated very clearly that there is no issue with respect to the fiscal sustainability of the federal pension plan in Canada, none whatsoever. Old age security is not at risk. Old age security is not in doubt for fiscal reasons.

The only risk to old age security is the Government of Canada and the Reform-Alliance reactionary agenda over there.