Brian Masse

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, being able to respond to both domestic and external threats and having the structures in place to be able to handle that capacity are really important parts of a country's strategy. It is interesting that even at the best of times, as we have procurements outside of this country, we also become more vulnerable to timelines.

We are not only just vulnerable to the timelines and the manufacturer that we are buying from. Another country could jump the line on us, get the procurement that we had sought because their capacity had not been expanded and they were based on a business model over a series of years. They could jump the queue on Canada and get some of the vehicles, ships or whatever else we might be purchasing as a preference.

We have a strategic disadvantage there. It is important to recognize that this is also very much the psychological aspect of a nation being able to control its own destiny and for people to be a part of that. I will talk about the Navistar experience again. The people in the Chatham, Essex County and Kent County area want to be part of the people who assemble the vehicles that protect our nation and serve the people here and abroad. They want to be the men and women who do that. They obviously want jobs, as we all do, but they also want to be part of the process to defend our nation.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue again and it is a pleasure to follow my colleague who has worked so many years in these halls on the issue of shipbuilding, officially through the transcripts of Hansard and also in the background yelling “What about shipbuilding?”

That is a common phrase, and one of the things that I have seen over the years, and I have been here since 2002, coming from an industrial automotive area, is really a lack of policy for sectoral strategies. One of the things that separates our party from other parties in this House is the belief that the government does not have to always be involved in the actual industry but should set out some conditions and some structures that make it prosper and compete, similar to other countries. That is not done in this country.

The philosophy of the Liberals and Conservatives over the last number of years has been to just lower corporate taxes and then industries will thrive. Whereas in other countries, there have been successful models. In Norway, which is one of the concerns we have with regard to the trade agreement that we are talking about today, it has been able to develop a very competitive shipbuilding industry through a sectoral strategy. That is one of the reasons Norway will have a successful penetration into the Canadian market after years of government assistance and structures.

It is important to note, as we look at the current economic issues that our country is facing, that we are continuing, and I think Canadians will be shocked to hear this, with the Liberals and Conservatives passing this budget, to beat out a path of corporate tax cuts.

Right now, with the deficit and the debt and all the borrowing that we are going to do, we are actually going to be borrowing more money to give it to the corporations and actually have to pay more interest on that. We do not even have the money for those tax cuts right now, but we are going to continue to do that. That does not make any sense when we look at what the government has been doing. Basically, the Conservatives have been on the side of the banking sector, quite explicitly. The banks are bringing in profits right now, and they are not even doing the things they have been asked to do by the government and other Canadians, which is to extend credit.

I would just point to the automotive sector, for example, where right now we have people who want to borrow to buy a new vehicle or lease a vehicle, and they cannot do that. The bank rates are just absolutely unacceptable. They are anywhere between 7% to 11%. That prevents people from getting into a new vehicle and keeping a Canadian at work, or it gouges them as consumers which is totally unacceptable. The banks are the only ones actually making money on automobiles right now. That is not acceptable.

What we are hoping to see here is a sectoral strategy evolve that involves our industrial bases. That includes the issue of shipbuilding. As my colleague has noted, it is not only important for a manufacturing base, it is also important for this country from a national security perspective. That is why the United States has policies set in place. We have not challenged those policies because in some respects we have actually accepted the fact that the Americans are going to have some procurement for their own interest in terms of a defence policy. That is something we have agreed to in terms of understanding.

I will point to a good example, a classic, with regard to the Navistar truck plant, where right now the government has provided a $300 million contract to Navistar, which has a plant in Texas, but it also has a plant in Chatham, Ontario. We are actually allowing Navistar to produce these military trucks in Texas when retooling was only $800,000 in Chatham. So we are going to fire all those workers and send them home. It is actually going to cost us around $17 million to $19 million in employment insurance instead of retooling that truck plant.

I am sure they would understand in the United States that Canadians would want to build their military trucks, themselves, for their men and women serving here in our country and also abroad. They would understand that, just like we understand that they would likely do the same for those in Texas, where they would not actually send the procurement here. It does not make any sense when we look at the economic conditions that are facing us right now.

There has been a lot of debate in this chamber and also in the United States about some of these policies. There was a lot of discussion about the United States having a buy America clause as part of its overall stimulus package, but the reality is whether or not that is in fact in that act, unless it is actually disclaimed, it actually counts no matter what because it is part of the American policy going back to the amendments made on separate legislation.

We can protest and say what we want, but the reality is it stays in the actual package because it goes down to the state funding level where those officials have no jurisdictional accountability for the trade agreements or it goes to the municipal level and the same thing happens. So, the Americans can make those choices. We never in the past have contested that and a broader discussion needs to be had.

The Liberal Party has been attacking us saying that we are going to create some type of a trade war, but for heaven's sake, what would happen if we actually had a buy Canadian policy in place? We could then go to the United States and start talking about a buy North American policy. It would lead to a great engagement on those issues. But we do not have anything here. We just send it and let it go. We have a trade deficit this year. That is one of the reasons. It is because we have lost our manufacturing base and we do not do anything to support it in terms of public policy.

That is what is really nice about shipbuilding. I had the opportunity to go to Halifax and tour the Irving yards where I talked to the men and women working there. I know the Conservatives encourage labour mobility if workers cannot find work there. Labour mobility means that men and women, instead of working on policies that actually protect those communities and grow those opportunities, can go somewhere else for a couple of months and leave their family behind, and that is okay. Well sometimes we have to do that in life and we all understand those things, but that should not be the public policy.

To have strong communities, we need people who are taking their kids to soccer games and hockey games. They are the parents who can go home every single night and see their kids, and can help grow their community, to volunteer, and to have an attachment to their neighbourhood. It lowers crime. It improves the social values of the community. We should not be saying public policy-wise that “Well, you know what, if you don't like it, then we're going to help you get on a plane to stay in a camp somewhere else, bunk up with a bunch of people and that's the best thing we can do for you”. Then come back later on and say, “ And by the way, you have to find another job two months later somewhere else in this country or some other country”.

That is not right and that is what is happening in regard to some of the workers in Halifax where the skilled trades are short of work. There has been an insinuation that we do not have the capacity to do some of these things, but we can build that capacity. It is quite easy to do so.

I always thought the closing of the Collingwood shipbuilding facility was a step back. In the Great Lakes, where I come from, it used to be a thriving shipbuilding industry and that is gone these days. The ones that are left are small and not as significant as they used to be. I would like to see us go forward. We need a big turnover in Great Lakes shipping cargo fleets soon. So why not be part of that building process? Why not have some of those work skills happening here?

I know that my colleague noted the military procurements that have disappeared and vanished. Those are great opportunities to build the private and public sector elements necessary for the infrastructure investment to make it worthwhile. There is a pent-up need for that right now.

I hope that the proposed amendment passes. It would carve out the shipbuilding element. It would be sent back to committee to be worked on. Hopefully, we could go forward with something that is good for Canadians. It is not just the New Democrats saying this. I want to read into the record a couple of quotes. The first is from Andrew McArthur, representing the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. He said:

The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government we do not carve industries out. We raise the question the Jones Act in the U.S. was carved out from NAFTA. We are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans. The Americans have free access to our market. So industries do get carved out. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

It is important to recognize that what we are asking for is very much a common practice, but it is also something that could give us a negotiable stance when dealing with other trading countries. New Democrats do believe in trade. We just want fair trade. Part of fair trade is making sure we are open and going to discuss these issues even if they are very difficult, but at the same time we will also strategically do that as we look at the industries. Most countries do that. I think we should too.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it does not make any sense and it is very frustrating to hear this type of thought process.

I can compare that to another one. I have spoken ad nauseam in the House about the Chatham Navistar plant. There was a $300 million procurement policy for defence by the government, which it tendered out to Navistar. Navistar decided to put the plant money into Texas. We have a plant in Chatham, Ontario that could have produced the same vehicle with an $800,000 retooling, but it is closing down.

The employment insurance bill on that, for all those laid-off and fired workers, is going to be around $19 million. We are going to lose more money from the EI system because the government did not have the capability to say that we would have a defence procurement policy for our country, which the United States does all the time, and we respect that over here.

We are going to pay $18 million more in employment insurance by throwing Canadian workers out the door and moving the work to Texas, giving it the reward that we would have seen for our workers here.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the whip of the opposition party, but I am a little surprised by those comments. Of course the gap can be filled.

I worked with HRSDC, the administration component to Jobs Canada. We should not tell people that they cannot have their two weeks because we cannot fill the bureaucratic backlog. I hope it is not the member's suggestion that people should be disentitled to two weeks of employment insurance because we cannot get our act together to get the money out the door.

Coming from a riding that has had high unemployment, we have had delays like the member has indicated. However, if we have the concentration of government services, it brings the weeks back down, but it is political will to ensure the necessary staff is available.

We have to go back to the Paul Martin administration, which cut Service Canada in HRSDC. It gutted that service and there has not been the backfill of those people. This is important because we need to have that bureaucratic structure.

What a stimulus that would be if instead of giving these large corporate tax cuts, which we continue to do right now as part of the budget bill, we a provided some employment for some Canadians to clear out the backlog of employment insurance claims.

The workers are out there. Many contract positions and full-time positions could be filled. There is a mixture of those two things that could happen. I would hate to see Canadians denied two weeks of unemployment insurance because we did not have the will to hire the people to process the applications.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this motion. It is important to talk about employment insurance and the issues around it.

I will be splitting the time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I am very happy to do so as he has spoken many times about the issues of trade that affect our country, as well as issues related to the manufacturing and forestry sectors wherein we see a high degree of unemployment.

I want to look at this current situation through the lens of a working class town. Windsor has been very much a part of the economic hub of Ontario and Canada for many years. It has contributed to the coffers of this nation for a number of different generations, quite successfully, through hard work, innovation and as leaders in auto manufacturing. We have also participated in the tourism economy and other types of economies.

We have paid significantly into the employment insurance program over the years. It is important to note that now the tables have turned, we see a problem with the overall economy in the world. Because of that we are suffering from high unemployment. We raised the alarm bells for a long time, back in 2007 and 2008. We clearly indicated to the government that there was a problem.

Astonishingly the Prime Minister and his think tank around him, which is very much a shallow pool, denied there was a problem. We remember quite clearly that during the election the Prime Minister pontificated not only that the economy in Canada was fine and it would improve, but he also said that there would be growth and surpluses. On top of that, he suggested that during the instability with the financial markets, there would be a lot of deals to be had. He even stated that Canadian property owners would not see a depreciation of their properties. Over a number of years we had told the government and the previous administration that this would not be the case.

It is important to acknowledge that as we saw the tightening around the competitiveness issues in the automotive sector, the Canadian auto workers, the men and women who got up every day, even the non-unionized ones, did a significant job to ensure their productivity value was extremely high. In fact, it compared favourably to Japan, Germany and other nations. They provided a number of different savings prior to going into this crisis. In fact, negotiated agreements from the CAW resulted in close to $1 billion in savings to the company.

Those are the types of things that have happened over the years, even we have had new plant procurement during these difficult times. It is interesting because there is the new SS engine, one of the bright sides of things, and hopefully that will come to fruition.

The government of the day had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, in an election period time, to come up with a low interest loan for the industry, which it would pay back. That is different than in the United States where it has opened court and has procured the plants.

What is important to note these things were negotiated from the perspective of the workers increasing productivity and reducing costs in the factories around the country. Long before it became cliche to have energy savings, I remember members of CAW Local 200, in particular, proposing savings at the plants in which they worked and these savings would be passed on to the company.

There was clearly an indication, not only in my home area, but also on the Hill between myself and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, that there was a systemic problem coming forward. Often what has happened is the automotive sector in Windsor, when there has been a problem, has gone into the cycle a little earlier than the rest of the country and has emerged a little quicker.

What we recognized right away was that this was systemic in terms of the history. However, what happened was there would be a restructuring of the industry. This would cause an incredible amount of pain and would involve a lot of planning for a new emerging economy. It was important to see this type of diversification. However, we had a lack of government action.

Employment insurance reform is a huge part of that because it provides the stable source of income so people not only can pay their bills to protect their homes and their investments and ensure their children and their families have food on the table, but also to get the proper training necessary in a new emerging economy.

If we had the proper supports in our area, we would have the opportunity to be part of the wind and solar industry to ensure manufacturing would take place in the future. Ironically, we see that happening in the United States, but not here.

In Indiana a former General Motors plant was turned into a gear box manufacturing plant for wind production, and it has been very successful. We have yet to do that in Canada. A few of us have been trying to get this into place in our regions, but we have not had any support from the federal government.

The classic, ideological arguments of the day have always been if we lower corporate taxes then things will be okay. That has not worked. That has been a disaster. Three hundred thousand jobs have been lost in the last five years between the past two administrations and more people have fallen between the cracks.

As this was taking place, a lot of right wing ideologues were saying that we had to ensure that we moved up in terms of our products and services. We are already there, and I point to the tool, dye and mould making industry. Canada is the best in the world. However, we are losing out because of poor trade agreements and because of our dollar. We are losing out because of the use of oil to pad the government purse for a short period of time. People in skilled jobs were never fully utilized because of the economic conditions that really stunted the development of some of those industries, including the tool, dye and mould making industry and also auto manufacturing in its good days.

Just the other day another 1,200 jobs were lost at a Chrysler plant in Windsor. Another shift has gone down. This was an important plant because it was one of the last plants to operate on a 24 hour cycle.

People now coming off employment insurance have to dip into their savings. This is really hurtful because they have to dip into their capital assets if they cannot find a job.

People do not want to keep their job. Unfortunately the government has said that because employment insurance is available, people are not motivated to get a job. That is not the case. The fact is opportunities are not available. In the last two years the unemployment rate has been around 10%. It is simply not acceptable.

We need to plug the gap immediately. For the life of me I cannot understand why someone who has paid into an insurance program cannot take advantage of it when needed. That is unacceptable. It is not right and it is backward.

The two week waiting period does not make any sense either. The people who were laid off just the other day will need funds right away. Banks will not give them a two week waiting period to pay their mortgages. Credit card companies are certainly not going to give them an extra two weeks to pay their bill. In fact, these companies have been raising interest rates and fees without many consumers even knowing.

The NDP motion would correct some of the injustices in the budget. Budget 2009 does not provide the stimulus necessary for people to protect their incomes, their homes. Nor does it provide them with an opportunity to get some training. That is why we want to see the motion pass. That is why I support it as a New Democrat.

[Automotive Industry, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's revisionist theory. It was the Minister of Industry who said that the money for the auto sector was available in December. The contradiction is there. It is clear and present. They do not want to act, and that is the problem.

That answer is not good enough for the thousands of families in Windsor and Essex County that are relying on an auto strategy. The crisis is deepening. It is not good enough for those in Oshawa who, like GM's own auditors, are worried about the future viability. These communities will never be the same. The government is overseeing the death of the auto sector in Canada, and it is killing the communities that rely upon it.

When will the government stop playing the role of pallbearer and act to protect the interests of auto workers across this country?

[Automotive Industry, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Chrysler announced the elimination of a production shift at the minivan plant in Windsor, effectively slashing 1,200 jobs and costing more supply jobs later on, and 15% of its Canadian workforce in total has gone.

The headlines say it all: Auto crisis deepens; more jobs slashed; beleaguered manufacturing sector. Yet the minister is on TV from Washington saying he is trying to find “a way that is helpful”. Let me help him out. The answer is a national auto strategy, something promised but never delivered.

When will the government wake up and protect the interests of Canadian auto workers?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question with regard to the two-week waiting period.

Just yesterday, 1,200 people were fired from their jobs at the Windsor assembly plant in my riding. This was a devastating blow not only to those workers but to the community, because each one of those 1,200 jobs actually created 7 other jobs.

I would like to know the benefit of making a worker wait a two-week period when bills are due on a certain date. The deadline to pay a credit card bill or make a mortgage payment, or pay university or college fees does not change. People have expenses for their children and they need to put food on the table. Why keep the two-week waiting period? Why not provide money to workers right away, especially workers in places like Windsor where it takes many weeks to get employment insurance because of the lack of support services the government has provided.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the question from my colleague is an important one right now.

Every not-for-profit organization spends a lot of time trying to recruit board members. Not-for-profit organizations need board members for a variety of reasons. They need people in accounting, they need lawyers, they need people who are connected to the community in different capacities to be able to raise funds. They need people who can deal with social policy. They want to make sure they have somebody who is going to be good with the people the organizations represent and being an advocate for their boards.

The organizations are now going to have to shift their vision to how they are going to educate their current board members under this 170-page document and how they are going to implement a strategy to shift it. It is going to require an extensive shift and a business operational plan. At the same time, they are going to have to recruit board members. It is going to be extremely confusing and more and more difficult to bring board members online, in my opinion, at this particular time because people are concerned with a lot of other issues right now.

It is actually a sledgehammer approach and one that is very much focused on the Robert's Rules of Order way of bringing that in. Our gift to charities this year is that they are getting more rules of order and more things to learn, and by the way, we are not going to help them with it. We are not going to provide them with new tax incentives. We are not going to reward their volunteers and we are not going to improve their facilities or provide some type of stimulus. We are going to let them do this on their own. I say, good luck.

By the way, if they want to lobby us, they should come to Ottawa because back in the year 2000 we did some consultation, eight years ago, and that will be our justifiable reason that we can do it on the Hill as opposed to what we should be doing, which is hearing from Canadians and their communities on how their charities are dealing with the current economic problems and how their communities are going to deal with cutbacks to services and the increased capacity necessary to deal with the social problems around a failing economy. That is what the government should be focused on.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is important to recognize and I thank my colleague for the question because it touches upon a subject that I did not have time to address.

The bill further complicates the grassroots organizations that are trying to get together to form a social movement for education, literacy, anti-poverty, and a whole series of different initiatives. It could be agriculture, the preservation of land, or the environment. A number of groups that will try to get together will have further complications to do so under this bill and that is an issue.

It is important to contrast what we are seeing from the government with regard to not-for-profit organizations and charities versus the business sector, the government's pal. We know from the national survey of not-for-profit and voluntary organizations that 48% of organizations said they had difficulty obtaining funding from other organizations, including government. There is no surprise there. Some 20% said this problem was serious. The same proportion of organizations said that they had difficulty obtaining funding from individuals, although only 13% said this problem was serious. Finally, 42% of organizations said they had difficulty earning revenue. We know that is the current environment right now.

We have a budget that is going to be passed that does not do anything at all for not-for-profit organizations, not a single thing. It does not increase the amount of money people will get back nor does it provide any type of new supports or structures. The evidence is out there and in members ridings people know that they are losing organizations. They know that a number of them are being taxed when they try to get people information or actual work. Turning our back on the community is wrong right now.