Brian Masse

[February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add to a question I had asked in the House of Commons with regard to a buy Canadian procurement policy.

What is important to recognize is that we have been suggesting that Canada investigate and bring forward a policy that complies with our international agreements and mirrors some of our partners, including the United States, which not only has a policy in place for defence procurement but has the Jones act for shipping and a buy American policy for stimulus package announcements that will be forthcoming. We are suggesting that Canada examine that and to not only open the door to potential and better trading relationships but also to support Canadian workers.

I have often used the example of the Navistar truck plant that is located in Chatham, Ontario. The government gave a $300 million contract to Navistar and Navistar decided to invest in the Texas facility as opposed to Chatham, Ontario, which is a plant that we helped support and bring back from the brink just a few years ago. What is interesting in this development is that the government has decided to support the Texas workforce versus the Chatham workforce, especially when it comes to military vehicle procurement of which the people in the Chatham-Kent area would be very proud to be participants.

It is important to recognize the latest chapter on this. It is because of the government's decision to say no to the workers of Canada that the analysis coming in now show that around $19 million will be paid out in employment insurance benefits. Therefore, as that facility closes and people are thrown out into the streets of Chatham and surrounding areas, it will cost around $20 million in employment insurance benefits. Ironically, the cost to actually retool the facility is estimated at around $800,000.

Today, at the industry committee, we had another breaking component to this story. When I asked the Minister of Industry whether the government had done any analysis of the cost of retooling, he said no. He did not know about the other departments, but his department said no, which is the responsible department at the end of the day.

How could we have a $300 million project to produce military vehicles? The way it works in the United States is that if the Americans decide they need more of those trucks, they can actually bump the Canadians down the line. We may not even get our vehicles in the fashion that we are supposed to because under American legislation, they can bump other types of production for other countries, and that has happened in the past before.

We have a workforce that is capable, willing and wanting to do the job here but it is being shunned and, on top of that, we have a defence procurement policy that is actually putting our procurement at risk and giving us less control.

I would argue that the government should work toward a buy Canadian strategy. The discussion on the steel industry is what led the United States to the whole buy American explosion in the media. We are a net importer of steel and we had a waiver on that back in 2002 when the United States moved forward on a similar initiative.

However, instead of working out our own strategy, the government has decided to turn its back on the Canadian workforce, and I say shame to that. The people of this country can build and be part of the solution. Our partners will respect that because we will not be doing anything different from they themselves.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech prior to question period. As well, there was discussion earlier in the day with regard to the economic issues we are facing. The particular issue on which I would like the member's comments happened recently. It is the government's failure to act on a procurement policy for defence.

The United States has one. Under it the Americans actually produce some of the content in their country, and we have respected that over a number of decades. In fact, that has been involved in the U.S. legislation for years.

What has happened here is that the Conservative government has decided to enter into a contract that has affected the workers at Navistar's Chatham, Ontario, truck facility. It is actually sending $300 million down to Texas when, right now, this government is letting the workers of the Chatham plant be fired. It is important that the work that was going to be done there would have actually allowed the plant to go forward.

What is interesting is that the Conservative government is telling Canadians as well that they cannot be the men and women who actually build the vehicles and equipment for our men and women in service, so it hurts doubly. They should have that opportunity, just as is the case in many other nations.

I would like to ask my colleague why they missed this opportunity, and what could be done in the future to make sure Canadians build the equipment used by our men and women in service.

[Tool, Die and Mould Industry, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, today a group of tool, die and mould shop owners from my community are travelling far and wide to ensure that they are not among the forgotten and forsaken of the Conservative government. This sector, which employs thousands of Canadians across the country and is the backbone of the entire manufacturing industry, has been left to twist in the wind while the government tries to figure out how to support an industry it chose to ignore until the eleventh hour.

This is yet another example of the Conservative government scrambling to make the insufficient and ill-conceived appear constructive. It is unconscionable that these reactive half measures have become business as usual for the government. Even more shameful is the official opposition, which is aware of these shortcomings, has chosen to align itself with the very people who have led us down this tragic path.

Allow me to acknowledge the efforts of these individuals who are only asking for fairness and support, support that the government has so willingly provided to other sectors of the economy. It is outrageous that they are compelled to put so much time and energy into demanding from the government what should have already been provided.

I hope the Minister of Industry will meet with this delegation and start to work them on a solution.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the companies just mentioned, some of them are in the automotive sector. I would like to know why the member would support a budget that does not have an auto strategy, including implementation of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council recommendations, which has called for a strategy since 2004. The budget does not have that. As well, it does not address the fact that the United States has put $25 billion aside in low interest loans and additional money for the parts industry. This budget has not matched any of that.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague runs down the budget in such context and then supports it later. I would like to focus on that in terms of the Liberal strategy of putting the government on probation with the amendment which does not have teeth to it. I am wondering what the tipping point is.

The Conservatives have already said “no” to many of the things that the member complained about. They were very explicit with regard to employment insurance. They already said “no” to doing what the member is correct in asserting, especially in regions of Ontario and the GTA that are hurting with regard to employment insurance. Eliminating the two week waiting period as well as making it more uniform with regard to qualifications, the Conservatives have already said “no” to those things. They have explicitly said we are not getting those changes.

What is going to be the motivation over the next few months to have the Conservatives change that position when they have already said “no”? Could the member tell us how the Liberals could make some of these things happen when the Conservatives have been quite clear in saying “no” and the Liberals are giving them the ability to do so?

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative-Liberal budget has a provision that allows homeowners to get a subsidy to replace their sod or put a deck on their cottage. There are approximately four million renters in Canada and many of them are seniors, as in Windsor West where they have been in the same house or apartment for a long period of time and plan to stay there. Those people might want to renovate their bathroom to make it more handicap accessible but they will be denied the subsidy under the Liberal-Conservative plan.

I wonder if the hon. member thinks it is fair that one can put down sod or a deck on one's cottage and get a subsidy but one cannot upgrade and make one's apartment more accessible for persons with disabilities.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why my colleague is supporting the budget. He spent 10 minutes basically running it down.

One thing he did talk about, which is important because it does not get a lot of attention, is the change to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the last session of Parliament Liberals in the transport committee, which I am a member of, actually reduced the opportunity to study this bill. A motion was brought forward that was supported by the Liberals and Conservatives.

What ended up happening was that witnesses from environmental groups were limited, even in committee, down to one hour to raise concerns about changing the act. I am glad that he has caught on to this, but I would ask him why his party in committee was opposed to having more witnesses and would his party support such a dramatic change because this is going to have significant consequences and there has been no input at all?

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work as well as the question.

I have actually written the minister. We have had interventions, and we can tell that the Conservatives are clearly uncomfortable about this because they know what they have done is wrong. They know it, but it is time for them to fix it. They can no longer hide and run away from it; they need to fix it.

Canadians can build for their men and women of service. They can do that. They are competent, capable and able to do so. Why does the government fail to see the value of its own workforce, a workforce that could actually procure and develop this? That is not acceptable. It needs to be reversed.

People really need to understand that this issue is not only about Windsor and Chatham-Kent—Essex, but about our entire country. We look at the potential for some new ships being built, often described as rowboats or tiny boats because they are small craft. Where are they going to be built? Everything counts at this point in time.

The rules are very clear. The United States does a lot of its own defence procurement, and we respect that. As a nation, we have not challenged the Americans. We have not taken them to court. We have not tried to renegotiate these elements. We have accepted it as a country, and they would accept the same from us, because that is part of a partnership. What is good for one is good for the other, unless we want to engage in a wider discussion. If we actually had the policy, maybe that would happen with the United States, and we would engage in discussion and go down that road. However, simply doing nothing is not acceptable.

How we can tender a $300 million contract to a source company outside this country at the same time that trained people are being handed pink slips to go home? They are trained and doing it right now. They are doing truck production. In fact when Navistar tried to move some production down to Mexico, where it had been doing some of this, for a period of time it had to send those vehicles back to Chatham to be fixed, because Mexico was not doing the right job.

The people have the qualifications and experience. They want to produce the trucks for our men and women in military service. They want to be part of the procurement, not just because it is a job but because it is a mission for our country. It is about the connection and the bond of people being able to do procurement for their own military and having pride in a nation. Why the government does not understand that is beyond me. Why can it not just say that it made a mistake and is going to fix it, and that Canadians are the ones who are going to be doing the procurement?

In terms of actually retooling the facility, $800,000 is nothing. Interestingly enough, we would then have the capacity to increase the volume if necessary, to fix vehicles with additional parts, and to service the vehicles. All those things would be done here. The United States would simply understand that, because they have it in their system, and we respect it.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada and as New Democrats it is important to recognize something the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has often mentioned in the House, and that is the shrinkage of the middle class. We witness Canadians having to work longer for less. We are seeing an erosion of our quality of life.

That is what I am concerned about, especially when we look at the stimulus package and the elements of the budget. I really think it fails because it provides no legacy push toward where we need to go to regain our middle class.

That is why I use the Navistar example all the time. It is because all those United Way donations will be terminated as people are fired and no longer work. Then we miss out on the civil society measures. Interestingly enough, I commissioned a research paper to see what other countries were doing with regard to their laid-off workers. Germany is actually spending a lot of its money on social infrastructure. It is doing renovations to schools, hospitals and even day care, and it is also adding capacity.

We have had a number of economists claim that investment in social infrastructure will create more jobs. For example, a child care job will create three jobs, in contrast to other types of tax cuts, which would create only one job.

In Canada we have drifted away from our middle-class principles in understanding that we want a balanced civil society that includes social justice and social infrastructure. That is the best way for us to be productive.

I think that when we look at the challenges ahead, the budget fails on that measure.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the first things the government needs to identify is the need for a national auto strategy, something we have been advocating for a long time.

Interestingly enough, it was this party that worked with Greenpeace and the CAW a number of years ago to come up with a green auto strategy, one of the first of its kind in the world. It is important to note that even a number of years ago, we could see the writing on the wall in terms of where the industry needed to go and the challenges that were there.

We believe in that strategy to this day. It is one that would be very important. Also, “A Call for Action”, the CAPC report, is still viable in many respects, so we would like to see it implemented as a national auto strategy.

It is interesting, because I remember that when David Emerson was a member of Parliament and a minister sitting with the Liberals, he said that if the Conservatives ever came to power, they would destroy the auto industry. How ironic is that? He then flip-flopped across the floor and became a Conservative, and he has certainly fulfilled that prophecy.

Right now in the United States we see a whole series of initiatives being supported. The Americans are not attacking their system right now. They are actually trying to work with it.

We have to change our attitude here on a national auto policy and look at the CAPC implementation levers that are there. Once again, that was done with a lot collaboration.

A second important front that we have to support is the parts, tool and die, and mould-making sectors. They are owed a lot of funds right now. They need to be supported with some low-interest loans that will pay back.

To those who are critical I can say that I understand the complications of supporting this type of initiative, but I want to remind the general public that when Chrysler was in hardship back in 1985, there was a small loan package at that time. Not only did Chrysler pay it back, but it paid it back with interest and profits for the country. Since that time we have had a very successful manufacturing facility, the minivan plant in Windsor, which is arguably the best one in the world since World War II.