Brian Masse

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, which is an important document. Canadians have been looking for leadership from the government to deal with today's economic climate and the problems we face.

It is important to point out, as I start this discussion, that the New Democrats do not support the bill for a number of different reasons, but we are doing our job. We are showing leadership on what we should have in the country. The country should have a more balanced approach with regard to a budget that not only deals with the economic crisis, but deals with some of the systemic issues the country faces with previous legislation and lack of action as well.

We have an interesting case with regard to democracy. Last year, when the Liberals consented to the Conservative budget changes, the Immigration Act was changed. We have to remember that with the passage of the budget bill last year, the immigration minister received a blank cheque to change the immigration system, without going through the normal, democratic process in the House of Commons.

The normal process is the minister introduces a bill which then goes through a reading in the House of Commons. Then it is vetted at committee and comes back to the House of Commons. If passed, it goes to the Senate and if there are changes, it comes back here. Now we have avoided that consultation process under our immigration policy, which is truly unfortunate, because there is economic opportunity. It is a social justice issue to ensure Canada does the right thing with its immigration policy. There is also an opportunity to engage the public and the private and not-for-profit sector about how our immigration policies work of do not work for our country.

By agreeing to that, the Liberals gave the government a blank cheque to change it. We have seen the effects, and it has not been an improvement in our immigration system. We have seen greater lineups, greater delays and it has reduced our capacity to respond in this global climate.

There are a couple of issues. Interestingly enough, through Bill C-10, the government is changing the Investment Canada Act. It also changing other legislation with regard to pay equity, for example, which will unfairly hurt women. Women will no longer be able to go through the court system to challenge pay equity. They will have to go through another process that will not be as fair. It takes away from the judicial system, which is the appropriate process.

It is important to note that this sends a message across the country that women's issues are secondary. It can be done on a one-off, with no problem at all, by the government. It sets the mandate for how it feels and how it goes forward to deal with serious matters.

Avoiding our legislative review process is truly unfortunate. Members of the House of Commons collectively are supposed to review bills. We are supposed to have input. We are supposed to garner the witnesses. We are supposed to go through a process to improve a bill.

Often we find common ground. Sometimes we get amendments put forth and avoid some unintended consequences. Since 2002, I do not know how many times I have been in committee reviewing a bill and our party or the government has found errors in it, whether it was the Liberals in the past or the Conservatives currently. We go through the legislation to fix those errors. Instead we have legislation being rammed down our throats, which is unacceptable.

With respect to the budget implementation bill, it is ironic. After the G20 summit, the Prime Minister talked with other world leaders and said that he would come back with a package for Canada. Instead he set off a political crisis by cutting the provinces and a number of different services and putting in some other elements, which still cannot be explained today, for example, billions of dollars for sales of public buildings. The Conservatives cannot even name the buildings or what they will do with them. That really set up a firestorm in the politics. Hence, the government took a time out.

The Prime Minister went to the Governor General and told her the Conservatives needed a time out because everybody was upset with them. The Conservatives misled the world by saying they would do something, but did nothing. Apparently they thought nobody in Canada was paying attention to the international news, or they did not have access to the Internet or something else. Canadians quickly realized that the Prime Minister said one thing and came home and did another. However, the Conservatives had their time out. In that timeframe one would have thought they would have come back with a plan.

I come from the automotive sector and I have spoken many times in this House of Commons about a plan for the automotive sector. One would have thought the government would come back with proper legislation that would actually address the issues. It decided to go to Washington. The Minister of Industry went down to Washington, but nobody would meet with him.

The Americans are going to do something for the automotive sector to assist in filling the gap caused by the economic crisis and liquidity issue. There is a difference between what is happening here and what is happening in the United States. The United States had two sets of public hearings on the auto sector. Last year the U.S. had a series of hearings on the energy act and created a $25 billion low interest loan program for the auto industry to get new technologies and cleaner vehicles. Then there was the actual bridging legislation for the loans. Whether or not one agrees with the loan program, at least the Americans went through the process. The United States passed its legislation. There were hearings and input was received. It made a lot of news. The Congress and the Senate had the opportunity to vet the legislation. The legislation went through that process and was actually delivered to the public. What do we have in Canada? We only have promises from the minister. There has been no input at the industry committee. We have not had that type of vetting process.

When one looks at the plan that the United States passed, it is a plan with different rules and things that are changing. The document, “A Call for Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy”, was produced by the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, CAPC, back in 2004. The auto industry, unions, suppliers and many other auto industry components warned the then Liberal government of the potential failure of the auto industry in the future if we did not lay out a plan. It put forward a simple and straightforward plan where results could be measured. It had a series of strategies calling for action. What have we done since then? Nothing. We have not done anything on it. That is unacceptable, because this plan could have been tabled with the budget bill. It could have been more extensive. The government had the time to do it.

What has happened in between is quite astonishing. We have seen the collapse of the auto industry, not only here but also in other parts of the world. There have been success stories. I reference the United States and its $25 billion low interest loan program which was passed last year. The U.S. is already seeing results. General Motors is going to build the Volt in Detroit, Michigan. The state of Michigan recently signed on to assist in the battery procurement policy. The battery for the Volt will be produced in Detroit as well. Despite the challenges of the industry and where it is going, the Americans have already laid out the game plan.

What have we done on the Canadian side? In the last budget, money was cut from the auto sector. On top of that, the government imposed a new tax on vehicles. It kept the tax component of the eco-auto feebate program. For those who are not aware of that program, it was an unbelievable disaster. There was about $116 million in that program. Most of that money went to vehicles produced overseas. That is the irony of what the Conservatives did in their first budget. They created this incentive program to buy certain vehicles. It did not work. On top of that, they ended up sending money to Japan, China, Korea and other areas where vehicles are produced. It is not acceptable in terms of a policy.

The Conservatives also brought in a tax on vehicles. They kept the tax, which represents around $50 million a year in revenue for the government. That is the estimate from the industry. The United States laid out a plan that is very progressive, and which is focused on cleaner new vehicles, production, manufacturing and low interest loans that are recoverable for the taxpayers. Here in Canada, the government added a new tax. It put some of that money into a new program of $50 million per year for five years for a total of $250 million. Basically, the industry had to go through h-e-double-hockey-sticks just to access it. That happened leading up to an election.

The government is sending the message that Canada is closed for business and partnerships to revolutionize the industry and that if people want to take advantage of one of the government programs, the Conservatives are going to make them squirm, beg and crawl. They are going to punish people pubically for wanting some type of a procurement element.

These things are not foreign to North America. Germany is the second largest auto producer and Japan is the third largest. Japan is a major exporter. Germany has major exports too, but it also does a lot more domestic. Germany and Japan have procurement policies that actually work for their industries. That element is out there. If the government wants to assume that a free market economy with no actual incentives is some type of carrot with which to approach the industry, the Conservatives are alone in the world in that. Even the United States does not do that. Nobody does that. If the Conservatives want to change that policy, then great, let us engage the world about that practice.

Until that time, if we keep our current automotive policy, we will see that what is happening will continue. We have gone from fourth in the world in assembly to eighth. What does that mean? It means that not only auto workers and their families are losing out on economic development, but so are those in the mould-making industry and the tool and die industry.

The tool and die industry has made an appeal to the Minister of Industry. That industry is owed about $1 billion. The industry needs that money to prevent bankruptcy from happening.

There are other victims in this mess if we do not have a viable auto industry and one of the most value-added industries will disappear. It is going to cost money for things such as the United Way and skills training.

It is also important to think outside the automotive box. If all that industrial development goes into new technologies, they can actually revolutionize other industries, especially looking at some of the new technologies in the use of battery and other elements. It is an exciting time despite the challenges. Some new and interesting products are coming on line that will meet new customer desires. It is also going to provide an opportunity to have a greener, cleaner industry, which is really critical because we put so much faith in that.

It was interesting to see the minister, when it came to the budget, make a big to-do about the shoes he was going to buy. We saw him on TV when he bought some workboots. He came to work that day and decided that they did not fit right and they hurt his feet. It is ironic, because it is the same with this budget. It hurts a lot of Canadians and it does not fit right for what we need to do.

It is not even a question about how much money we are or are not spending. It is also about the way we actually spend. That is why it is important to recognize that this was an opportunity that was wasted.

I will point to one of the more interesting cases we have had recently and what could have been in the budget bill but is not. Today the New Democratic Party introduced a bill to respond to that. A procurement policy could have been part of it. I know that some people will say that the NDP wants to put up trade barriers and do something that would set off a trade war and create all kinds of problems, but that is a bunch of nonsense. Since the Great Depression, the United States has had a procurement policy in place. I would have liked to see one in this bill. What we could do openly and accountably is a percentage of that could go into Canadian manufacturing when there is a government procurement policy. That is done all over the world. Our partners do it. I do not regret that the United States does some of that. It is a challenge in some respects.

The most important example that has recently shown how poor we are in Canada in terms of strategy is the Navistar truck contract. I have spoken extensively about that, and I am going to keep talking about it because it is a great example of a missed opportunity and the lack of leadership.

Navistar, for those who are not aware, is in Chatham, Ontario. It produces trucks. A number of years ago, I and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh fought along with the CAW to get a modest investment from the federal government in that plant. It was saved, and it has paid back its worth. It is a windfall, not only with regard to the tax revenues to the nation but also to the workers and their families who have been contributing taxes.

What has happened is the government is not dealing with procurement policy, which is totally legal and which many municipalities endorse across the country right now. They back it because they understand it. We understand the rules. We can do this. The United States will not get upset with us for doing it. The Americans have a policy in place that has similar elements, and we accept that.

The Navistar truck plant in Chatham could produce the next load of defence vehicles, trucks that are necessary for our military. Ironically the government tendered it out, and what ended up happening is that Navistar International won the bid and the truck building component is in Texas. Texas is getting 300 million dollars' worth of work from the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, and at the same time the workers in our communities are losing their jobs. Those are good paying jobs, jobs that this country invested in. The trucks we make are the best and we are going to lose out on that opportunity because of the ideology of the Conservative government.

The government is going to award a $300 million contract to Navistar in Texas when that contract could have gone to our own community. The excuse is that there was $800,000 of retooling necessary for that facility in Canada, but Canadians would have been doing that retooling. The value-added components would have been manufactured in Canada. There would have been economic benefits for Canadians who would have been paying taxes.

That investment would have been understood by the United States. The Americans would understand that Canadians want to build Canadian trucks for our Canadian men and women who are serving in our military. They would understand that. We understand when they do defence procurement for the same reason.

The Conservatives are allowing this to continue and are not cancelling the contract. It is unacceptable. Sending work down to Texas is not a solution for this country. It sends a message to all the others concerned with defence procurement. The government is saying that Canadians cannot be the ones who build for our men and women who serve in the military. That is the message the government is sending to people in Chatham, that they are fired and they are not going to be the ones who produce the vehicles for our military, that Texans can do it. That should have been in this bill. We could have done it.

What is also important in connecting the dots on this is that this country needs to have a manufacturing capacity for its sovereignty so that it includes components for shipbuilding, trucks, airplanes and other elements that are important for national infrastructure. A country needs to make sovereign decisions about what it does. The United States does that. I do not begrudge the Americans for that. If they want to build their military trucks in Texas and not in Chatham, I understand that because it is part of a plan for their country.

What do we have in Canada? We have no plan. Other contracting is being looked at right now. The plane contract is being examined. The Department of National Defence is eyeballing a single source contract that would exclude all Canadian aerospace manufacturers. It would be created and assembled in Italy. How is that possible? How can we have single source contracting for companies outside Canada?

What does that tell those companies that actually cluster and try to build around our manufacturing bases here in Canada? It tells them that if they invest and make that type of commitment to the Canadian people, if they do the training that is vitally necessary for the post-production development, they may not benefit from it, that we will simply have it built in Italy. That is the wrong message.

It is important that the government reverse the Navistar decision. It would send a message that we are serious. I expected that to be in the budget bill.

I spent a lot of time talking about Navistar and the auto sector, but I want to touch on one thing in the bill that is symbolic and important to me because of my background in developing programs for persons with disabilities with respect to employment and home services. Ironically in the bill there is a new program for home retrofit. Those who do some work on their houses get a 15% tax break on the first $10,000 spent on their homes. It includes some really interesting things, such as, sod and decks. However, those who rent are excluded from this. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians rent their accommodations. I think about seniors in my riding who have rented houses or apartments for a long time. They are not eligible to upgrade their bathrooms or other areas to make them accessible. Meanwhile, those who want to put new sod on their lawns or expand their decks in Muskoka are going to get a tax break. Ironically those people are the ones who have to subsidize that program with their taxes in the first place. It is wrong. That is why the budget needs to be defeated.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to make that correlation because there is a spiralling effect that really brings down other elements of the economy, everything from the person who operates a small business and provides food services to those who want to invest in the area and look to clustering around a major manufacturing facility. It also hurts the social infrastructure, be it the United Way or other charitable groups. The CAW and other types of philanthropy is taking place because of that economic activity.

This really hurts on a psychological level in the sense that what the government has said to the workers of Chatham and Kent area is that it wants to have our trucks for our military built in Texas. It seems they are not good enough in Chatham and area for the $800,000 retooling. That is all that is necessary, a small pittance. It is all the jobs too that would be done by the people of our own country, many of whom are laid off right now. The government has said to those people that they are not going to be the ones to build the trucks for our men and women who are serving this nation. That really hurts them. I have talked to them and that is how they feel. It is sad because it could be different.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to tour the Halifax shipyards and talk to the workers and management there. There is a strong confidence element involved there in that the people there feel that they could be part of something bigger. They feel that they could be a part of the future of procurement for Canada, whether it be for the military or the coast guard. That is what they would like to do. It is not only about having a job. It is about having pride in a country that can produce the goods necessary for us to defend ourselves and also serve our citizens. There is a natural connection that needs to be recognized. It instills a nation's sentiments.

It is sad that we do not have that policy in Canada. It is sad that we do not have the necessary overall sectoral strategies.

Other countries are doing it. There is an interest to get into Canada. Other countries know that we could be vulnerable to competition because they have had so much support in the past. Norway is the example. Norway implemented a plan and developed significant shipbuilding facilities and capacity. The important thing is that Norway had a head start. It is difficult in a 100 yard dash to catch up with one's competitor who is already 50 yards ahead. That is what we are talking about. We want to see a fair race in many respects.

It is important for Canada to recognize that there are other stimuli packages out there. We are not talking about adding other layers of protectionism. We are talking about using the tools that we have available in this country. European countries, the United States and Japan use the models of their economy within their trade agreements to expand their services and capabilities.

It is an exciting time right now with the greening of many of the different types of technologies. Even though we face deep challenges, our opportunities are great. We can see a lot cleaner, a lot leaner, and more important, a stronger connection between the lifestyles that we lead and the environmental footprint that we leave behind.

This is a great opportunity to build on sectoral strategies. That is why I would like to see the government take this opportunity to heart and move forward. Sadly, we are still moving backward. We cannot be a nation that just supplies raw resources to the rest of the world.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

The hon. member for Nickel Belt is absolutely correct. It is important to note that Terry Pugh, executive secretary of the National Farmers Union, has identified the concerns that if we actually had to bring the agriculture component forward in the bill potentially under the WTO we could get a challenge with regard to supply management.

Even though agriculture and auto do not often meet up together, they are a good example here. I referred to what happened with regard to the auto pact and I think the concerns are there. It was the WTO on a challenge from Japan which eventually killed our auto pact.

Our auto industry was fourth in the world in assembly and it has gone down to ninth and is falling even further back. Despite the challenges we are facing, it is important to recognize that other things are developing in the industry. General Motors, for example, is bringing out the first plug-in electric vehicle in Detroit, Michigan. It has just bought South Korean technology to bring its battery system on line for that vehicle. That is because the U.S. has set aside a $25 billion investment strategy of low interest loans.

Despite the challenges for the auto sector, and we have seen plants go down here in Canada, the United States is actually increasing plant production on certain measures. That is a good example of the environment being connected.

It is really important. The government today does not worry too much about that. At the time, trade minister Pierre Pettigrew downplayed the WTO decision originally with regard to the auto pact. That is traditionally what governments of the day do. They downplay decisions as they work themselves through the court system and at the same time it undermines our ability to control our own destiny.

It is a warning sign. It is something that is very important. It is also one that sets a good example for the concerns expressed in the agriculture sector about this bill.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise again to speak on this very important issue, namely Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association, in particular Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

It is important to recognize that our trade relations are very key to how we develop our sector economies, how they affect Canadian employment, and how they affect even issues of national defence and strategies related to growth industries in terms of technology and so forth.

We believe in fair trade, and one of the principal components of fair trade is to ensure that when a country that we are trading with has had a strategic advantage or has a system in place that is providing a benefit, we actually deal with that and have a plan in place for our workers and our people in Canada.

In particular, there is a problem with this trade agreement, as it currently stands, which we find very difficult. There are some issues with regard to agriculture, but in particular the hardest one is the issue of shipbuilding.

Norway has had several years, in fact over a decade, to develop and implement a strategy regarding its shipbuilding industry. What will happen in this agreement is that over a series of years we will see the phase-out of a 25% tariff that partially helped protect the shipbuilding industry, which is still struggling over here in some respects. We would like to see this as an opportunity, in terms of what is happening right now with the laws of trade that are out there, to actually rebuild our shipping industry.

It is something that should be noted. It is done in other countries. It would not create an offensive front. It would not be seen as protectionism because quite frankly, the United States, for example, under the Jones act has a protection of its procurements. As well, under its defence policies, it actually has local and domestic procurement that it controls.

We do not begrudge the United States for that. We can certainly understand the fact that it would want to maintain some of its base industrial elements that protect its national interests and national defence. It is something that is important for the United States in terms of its sovereignty and how Americans view themselves in the world, but also in terms of the workers who have good skill sets.

Value added work is very important with regard to the notation of shipbuilding. It is not a case of simply sending natural resources out of the country. It is something that actually has value added components. It is also something that is actually changing right now, with new technology, so we get those advancements in technological development clustered around the shipbuilding industry. That also includes the elements that it connects to passive shipbuilding industry as well.

I am familiar with this as well in terms of the auto sector. It has that strategy and it is a strategy at which we have not stood up and raised our fists in anger. At the same time, on the Canadian side, we have done the very least of things to protect our industries and provide the same things.

It is interesting to note because this is a big difference, especially right now with the heightened discussion of what is happening in the United States with its buy American clause, with what Canada can do and cannot do, and what the United States can and cannot do. We do not even do the base minimum that the United States would respect.

One of the most egregious situations that has now come to the public discussion forum is the fact that the government has chosen to procure $250 million worth of trucks from Texas. That is unacceptable because our trade agreement right now allows us to have defence procurement and to purchase from our own country.

Ironically, we have a facility in Chatham, Ontario, that was actually going to close a few years ago and there was government support. The then Liberals said that they could not do it, that it was against NAFTA and against everything else, and there was no way they could save this plant. We hit the streets and we worked really hard. We saved the plant and it has actually been very successful until recently. It was well worth the investment it got from the government which it paid back to the coffers, not just from the company but also more particularly from workers who have paid taxes and have been able to raise their families with some dignity and integrity and also chase the Canadian dream of having a prosperous life in this country.

Sadly, what has happened now though is that the plant is in jeopardy. Ironically, the government has decided to abandon it. There is a $250 million of work going to Texas when retooling is estimated to cost $800,000 at the Navistar truck plant in Chatham.

Let us weigh this out. For $800,000 of retooling, done by Canadian workers and a with lot of Canadian content, it would facilitate the improvements that are necessary on the truck that would make it meet the obligations of the Canadian military. It would also allow for new innovation in the plant, which is a very good plant that has been known for its quality. Prior to much of its production being sent down to Mexico from Navistar, we used to get some of the Mexican produced vehicles into Canada to fix them. The men and women are very good, adept at their skills and solid workers. We know that the quality would be of the highest calibre and I am sure that the workers in Chatham would take a lot of pride in building vehicles for our military. They would get behind this 100% and produce the best vehicles possible.

Instead of putting that $800,000 into the retooling that would have had workers paying taxes again and going forward into the future, they have decided to ship it all down to Texas. When one compares the $800,000 with the $250 million of the defence procurement contract one has to wonder where the strategy is in this government. Why does it not believe that Canadian workers are just as capable of building vehicles for our soldiers and our military infrastructure?

It would also guarantee, and this is a key element in the trade agreement that worries me, a key element of our industrial complex that is still necessary for the world that we live in. We need to have a manufacturing capacity that is going to protect our national interests. The trucks would be used for a whole series of operations. We know that if we have control over that, we could actually continue to produce those vehicles for future contracts. If other countries have an interest in the vehicle, they could come to us. Perhaps we could have a continued expansion of the facility or a continuation of the work, which would go on for nearly a couple of years.

It is really disappointing when we pull away from that opportunity, especially at a time when down in my region unemployment in the Windsor-Essex County area is at 10%. Chatham is up there as well. That those individuals would not be the men and women who would be assembling the vehicles for our country is very frustrating. We lack the visionary elements from this government to see that forward. It comes forward with plans in this budget to help Canadians put sod on their lawns, but it will not help Canadians maintain the industrial complexes that are necessary for our national security and that will benefit the overall economy. On top of that, it is going to be the cutting edge of the new development of the actual manufactured vehicles. They will be the newest and latest in the field.

This is a problem with regard to our concerns on the shipbuilding aspect. There is going to be a loss of opportunity there. It is not just us who are calling for this. I want to read a quote that shows that the New Democrats are not alone on this. A number of different shipping associations have commented on this and made objections. The president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia George MacPherson states:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about one-third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 15 years is estimated to be worth $9 billion in Canadian jobs. Under the FTAs with Norway, Iceland, and now planned with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government's plan is sheer folly and an outrage.

He gets it right because he understands that it is not just about the current capacity we have and need to protect right now. It is about making sure that we are going to continue to be able to reap the rewards of the investment that we have done before.

When I was part of the industry committee, we had over 20 recommendations regarding the manufacturing sector. One of the things that has been moderately positive with regards to the budget is that we came forward with a policy on the issue of a capital cost reduction allowance for machinery and tools. It was supposed to be a five-year policy. First, the government had a position of doing it for a two year period. Now, it is proposing to do it for a three year period, so it has the accumulation of the five years. Unfortunately, not having it done properly through a one five year period undermines the planning necessary for the capital cost reductions on some of the more expensive and thought-out equipment changes that will be necessary in the future.

It is a modest step forward, and it is something that we certainly support. At the same time, it also provides some of the elements that are necessary for the actual procurement of additional capacity that could be important for our shipbuilding industry. We should not simply be relying on the hope of having our yards filled right now. We would like to see expansion.

In this economic downturn it is easy to use elements like this as a way to have procurement, especially when we look at some of the defence contracting that needs to be done. The budget notes that there is going to be $175 million allocated for a number of different craft. Small craft are going to be built and we hope that they will be done in our own shipyards. The proper policy is needed to do that. That is what worries me. It is why the example of Navistar with regard to the trucks being built in Texas instead of Chatham, Ontario is disturbing. That $175 million contract could be awarded in several different ways for procurement in South Korea, Norway or the United States, all of those things. As we go through trade agreements like this we have to be very careful of the details.

One element I would like to touch on is that the past Liberal government thought it had it right when it brought in the free trade agreement and other trade agreements after signing the auto pact. The auto pact made us one of the strongest auto manufacturers in the world, but when we brought in the other trade agreements the auto pact was killed, despite the government of the day arguing that we would stand up and would be able to have it. Since that time our auto industry has crumbled around us as others have decided to move forward.

I hope that is a lesson we keep in mind. We should vote this down and vote for Canadian action instead.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, an interesting development is that the members from Prince Edward Island in the Liberal caucus are going to vote against this budget. It is interesting because we have heard different members express their dissatisfaction with the pay equity issue, housing issues, aboriginal issues, workers' issues, a whole series of things, but apparently those issues do not rank high enough to vote against the budget.

I would like to ask the member about her party's strategy. It is very interesting. The argument being presented by the Liberal Party is that we need to move on something right now and there is enough in the budget that it can go on, but at the same time it is going to put the government on parole and it has the right to defeat the government based on a number of reports that will come back.

What will happen is that the Liberals will vote against that and actually kill all of those projects. Is the member suggesting that her party's tactics are to stop the stimulus package three months or six months from now, and then grind everything down, as opposed to what we could have done, which is to change the government and move for Canadians right now?

[Privilege, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

I think it is important to note that we do not know whether or not it was a member of Parliament or not that made these allegations that first initiated this or whether it was a staff member or someone connected to a department. We do not know any of those things. We do know that the member has been undermined quite significantly and there has been a plan to do so the way that it has come out, not only with regard to the approach to begin with but also later on.

It is very clear that the party or parties were advised that this investigation could be reopened. At some point in time either through the RCMP, themselves or through that member, they somehow got hold of a copy of the document and have decided to put it in the public realm with the particular intent really to undermine the credibility of the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

Therefore, I would defer of course to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but I would be supportive of the member's inquiry because once again, we do not know whether or not a member of Parliament was part of this. We do know the Conservative Party is definitely there. Obviously there is a direct correlation in connection with the members of Parliament and their party. They are the stewards of that party.

I believe that the member's privilege needs to be respected and needs to be heard, especially given the fact that it does affect the way public perception is perceived on the individual and the contributions this particular person has made to Canada. As well, it protects other members of Parliament. I won a question of privilege in the past. When I went through the process and had that element corrected when the Conservatives accused me of things that were untrue, it was helpful. It helped clear the public record. I hope we can clear the public record because I think the member needs this and the House needs this as well.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion today on the budget.

The hon. member talked a lot about social justice issues. He talked about a lot of important things, everything from aboriginal rights to world rights and Canada's role in those. What I find difficult to accept is the member pretends to be an advocate to those causes, but chooses to do nothing about them. He decides to run down the Conservatives' budget and their philosophy and then supports them in their measures.

Some of his colleagues ironically are going to stand up against the budget. He is not going to apparently do that. Why will the member not do that? If those issues are so important to him and his principles, why does he not do something about it? Why does he not act individually? He can make a choice. He can choose a different path. He chooses not to.

However, he comes to the House and complains about those issues, says that he is an advocate for those causes, but then chooses not to do something. Some of his colleagues are making a difference, why will he not?