David Christopherson

[Competition Act, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer support to my colleague from Windsor West who has put forward this bill.

This gives me a chance to take a trip down memory lane for the next few minutes. A lot of this is about dealerships doing work versus work being done outside the dealership network but still in the repair part of the economy.

Back in the day, a lot of years ago now, I worked at such a place, for International Harvester. It was a truck centre where we sold and repaired international trucks, not the farm equipment but the trucks. I was there for about 11 years before I was elected to Hamilton city council. I can speak with some authority in terms of the way it was and relate that to where things are going now. Back then there was a level playing field.

Let us keep in mind that at its core the member for Windsor West is trying to bring in a fair, rules-based system that treats everybody the same. Back in the day when I was on the shop floor, that is the way it was. There was no advanced technology. We were in the early stages of that when I left, which would have been in the mid-1980s. There was a level playing field. Nobody held any secrets. Nobody had any special tools that they were not giving to others. Software was not even in the vocabulary. Everyone had to compete on the same basis.

Much like today, all the warranty work was done at our shop.That was probably the biggest part of our work, as well as work on the big fleets that were willing to pay for the very best mechanics, and I might say, parts people. They did not want any problems. They wanted things to go as smoothly as possible. A corporation at that level wants things to go smoothly. Working with a dealership with a major infrastructure attached to the mother corporation was a great way to go.

There were a lot of brokers and smaller trucking firms that would do their own work, or have it done by an offshoot of their company, or by someone such as a brother-in-law who ran a local garage, or Bill down on the corner who had been there for 30 years and treated everyone like family so people wanted to go there. People were able to save a few bucks, but they were not freebies or giveaways.

That was their choice, and that is the issue. To allow consumers and other after market repair businesses access to this material, the tools and the information takes us back to where we were before, which was that everybody was equal. It was business preference, productivity and efficiency that decided where people went, not whether or not they had the secret code.

They do not allow it in the United States, interestingly. It is done under the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. Why? Obviously the environment is so crucial now, or at least we have now woken up to how crucial it is. The last thing we want to do is take cars that are being designed to do less damage to the environment and repair them in a way that suddenly has them polluting. It does not make sense.

That seems to be what the EPA in the U.S. has said. The U.S. has that system. Why do we not? It denies consumers a choice. It is not as productive. It increases costs through lack of choice. It creates unfairness. Everyone attached to the automotive industry ought to be thanking the member for Windsor West for this bill.

I can appreciate there are some employees, as I was, who see the possibility that their work is going to go somewhere else, and they are fighting to retain it. Fair enough. That is the union's job. However, my experience was that allowing others to do the same work or at least to compete did not detract from that because we had so much extra to offer.

Other communities may argue, but I am sure the member for Windsor West would be proud to say he is from the automotive capital of Canada. We will give him that for the purposes of this bill. Let us remember that he represents a lot of the workers who are trying to protect the work they have in the current system. It would have been very easy for the member to stand in the tall grass on something like this if somebody else had brought it forward. Not only did he not do that, he was the one who brought it forward. He is doing it because he knows it is in the best interests of Canadians and he believes it is not going to do any damage to jobs that exist.

All it does is provide an unfair competitive advantage, almost a monopoly on some work by virtue of keeping secrets, which are not allowed to be kept in the country that is our biggest trading partner, the United States of America. The U.S. understands that Toyota, Honda and others ought not to be able to send their cars here and keep the secrets back home. That ought to apply whether it is a domestic or foreign automotive producer.

That is what this is about at its core. Again, it is about choice. It is about fairness. It is about making sure that Canadians have an opportunity to decide for themselves where they want to spend their money and where they want to get their vehicles repaired.

In bringing in Bill C-273, the member for Windsor West, in a large way, is doing every consumer in Canada a huge favour by removing an unfairness, an imbalance that has now been created that did not exist before. It is part of going through the transition ultimately into the new digital economy. We need to keep an eye on it from a legislative point of view to ensure that these new technologies do not create an inherent unfairness. This is one of those times.

When the member for Windsor West saw what was happening and heard from his constituents and the tens of thousands of small automotive repair shops, 95% Canadian owned, all employing local people, he investigated and, as I said, in the face of a possibility of political backlash, he had the courage to bring it forward just because it is the right thing to do.

Many issues we deal with here are of utmost importance, and consumer protection is one of the most important. That is really what this is. It is not life and death. None of our kids are going to be facing critical health issues because of this. There is no pandemic attached to the bill, or those kinds of worries. However, protecting consumers is an important part of a legislative body's duty in a mature democracy. That is what this bill does.

I want to thank my colleague from Windsor West for bringing this bill forward and making things better for the Canadian people. I can only hope that the vast majority of parliamentarians will agree and at least allow us to get the bill to committee. Let us bring in the players and have a look at it. At the very least, let us do that.

I urge members to support this bill, at least at second reading, so we can look at it further.

[Canada Day Funding, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am proud of our country and so are my constituents in Hamilton Centre, but that pride is diminished when the Conservative government does not even buy Canadian flag pins that are actually made in Canada.

We can and do make flag pins here but the government screwed up and bought pins made in China. Is the recession over? Suddenly we do not need to support Canadian manufacturing jobs anymore?

Canadians also believe in fairness. However, when it comes to Canada Day, the Conservatives chose to play cheap politics with our national pride.

From federal funding of $3.8 million for July 1st celebrations, they gave $3.2 million to Quebec in an apparent transparent attempt to buy votes. That left a mere $600,000 for the rest of Canada and only $100,000 for Ontario, our most populous province.

This is not complicated. The government should buy Canadian flag pins from Canadian manufacturers and share the celebration funds equally. It must stop shipping our jobs overseas and stop playing politics with our Canada Day.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning the situation we are facing with CHCH-TV. We are facing similar situations with our local newspapers and radio stations.

This may seem a little out there, but a lot of us have been working for years on a CBC radio station for Hamilton so we can be part of that national dialogue. Now, with the current situation, how long until that dream and goal for Hamilton is set aside under the policy direction of the current government?

[Manufacturing Industry, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I was proud to join more than 2,000 Hamiltonians, including Don Frasier, Rolf Gerstenberger, Bob Bratina, Andrea Horwath, Paul Miller and the NDP MPs for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and Hamilton Mountain who marched to show their anger and frustration with industry and government attacks on their jobs and their pensions.

Like other manufacturing employees in the Ontario heartland, steelworkers are being laid off by the thousands. The very survival of our southern Ontario communities is at risk.

But the people of Hamilton are not known for just lying down and taking it. We are fighters and we will fight for decent jobs, fight for livable pensions and fight for the well-being of our community.

In fact, just last week Hamiltonians also took to the streets to save CHCH, our local TV news station.

Here is the message that those 2,000 workers asked us to bring back to the government: Stop ignoring layoffs. Stop ignoring the unemployed. Stop allowing foreign companies to control Canada. And stop pretending that fixing our economy is somebody else's problem.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I are in neighbouring communities and he offered up the respect that he has for my colleague for Hamilton Mountain. We return that. He is a hardworking member, but he is wrong.

The Liberals have an awful lot of nerve getting up and criticizing anyone on EI, given the fact that they are the ones who changed the eligibility requirements, which has denied tens of thousands of Canadians their opportunity to receive it. They took the $54 billion in the EI fund and used it for operating costs. Therefore, they have no ground here.

One thing we have asked for in our motion is an increase in the amount of money that an unemployed worker would get every week. When the minister was asked why there were no increases, her comments in the House were—

[Canada Post, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a strategic review of Canada Post was delivered to the minister last year, but now, more than two months later, it still has not been made public. What is the big fear? The report or the public reaction?

This report deals with the future of our profit making Canada Post and Canadians deserve to see it. Why has the minister not tabled this report and will he do so today?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, many may not know that my friend for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is not only a former president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, but the longest-serving president.

A lot of people make the argument that unions do not care much about the unemployed, because they do not pay dues. I ask the hon. member what we can expect from the Canadian labour movement in terms of standing up for these unemployed workers.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Sudbury is right. Our communities have a lot of similarities. In fact looking at the history of the ups and downs of our communities, I think we are on track, and Welland would be similar, as would Windsor. Certainly a lot of the older communities, and I speak of Ontario as it is what I know best, are facing the same dilemma.

What really troubles me, and this is why the passion in terms of what is happening, is that if people are not in absolute, destitute poverty before they reach out for a program, the government seems to insist that they take the last hit and get knocked down and when they have absolutely nothing, then they will be offered bare subsistence help.

We are looking for two things: help for families and workers who need it now, and so importantly, hope for the future for those workers and their families. Our children in high school, universities and colleges are terrified right now. They are looking around and saying, “Mom and dad are getting crushed. Everybody I know is getting crushed. Where do I find my place in this world? I thought Canada was one of the greatest countries in the world. Why is it that people seem to be doing so, so well and my future looks so, so bleak?”

That is what the government has given us. We had the opportunity to make a change. All Canadians can hope for now is that change comes sooner rather than later.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the budget is absolutely devastating on many fronts, not the least of which is on people who do not qualify for EI. This is moving from the human factor to the mechanics of running our communities, but if people do not qualify for EI, they will have no choice but to go on welfare. Welfare is cost shared by the municipalities and they are the order of government that can least afford or manage their way through this recession. We are not only hurting individuals, we are hurting municipalities as well.

What really hurts is that when the NDP was in the same position with the Liberals in power in a minority situation, we managed to get over $4.5 billion in exchange for us allowing their budget to pass.

Where was the official opposition on this bill? Why did it not use that power to leverage improvements for the unemployed, to help our communities and to provide child care spaces? Why did it just give it away for nothing?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that but please do not ruin my fun. Half the fun is watching them react and getting them going because that is when we start to see the real members. I would ask that they not be shy on my account and let it rip.

There are a couple of things I want to raise that are here. The Conservatives talk about us not knowing what is in the budget, and our friends in the Liberal caucus are having fun with that drumbeat too, but I have something to tell the House. There is something called the strategic review of programs, which sounds pretty official. What it means is that over three years the government will eliminate $1.3 billion in current money being spent in programs, but we do not know which programs.

Therefore, I say to everyone who is watching who feels that there are parts of the budget they like, that they had better keep an eye on the prize. Until we know what those cuts mean, it may be a program that affects someone who is watching or someone who knows of a family member, a business or a community that is using a program. The $1.3 billion coming out of program spending will hurt somewhere, someone and something. We just do not know what.

Then, of course, thanks to my friend from Ottawa Centre who has been following this like a laser beam, we have almost $10 billion that shows as revenue. Where will the revenue come from? We are not really sure. The government just tells us that it will sell things. What things? We do not know, but $10 billion means a lot of things will be gone. What a lousy time to be selling anything, if we are talking about real estate, which is what most of it is, unless it is going to tap into the art gallery and start selling pieces of art.

I say, with respect, that members do not need to talk to me about passing a budget that members have read or not read. There are things in the budget that no one in this entire House knows in detail what will be cut.

I want to take a minute to talk about EI. I know it has been talked about by a lot of people but I am from Hamilton and we are hurting. We are losing thousands and thousands of jobs every month. When we talk about the manufacturing sector being hit hard, that is Hamilton. This hits home for me.

For every $60 in corporate tax cuts that the government could find, it found $1 to help the unemployed. On the five week extension, let me put on the record what Don Fraser, president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, said about that. He said:

That extra five weeks, in the greater scheme of things, is just window dressing.

It is all window dressing because the government still has not made the fundamental changes to the system. Even if someone were to benefit from that, the total dollar value for that five weeks is $11 million. This year the national budget is about $258 billion, give or take a few million. The give or take is probably more that the actual increase in benefits that unemployed workers saw.

It is unfathomable in this day and age in the middle of a crisis, with people losing jobs hand over fist, and the one thing the government does not do is help those people and families survive. What an abdication of responsibility.

What is the government's rationale, one might ask reasonably. Let us ask the government. This is the minister responsible, in her own words, “We do not want to make it lucrative home and get paid for it”.

I defy any member of the government to repeat that in front of unemployed Hamiltonians who have just been rejected for EI, who do not know how they will pay the rent or make the mortgage payment, who have birthdays and graduations coming up, but who have no money and no hope. Eleven million dollars are pitiful.

Of the 100% of people who pay EI, 32% of women and 38% of men qualify. Let me put it the other way around. We have an insurance program run by the national government, but paid for by premiums from workers and employers, not tax money. This means that 68% of the women and 62% of the men who paid into EI will not even qualify.

We are worried about people who are on EI because it is not enough to sustain them, but what about those who do not even qualify? Those people get to go on welfare after a lifetime of working.

The Conservative government had a chance to treat Canadian workers, particularly those who are or going to become unemployed, with dignity and give them hope and recognize that their lives and their challenges are important, but it failed them.