David Christopherson

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Then it would be the Liberal government, and I will leave it at that. I will try not to confuse things, especially myself.

I was saying that when you cut $25 billion from health care--

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks by the member for Thornhill. One of his last comments was that the government faces significant social challenges.

I want to say that those social challenges in large part were created by the member's government. We are talking about a fiscal imbalance because the pressures that exist at the provincial level and at the municipal level in large part were generated at the federal level.

I have served in the Ontario legislature and on Hamilton's city council, so I understand how these things work. When you cut $25 billion from health care, through you, Mr. Speaker, as your government did--

[Sponsorship Program, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On the same day that Canada has slipped to historic lows on the government corruption index, we have learned that the sponsorship program involved weekly calls between the minister's office and Liberal connected ad firms.

Now it seems that the very evening Gagliano was stuffing his bags for Denmark his staff was stuffing the shredder with papers documenting political influence and the awarding of sponsorships.

The Prime Minister has already overseen two cabinet shuffles. What assurances can he give this House that ministers are not routinely shredding evidence of their political influence over contracts?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join with my colleague from Halifax in congratulating my friend from Burnaby—Douglas. Those are words that I think will stand the test of time. I would not be surprised if they were quoted back to the House in many years to come.

The member touched on the issue of new Canadians, and I raised that issue in my comments too. I wonder if he would expound a little on what he the NDP caucus is hoping we can do in this minority government to make things easier for foreign trained professionals to get out from behind the wheel of a cab, which is honourable work, but we need doctors more than we need cab drivers. They need to be doing the work they were trained to do. What does he think needs to be done to see those kinds of changes and how do we go about it?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the member was paying attention and I appreciate that very much. I might also say that I have connections to Saskatchewan. My dad was born in Saskatchewan, so I have a real affinity for that province.

I do not think the member's question is one that reflects the reality. Some of the strongest environmentalists in Canada are steelworkers. It is the steelworkers' union.

Playing this bogeyman about jobs versus the environment is what got us into this mess. If we do not break the cycle in some fashion or other, all we are going to do is hand our children and our grandchildren an even more precarious world.

I understand the pragmatic approach about the need for jobs today versus the future, tomorrow. It is unseen; it is uncertain. It is not like the job that is needed to pay the bills that are on the kitchen table today. Fair enough. However, at the rate we are going, what we are doing is choosing jobs over our grandchildren's health.

We are a rich enough, smart enough, tough enough nation. The steelworkers believe this. The member should not shake his head and say no. The steelworkers believe that we can maintain the jobs that we need and deserve in this nation as well as save the environment. To do otherwise means that the member is willing to pollute the bodies of future Canadians to save jobs today.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on the member's opening remark about the $41 billion, if health care is so important and such a crisis and a priority, why was it not done before? Why did the government make the $100 billion in tax cuts before making the investment in health care? That is the wrong priority as far as the NDP is concerned.

I do not know the member yet and I guess over time I will know the answer to the question. I would hope that he is not attempting some kind of comparison that because Stelco has a union is the reason it is having some of these problems as opposed to Dofasco that does not. I would hope that the member would understand that they produce different kinds of steel.

The management at Dofasco has been very wise. It has always taken the steelworkers' collective agreement and historically has always added 2¢ to 5¢ an hour, just a little bit more, and has made sure that everything is the same. As long as the workers are treated with the same kind of dignity as are the workers over at Stelco, and they get the same kind of benefits and wages, it is easy to make the argument that they may not need a union in that place. However, they also know that their union really is the steelworkers' union because that is who is bargaining for them.

When there are strikes at Stelco, some of the greatest donations come from the steelworkers at Dofasco because they know that indirectly that is their union fighting for their benefits.

Do I think there is a management problem? On the front page of the Hamilton Spectator a few weeks ago, management acknowledged that it made mistakes.

We can deal with how we got here as one issue. When we talk about the CCAA and changes to the Bankruptcy Act, that is about today and tomorrow. It is about protecting those very workers about whom the hon. member cares, as does everyone else here.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

A member asks about the $41 billion put back in.

If health care is so important and if it needs that kind of money, why was $100 billion put into tax cuts instead of health care? Why was there $100 billion in tax cuts instead of affordable housing? Why was there $100 billion in tax cuts instead of investment in necessary infrastructure, roads and sewers for our cities? Let us follow the money and that will tell us what the priorities are, not the words. Let us see where the money goes.

I want to spend a moment talking about an issue that is incredibly important to steelworkers in Hamilton and across Canada, and quite frankly, workers right across the nation in all different kinds of industries. That is the whole matter of the CCAA, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That law says that in a bankruptcy the banks will get their money first, insurance companies will get their money first, major suppliers will get their money first, and who is last? The workers' pensions are last.

The current government House leader made a lot of commitments to Tony DePaulo, who was the NDP candidate against him in the last election, especially in the dying days of the election. He said that he and his government care about steelworkers and that they care about protecting the rights of pensioners. The proof will be in the pudding. We want to see some changes to that law. The banks should not be ahead of pensioners who have worked their entire lives and deserve the dignity and the safety of a pension plan that they have worked so hard for.

There is a whole host of issues on which we will hold the government's feet to the fire. There were a lot of promises made. Words are not good enough. In a minority government we can actually do something about it. I intend to use my precious vote to do everything I can to force the government to bring about the kind of quality of life that all Canadians deserve, and not just words.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate responding to the Speech from the Throne. I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby--Douglas.

I want to again thank my constituents for the honour of being here. I want to thank my family for their understanding and support through all of this. I also want to thank my campaign co-managers, Dennis Young and Anna Rae Fishman, for without them this would not be happening either.

I come from a riding that faces challenges very similar to those faced by other municipalities right across the country. The government has talked about making cities a priority. The test for me is how well the quality of life has improved in Hamilton.

Hamilton Centre encompasses downtown Hamilton. It includes not just our precious downtown but also our waterfront, and some of the very wealthiest people in Hamilton, including some of the oldest, established families, some of whom have friends on the other side of the House.

People in Hamilton Centre, like other Canadians, are facing some of the greatest challenges one could ever imagine, the least of which are the number of new Canadians coming in and the needs they have in terms of wanting to lay down their roots, and wanting to raise their families and participate fully in their communities.

Quite frankly, that is not an option for us. That is not a luxury whether we deal with the issue or not. Our economy will not grow without an immigration program that works. If our economy does not grow, it will stagnate, and we will continue to fall behind.

We need to take this issue very seriously. People in downtown Hamilton are trying. The city council is doing the best it can. Infrastructure problems, the lack of affordable housing, and the lack of assistance from the two senior levels of government have left Hamilton city council, like most other city councils across Canada, completely hamstrung in terms of knowing what the pressures are but just not having the money to do anything about them.

I had the honour of attending a world forum on cities. That forum recognized the fact that cities are playing a bigger role within their provinces, within their states and within their countries. One of the workshops was on the whole issue of cities and how they could impact the international agenda. What is happening in Canada is not happening in isolation. The question is, is Canada responding in an adequate fashion or not?

For some of us middle age folk it is hard to appreciate that in some areas of progressiveness Canada is falling way behind our neighbours to the south. We always used to take somewhat smug pride in the fact that our environmental laws were a bit better, that our minimum wage was always a little higher, that our health and safety was a bit better, and that we invested more in communities than our American neighbours. A lot of that does not stand anymore because of the right wing tilt of the Liberals and those provincial governments that have bought into those arguments.

I see one of the members across the way throwing his head back and laughing. When we reach the point where the minimum wage is higher in the United States of America than it is in Ontario then something has gone horribly wrong.

Promises are not good enough. This throne speech document is just promises. The difficulty for a lot of us on this side of the House is the fact that we have heard all of these promises before. The government has said that cities are its priority and yet in the Speech from the Throne it says, “Shelter is the foundation upon which healthy communities and individual dignity are built”. Those are great words. That is a great promise. What is the reality? The reality is that the Liberal government has cut the last existing federal housing program.

Quite frankly, we are one of the few developed nations that does not have a comprehensive national housing strategy. How can the opposition members and Canadians be expected to have faith that the government means it this time? Perhaps that is what should have been put in the bill in a few places, that the government really means it this time, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

The difficulty for the New Democrats in looking at the Liberal throne speech is not that the government is going in the wrong direction necessarily in so many areas. In many of the areas we do agree. However, it is always only words. When it comes to action or money the government goes in a completely different direction, let alone the fact that in the areas where it is going in the right direction it is a halfhearted measure. There does not seem to be the same kind of commitment.

If the government really cared about housing, why did it spend the last four years prior to this Parliament spending $100 billion on tax cuts? The government says that health is a priority, cities are a priority, housing is a priority, education is a priority. They are words, just like in the throne speech. In reality $100 billion of cold hard cash went out in tax cuts. Let me say that the vast majority of people in my riding of Hamilton Centre did not see their fair share of that $100 billion.

We have to understand what the priorities are. It is in the track record. There is talk about a child care program, but we have been here before many times, at least back to the 1993 Speech from the Throne.

If we really want to push the issue of Liberal promises, why is the GST still in effect? I remember all the promises made by the former prime minister, but it is still the same party, in order to go from that side of the House to this side of the House. I should say that side of the House; it is awkward sitting over here. In order to go from the opposition benches to the government benches one of the big things was the GST, and guess what? We still have the GST. We do not have a comprehensive and adequate housing strategy, but we still have the GST.

If health care is such a big priority, why over the tenure of the current Prime Minister as minister of finance did he cut $25 billion from health care? If it is an absolute priority, why did he become the first finance minister, to the best of my knowledge, that has ever cut $25 billion from health care? If that is how priorities are treated, then the Liberals have a funny way of governing.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I think I did mention in my remarks that one of the benefits of the aerospace industry was the value added jobs. It is hard to have highly skilled workers if there is no decent education system in a country. It is harder to have highly skilled workers if they are hungry or sick. Canada already has a huge built in advantage. We need to build on that advantage.

If I understand the member's question correctly, he is asking about training specifically in the aerospace industry and whether or not we should be focusing some special attention in that area. The member is nodding to me that I do understand his question. I would say yes. How can we possibly have value added, which comes from the skills, education and talents that individual workers have, if we are not investing in the training that results in those kinds of skilled workers?

When we debate down the road, assuming things go the way they are supposed to today, about where the money for EI should go, perhaps we ought to be talking about training with that money. The Liberals seem to have found lots of uses for it. Maybe we should be finding strategic uses for the money which indeed could include highly skilled training, particularly in the aerospace industry.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

I would say very directly, Madam Speaker, yes, we do support major investment in our aeronautical and aircraft industry, for the simple reason that if we look around the world, we will see that the most successful aircraft assembly, and quite frankly the only successful aircraft assembly, is in nations where the government is playing a major role. There might be the odd exception or two, but all the major players have significant investment in partnership with at least their national levels of government and sometimes other levels of government too.

As for us somehow believing that magically jobs are going to come here to Canada, I do not know why, or for whatever reason; they might think people just want to be nice to Canada. But that is not the way it is going to happen. There has to be R and D investment. That is why Bill C-4 is important, because it speaks to the marketing end of it.

There is the whole continuum of aircraft development, the research and development, the assembly, the parts assembly, the final assembly, the sale and the maintenance. All these big jobs are big money. I am certainly not going to get into a tussle over whether or not these jobs and investments should go to the member's province or mine. We will deal with that specifically as things come up one-off, but the question the member asked was, do we support in principle the philosophical argument that in order to have a thriving aircraft industry in Canada there needs to be major investment by and a role for the national government? The answer to that unequivocally is oui.