Mario Silva

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is an odd question. There is a lot more to manufacturing to what is facing our economy than travelling across the country.Travelling is not the issue. The issue is the loss of jobs in our economy and we need government to pay attention to it and call a first ministers meeting. That is what I think real leadership and taking action is about.

It is also talking about the issue of our high dollar, which is affecting manufacturing jobs. It is also to provide funding for job training programs in the country.

It is not just about one person travelling across the country to hear from people. We know there is a crisis. We know there is a problem. We definitely need leadership from the government.

I am a bit baffled by the Conservative Party when it continuously trashes Kyoto and states that Kyoto would kill jobs. This is totally false. We can be leaders in manufacturing of green technology. Kyoto and the concern for the environment are a global target action plan on what needs to be done as a collective to help our environment. It can be done without the gloom and doom that comes from the Conservative Party.

I guess the Conservative members do not really believe in the environment. That is the problem. That is what they are coming out and saying.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country have watched with considerable interest developments with regard to the Canadian dollar. Few watched with more attention than the thousands of Canadians who work in our manufacturing and forestry sectors.

Simply put, Canadian manufacturing and forestry sectors are in crisis and in desperate need of assistance from the federal government. Just last week, the Premier of Quebec speaking on the impact of the dollar and the loss of manufacturing jobs responded by saying, “I think it's urgent”.

The situation in Canada's manufacturing and forestry sectors is indeed urgent. The Quebec Premier also stated, “We need to meet the Canadian Prime Minister as soon as possible”.

What was the Prime Minister's response? According to his office, he would agree to meet, but not until the end of this year or early into 2008. This is not the way to respond to an urgent crisis.

This country has lost upwards of 175,000 manufacturing jobs in the past three years. The high dollar has clearly compounded this reality.

We have only to look to the recent announcement by the Chrysler Corporation that it would be cutting 1,100 jobs at the Brampton, Ontario, plant as evidence that this situation is only getting worse.

In fact, Gerry Fedchun of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association stated quite clearly this reality when he said recently, “It just gets worse and worse”.

As many observers continue to point out, the loss of manufacturing jobs is a problem that is compounded throughout our economy. There are many ancillary jobs that depend on manufacturing jobs in communities across this country.

Can members imagine the impact upon the economy of the city of Brampton, Ontario, when 1,100 good-paying jobs are lost in that city? Think of the loss of buying power that comes with that kind of job loss in a community like Brampton.

I recently met with the representatives of the Canadian Auto Works who work at the Downsview plant of Bombardier Aerospace. They came to meet with me to convey the deep concerns of manufacturing workers in this country. In fact, the Canadian Auto Workers are promoting a campaign across the country called, “Manufacturing Matters”. They are right. Manufacturing does matter.

These are good jobs that are being lost and the government simply ignores the pleas of so many Canadians who are losing their means to support their families and their communities in this country. The numbers speak for themselves. The Canadian trade deficit in manufactured goods is $30 billion. That is $30 billion in the manufacturing sector alone. This is simply unacceptable and clearly requires action on the part of the government.

Similarly, this problem is only going to get worse if action is not taken soon. I would encourage the government to listen to the experts.

For example, Mr. Ted Carmichael, chief economist for J.P. Morgan Securities Canada, has stated that if the dollar remains at its current levels, we could easily see the loss of another 150,000 manufacturing jobs.

The motion before this House also deals with the loss of jobs in the forestry sector. From the west coast of Canada to the east, our forest industry is hurting a great deal. Bruce McIntyre, of PricewaterhouseCoopers, states, “The dollar is obviously kicking the teeth out of the forestry industry right now”. He further states, “It's pretty desperate times out there”.

It has been noted by the Quebec Federation of Labour that up to 10,000 jobs have already been lost in the forestry sector in the province of Quebec. Also in Quebec, we note that for every one cent increase in the value of the dollar there is a loss of $150 million annually in the forestry sector.

Whether in the forestry sector or the manufacturing sector, Canadians are losing their jobs and the government has simply failed to address the crisis in these important sectors of our economy.

We must also look to the future. There are more problems for manufacturing on the horizon that will only make the situation worse if we do not take appropriate action.

India for example is increasing its manufacturing sector at a very rapid pace. It is estimated that up to 71 million new entrants will arrive into the job pools in that nation in the year 2010. Keep in mind that wages are at least 30% to 40% less in India than in traditional western economies.

It is clear that the reality is also a major challenge for Canada's manufacturing sector. Similarly there has been much talk about the potential free trade agreement with the nation of South Korea. There are estimates that such an agreement would cost a minimum of 33,000 more jobs in the manufacturing sector. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario, between them, stand to potentially lose over 25,000 jobs.

The Government of Canada has an obligation to protect its workers. All we hear from the Prime Minister are remarks like the one made the other day, “We understand the dollar is causing some challenges”. The Prime Minister refers to “some challenges”. That is not good enough.

What we need is action. We need an advocacy to protect Canadian jobs. We need action with regard to the impact of the higher Canadian dollar. We need to invest in our workers and ensure they remain competitive through skills training programs. We need to insist that we have access to the marketplace in an equitable manner and not to keep our doors open while other markets remain closed to Canadian jobs. We need to invest in our infrastructure to help our manufacturing sector. We need a fair lumber deal and we need real support for the forestry sector. We need to ensure that procurement of goods by the government puts Canadian manufacturers first. Simply, we need to protect Canadian workers.

In short, we need leadership. It is simply unacceptable that the government continues with platitudes while Canadian jobs are being lost. It is simply unacceptable that when premiers across the country call upon the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers conference on this issue, they are told that it might happen before the year's end or even some time in the new year. The issues are simply too important for them to wait that long. When the premiers use words like “urgent” and “concern”, it is time to start listening. When the economists talk about sectors of our economy getting their teeth kicked out, it is time to start listening.

The Leader of the Opposition demanded the leadership about which I speak. Just last Friday the opposition leader announced the Liberal plan for effectively fighting poverty in the country. The 30:50 plan will go along way toward dealing with poverty.

I call upon the government to demonstrate that kind of leadership and that it take immediate, effective action to support our manufacturing and forestry industries. The time is now.

[November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter is not just a document but a statement of our values, a statement of our respect for the rule of law and, most important, a statement of our respect for the rights and the privacy of our citizens.

Similarly, the 50th anniversary of the United Nations charter has been celebrated. Once again, this is not just a document but a statement of noble ideals, including basic respect for human rights.

Since the terrible attacks on September 11, 2001, there has been a concentrated effort on the part of some individuals and groups to erode the basic rights, including the rights to privacy.

We are speaking today not about a specific policy but about another incremental step on a road that leads not to where we want to go as a people but where our values and traditions tell us we ought not to tread.

Secure flight is another such erosion of these basic rights. We can only ask once again that the government do what is right: protect the rights of Canadians.

[November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the secure flight program changes being proposed by the United States government is one of the most significant affronts to the sovereignty of Canada that we have witnessed in recent memory.

In essence, regulations are being proposed which require detailed information from passenger lists for Canadian flights which pass over the United States air space. This is an unprecedented violation of the privacy of Canadians and for non-Canadians who fly on Canadian air carriers.

Let us be clear. This material is not being collected in respect of those Canadian flights that actually land in the Untied States. This is information relating to Canadian air carrier flights that merely fly over United States air space for a specific amount of time.

First of all, what is it that the Bush administration is looking for from Canadian air carriers? It is demanding that 72 hours in advance of a given flight it receives the names, dates of birth, passport information, booking information and itinerary details, not to mention the possibility of meal preferences, and payment information and seat selection.

All of this information is being requested for passengers on Canadian air carriers who do not actually even land in the United States.

Needless to say, many individuals and groups are concerned about the extent of the information being requested and the circumstances under which it is being demanded.

What about those Canadians who might be flying to the U.S. embargoed island of Cuba? Once the United States has confirmation that they have travelled to Cuba, what happens the next time they enter the United States? Or, what of the American citizen who travels to Cuba on a Canadian carrier?

The problem is that the whole exercise is a massive invasion of personal privacy.

On a related front, the U.S. secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, wrote a letter on July 26, 2007 to the council of the European Union in an attempt to allay fears about personal information the U.S. wished to collect.

In his letter the secretary noted that the Americans would put in place privacy safeguards to protect information that might reveal, “--racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership and data concerning health or sex life of the individual”.

Has the world gone made? Forget about George Orwell's 1984, we have George Bush's “2007”.

In recent days we have seen discussions once again about the United States government's conduct in respect of Mr. Maher Arar. We can look at what transpired here and conclude quite reasonably that most Canadians will not be comfortable providing the kind of information that is being asked for under the American secure flight program.

My question is simply this. Why has the government been so quiet and so ineffective in protecting the most basic rights of Canadians and those who choose to fly on Canadian carriers entering United States air space?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has made some excellent remarks.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Beaches—East York for her good work on behalf of Canadian women. In addition, I congratulate the member for Don Valley East for her report.

Could my hon. colleague comment on the fact that the government has sat for quite a few months and has decided to do absolutely nothing about the report?

The report, which is called “Improving the Economic Security of Women: Time to Act”, is from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It has a series of recommendations that are very worthy and that need attention by the government.

One recommendation is that the federal government play a leadership role in improving labour legislation to extend a greater protection for the growing segment of non-standard workers and to ensure that working conditions of non-standard workers are placed on the agenda of future meetings of provincial labour ministers.

It also talks about the fact that parental leave, which is something the Liberals brought in, should be extended from one year to six years.

There is a series of recommendations also for live-in caregiver programs. We know, and it has been discussed many times in the House, that the majority of caregivers, about 80%, are females. What is the government doing about it? Absolutely nothing.

Could my esteemed colleague comment on what she can do to persuade the government to act on this very important report.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government member opposite did not say anything about child care. We know that access to regulated, affordable child care is pivotal to reducing poverty for women. Without good quality child care, thousands of women are kept from full time and well paying jobs.

Instead of building a national child care system, the Conservatives cancelled an agreement signed by the former Liberal government and the provinces and territories to increase access to early learning and child care. This means a loss of $3.5 billion in funding over the next three years.

Why is the member not addressing these issues of importance to Canadians across this country?

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the struggle for equality rights and women's equality is something the Conservative government does not advocate. Let us look at the Conservatives' record. They eliminated the court challenges program. We know there are financial barriers for Canadians to challenge offensive laws and policies. However, now that the government has eliminated this vital program, which has helped millions of people, they cannot make a challenge.

The program helped aboriginal women to challenge unfair laws. I am not surprised that the issue of aboriginals is not of concern to the government, given its appalling record on the international stage where it did not want to ratify and adopt the aboriginal convention that is presently being discussed at the United Nations.

When there are laws in this country that need to be challenged, the Conservative government has said that there are no financial barriers to women, but we know that is not the case. Many minority groups in this country depended on the court challenges program. It is a question of rights and equality. It is a question of fairness. Unfortunately, the Conservative government does not believe in equality and fairness.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague will agree with me when I say that equality for women cannot happen without pay equity and that without pay equity, women will not have economic equality either.

Lack of pay equity hurts women and their children and makes them more vulnerable to poverty. Statistics Canada says that women generally earn less than men. In 2003, they earned, on average, $24,000 before taxes, while men earned an average of $39,300.

I am sure that my colleague would agree that this situation is appalling and unacceptable in our society.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no economic security without equality, and the eradication of the prosperity gap is extremely important.

It was the Conservative government that removed the equity from the status of women mandate, and then the minister talks about all these programs the government wants to do. How can women take advantage of the programs if in fact the government has cut the most important, independent issue that is at the core of women's independence, which is child care programs across the country? The government has cut the child care programs so women cannot take advantage of many of the programs it is talking about.

When the government cuts social programs, it disproportionately hurts women. When the Conservative government announced an unprecedented $1 billion cut in federal social spending on September 25, 2006, it was women and other vulnerable groups that disproportionately bore the burden of the cuts, which included $18 million from the national literacy program, $55 million from the students summer jobs program, $45 million from the affordable housing programs, and $10 million from the Canadian volunteer program.

The record speaks for itself. The government does not care about women's issues in this country.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to help highlight the continuing issues surrounding the refugee system in Canada and to join with petitioners from Citizens for Public Justice in calling for enhancements to Canada's refugee system. The Canadian Council for Refugees quite rightly notes that the Conservatives' failure to appoint or reappoint 46 of the 127 members to the Immigration and Refugee Board means that the refugee system is stretched way beyond its limits.

I table this petition that calls upon the government to take action on the refugee file or to at least do its job and ensure that IRB has the people to do the job.