Martha Hall Findlay

[Canadian Products Promotion Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we do not support Bill C-306. Frankly, the bill seems aimed less at being passed than as a medium for certain partisan discussions. Its purpose seems to be to implement buy Canada legislation in response to the buy America provisions in the recently enacted U.S. budget. It is for those very reasons that we object to it. We are in the middle of a worldwide recession. Protectionism is widely regarded as the worst possible thing that countries could engage in in a worldwide recession. We are in the throes of objecting strenuously to the American buy America provisions.

As an aside, we on this side of the House are very upset with the fact that the current Conservative government has not done nearly enough in anticipating these buy America provisions and working in Washington before they were enacted to ensure that they were not, and we are seeing many manufacturers in Canada already suffering as a result. We have a concern that the current Conservative government has not done nearly enough to deal with these protectionist measures, but our position is very strongly that they do not belong, especially in a time of worldwide recession. In that sense, for a Canadian bill to suggest a similar approach is completely opposite to what makes sense from an economic perspective.

We have some significant concerns with the way the bill has been drafted. There is no empirical evidence or sound economic reasoning behind what the bill is supposedly trying to achieve. The 7.5% price differential this bill wants to apply seems to have been completely pulled out of a hat. There is no logical way of measuring the Canadianness and an attempt at measuring this for the 50% and 75% requirements in the bill is comical, at best. The agreement certainly does not provide any indication of anything otherwise.

The bill attempts to say that the provisions of NAFTA would still apply but, in our view, certainly this bill contravenes NAFTA and it certainly contravenes the spirit of our free trade agreements with the United States, Mexico and others.

The bill is poorly and vaguely drafted to allow for interpretation that may be inappropriate, in our opinion.

Ultimately, if protectionist measures are imposed, our significant concern is that this will harm Canada's economy, not improve it. We are on record as saying that free trade is important for economic competitiveness, economic sustainability and ultimately, economic prosperity. We object strenuously to the American attempts at protectionism, and we have said so publicly. For Canada to be seen to be attempting to do so completely flies in the face with our public position. Not only would it be damaging to our economy, but it would be extremely damaging also to our international reputation.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected at the beginning to ask to split my time with my colleague from York South—Weston. If it is all right with the Speaker, having neglected to do so, may I make my request at this point and ask my colleague to step in?

[Canadian Products Promotion Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill C-306, An Act respecting the use of government contracts to promote economic development, we have to remember that we are in the middle of a worldwide recession. As Canadians, we are in fact in the process of arguing strenuously against any American efforts at protectionism. They are very, very real, as many manufacturers in this country have already discovered. Protectionism, particularly at a time of such economic crisis, is simply not the direction we want to be going in.

With regard to specifics in the act, there is no empirical evidence or sound economic reasoning behind what the bill is trying to achieve. The 7.5% price differential this act wants to apply was pulled out of a hat. There is no logical way of measuring the Canadianness, and an attempt at measuring this for the 50% to 75% requirement simply does not measure up. The agreement certainly does not provide any indications.

The act tries to suggest that NAFTA will still be complied with. We have serious doubts that this is even possible, and it certainly goes against the spirit of it. Therefore, for many reasons, we do not support Bill C-306.

[Lou Gehrig's Disease, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I urge all those of my colleagues who are staying in Ottawa this weekend to join the ninth Ottawa walk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

Many wonderful people from all walks of life have had their lives turned upside down because of ALS. A member of our political family has this terrible disease.

Taking part in the Ottawa walk will show support for the brave men and women who battle ALS every day, as well as their families who accompany them through this challenge.

Close to 3,000 Canadians suffer from ALS. If my colleagues wish to make a difference, I urge them to go to Lansdowne Park tomorrow morning to walk to raise funds to help those suffering from ALS, as well as their families, and to offer hope for a cure one day through research.

[Government Assets, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, “aucun projet”. That is incredible. It is in the budget: $10 billion over five years and over $2 billion in this year alone.

I will add that we actually had another stunning admission from Public Works today that the Minister of Finance has not even asked Public Works for a list of assets that could be considered for sale.

The minister will not do his homework. He cannot count. Canadians clearly cannot count on him. How on earth can he commit to generating such a large amount of money from asset sales without having a clue what they are?

[Government Assets, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today we heard a rather stunning admission from Public Works, which was that this was not a good time to sell assets and that to do so would be no more than a fire sale.

Could the Minister of Finance please comment on his promise to add $10 billion to the government books, $2 billion in this year alone, through the sale of assets, and more specifically, in this bad time to sell assets, what, in addition to Rideau Hall silverware, is he planning to let go in the fire sale?

[Adjournment Proceedings, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the government patting itself on the back for doubling the gas tax fund that was promised by the Liberal government when it was still in power. I am pleased to see that the current Conservative government did not turn its back on that original Liberal promise. However, I would appreciate that when credit is being taken that credit would be given to the source.

The Minister of Finance, when he was attempting to get the budget pushed through and was worried that funding would not happen until the summer, said that it would not be good to wait until the summer because thousands and thousands of people would be negatively affected. He went on to say that the infrastructure would not be happening and that the spending would not be happening in our municipalities to repair roads, bridges and so on. He said that the whole purpose of the economic action plan was action, that it was not to wait six months or a year to get the job done.

I will remind the hon. member that, despite his efforts, he did not answer my questions. Action has not been taken. I wanted to know exactly how much money has been spent because announcements and re-announcements do not pay wages.

[Adjournment Proceedings, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a quote from page 2 of the budget, which states:

Canada is in recession today. Measures to support the economy must begin within the next 120 days to be most effective.

Those 120 days come to an end the day after tomorrow and we remain very concerned that money simply has not been spent.

First, under the building Canada fund, we know that a fraction of the infrastructure money promised three years ago has been spent. We are very concerned now to learn that only a fraction of the stimulus funds approved in the budget has been spent. This is despite repeated recommendations that the program to spend infrastructure money for the purposes of stimulus be done not on the matching basis, as put forward by the government, but on the basis as recommended by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the official opposition, a gas tax-like program. The Liberals presented an motion recommending that the infrastructure money be spent on the basis of and in the process of a gas tax-like program as opposed to requiring matching, which a majority of the House voted in favour.

We are concerned, a concern that is supported by many municipal representatives, that the Conservative government knew when it made this plan that the municipalities would be unable to match the funds, as many municipalities expressed. The government therefore knew the funding would be slowed down and that those same municipalities would then be the ones blamed when needed infrastructure did not get built.

These are very serious concerns. The municipalities have said repeatedly that the gas tax fund has worked very well. We all know that strong accountability works well. They recommended that this type of process be used to fund the infrastructure, which is so desperately needed, and that the money flow. The official opposition has recommended the same. As I said, a motion was put forward in the House, which was adopted by the majority of the House, supporting that very notion.

The current government has, as with a number of motions unfortunately, ignored the opinion of the House and the suggestions of it. It has continued to insist on an infrastructure program that requires matching funds from provinces and municipalities, knowing all along that most municipalities are simply not capable of matching the funds.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, how much money has actually been spent so far to date? I will preface by saying not announcements or re-announcements, but how much money has actually been spent, given the 100 day window? I insist on an answer that is money that is incremental to the building Canada fund. What has actually been spent over and above anything that had already been approved in prior budgets?

Second, why has the government actively ignored the recommendations of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and many individual municipalities and why has it ignored the motion to use a gas tax-like program to fund this, notwithstanding the majority view of the House of Commons?

[The Economy, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur that the minister should stand clear of dirt flying.

I am afraid, however, that it simply is not working. We know the numbers prove that. Broken promises, announcements and, worse, re-announcements do not pay wages and they do not create jobs. Einstein had it right with the definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Will the minister please stop repeating his mistakes, listen to municipalities, deliver funds now, before we lose this construction season, and get people to work?

[The Economy, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities admitted that the building Canada fund, announced with great fanfare three years ago, is just not working. Just 5% of the billions of dollars promised have been invested in three years.

Although it knows that this model is not working, and despite all our suggested improvements, the government is insisting on keeping the same dysfunctional model for the stimulus package. Why?

[Canadian Paraplegic Association, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, how high are the buttons in the elevators on the Hill? Is it possible for one to balance a cup of coffee on one's lap while wheeling from one side of the room to another? How long does it take to get from finance committee in Centre Block to operations and estimates in West Block if one cannot take the stairs or run?

These were the kinds of situations I had to deal with on May 7 when I joined 10 other members and senators for a national awareness day for the Canadian Paraplegic Association. I spent the whole day in a wheelchair.

It was an incredible and eye-opening experience. It was eye opening for those of us in chairs and I hope it was also eye opening for many other observers. Ultimately, we were the lucky ones, able to get back up on our feet at the end of the day.

I would like to express my respect and admiration for all those who cannot walk and who face these challenges every day.

I urge members of the House and Senate from all parties to take part in the day next year, as the Canadian Paraplegic Association aims to have 65 members participate to celebrate its 65th anniversary.