Peggy Nash

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the forestry sector has been under incredible pressure of late. The recently negotiated softwood lumber agreement has not helped in the least and the high dollar, of course, is just the icing on the cake.

In response to the hon. member's question, I believe there is merit in bringing together regional voices from the same sector. In fact, I believe the government should be looking at sectoral strategies for all elements of our economy, especially the sectors that are struggling. I believe in the value of tripartite discussions in getting the--

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of tax cuts, does my hon. colleague not understand that when tax cuts are given with no strings attached to already enormously profitable sectors of the economy, so that they are just a gift to those sectors, that gives nothing back to other sectors of the economy?

How does it help for the government to give billions of dollars in tax cuts that fuel the oil and gas sector and bank profits? In regard to these tax cuts, for example, businesses that are making no profits today, such as the manufacturing sector of the economy, cannot take advantage of them.

With respect, if there are tax cuts, what is needed is targeted tax cuts. They should be tax cuts that are designed to stimulate the struggling sectors of the economy and are tied to outcome, that is, an investment in jobs in that sector, not just a blank cheque to an already profitable sector of the economy.

With respect, the hon. member says that we are in a low unemployment situation. I would like him to come to Brampton and tell the 1,100 Chrysler workers who are going to lose their jobs that because of a low unemployment situation they are welcome to line up for jobs at Wal-Mart and Tim Hortons. I would like him to come to Brampton and hear how popular that comment is.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

I rise in support of this important motion on the manufacturing sector and the impact of the high Canadian dollar on this sector. What we have today is a full-fledged crisis in the manufacturing sector in this country. Over the past 10 years, we have seen Canada go from a $12 billion trade surplus in manufacturing to a $16 billion trade deficit. We have seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Hundreds more are lost each day.

Our manufacturing in Canada as a share of our overall economy has fallen by about 25% in the last 10 years, yet a large sector of our economy has depended on manufacturing, with its one in eight jobs, work for more than 2.4 million Canadians overall. This is a key sector of the economy.

Let us look at our country's history. Canadians were seen as hewers of wood and drawers of water. It was through enormous effort and collective will as a country that we decided we could do more, that yes, we were blessed with abundant natural resources, which were a key part of our economy, but that it was in the interests of all Canadians for us to add value to those natural resources, to add value so that not only would we take fish from the sea, but we would process those fish. We would not simply extract minerals out of the earth; we would process those minerals. Not only would we have an abundant agricultural sector, but we would process food for our own domestic use and export abroad.

Most importantly, we would add value in the manufacturing sector and we would become key suppliers to the world of certain key products. As we have seen, in many sectors of the economy Canada has excelled. It did not happen by accident. It was a project of our parents and grandparents to create a vibrant manufacturing sector in this country.

What we are seeing of late, through a variety of factors, and I will talk about that in a minute, is the erosion of this manufacturing sector. I ask my colleagues in the House how we are going to have a healthy economy and the tax base to support our social programs, our infrastructure and all that we value in this country if we lose our valuable, vibrant and lucrative manufacturing sector. It is a huge concern.

I want to add some more statistics in terms of job loss in this sector. Let us look at certain areas. In clothing and textiles, we have lost 40% of those sectors. We have lost 16% of the aerospace sector, 32% of our shipbuilding sector, 13% of the Canadian food and beverage sector, 13% of the country's primary metals, 9% of paper, 8% of wood products and 7% of our automotive sector. These indicate a huge loss of jobs and huge numbers of families today are living in great insecurity.

These losses are spread across the country. Nova Scotia is down in manufacturing by 20%. In the Kootenay region in B.C., it is down by 25%. British Columbia lost 13,700 jobs. We see that right across the country there is a huge loss in our manufacturing sector. I know that my own city of Toronto has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs. This has caused a huge impact on many families in that area.

Let us look at the causes. This motion identifies the high dollar. Clearly, the high dollar is an urgent and devastating cause of job loss and stress on any sector of our economy that exports or relies on foreign investment, such as the tourism sector and our cultural sector. Our high dollar is having a huge impact.

As the member does in the motion, I also want to identify free trade and poorly negotiated trade deals as one of the problems. The previous government initiated a number of free trade deals. It initiated the current deal with Korea, which the government is continuing, whereby we already have a massive trade deficit. Our auto trade deficit, for example, now totals $1.7 billion, and today we are losing thousands of jobs in Canada because of this trade deficit with Korea, yet the previous government believed and the current government believes that we should just continue to export jobs to other countries like Korea without requiring balanced trade here in Canada.

We have also seen the previous government and the current government give carte blanche to companies in corporate tax cuts, with no strings attached and no requirement for these tax dollars to be invested back into the community in job creation and R and D. It is just a gift to companies, some of which, such as the banks and the oil and gas sector, are phenomenally profitable as they stand now and certainly do not need the gift of tax breaks that will fuel further upward pressure on the dollar. It is a fiscal policy that has also threatened our manufacturing sector.

The current government has continued this tax cutting agenda and seems to ignore the manufacturing crisis in the country. It is also ignoring what this means for workers who are losing their jobs and what that means to families.

When I raise this issue in the House in question period, the answer I get is that there are jobs being created across Canada, but if we look at what happens to people who lose jobs in the manufacturing sector, jobs that pay decent wages and have benefits which will help them support themselves and their families, we will see that often the jobs they end up with in exchange are jobs with low pay, insecure jobs and service sector jobs. They are not the kinds of jobs that allow them to live above the poverty line. That is a reason why I also have introduced a bill calling for a national minimum wage to be set at $10 a hour.

Another factor for people losing their jobs today in the manufacturing sector is the erosion of our employment insurance program. The previous government took billions of dollars paid in premiums by working people and employers, premiums that ought to have been given back to working people in benefits when they became unemployed. It failed to do that.

Today in my city of Toronto, only about 20% of unemployed workers get employment insurance. This means that 80% of working people are paying into a program but are not able to get the benefits when they need them.

We have an urgent manufacturing crisis in the country. It is critical not just for those who work in the manufacturing sector but for all of us right across the country. This is a high tech, high value added sector that is important to the overall strength of our economy. No other country in the world just throws open the doors and says, “Let the market decide”. All countries defend their manufacturing sector. They want to see further investment. They want to strengthen their manufacturing sector for the good of their populations.

Therefore, I support the motion. I urge its adoption.

[Request for Emergency Debate, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that under Standing Order 52 this House hold an emergency debate on the economic effects of the surge in the Canadian dollar. We have seen an unprecedented rise in the Canadian dollar which has created a real state of emergency for many Canadians who are losing their jobs. Not only does it impact the manufacturing sector, but it impacts other sectors of our economy as well, for example, tourism, the cultural sector and those who export goods out of this country. Families are very concerned. People are losing their jobs. They are asking what their representatives in Parliament are doing to deal with this unprecedented crisis.

I would respectfully request an emergency debate on this issue.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, which is aimed at protecting the Canadian pharmaceutical supply from bulk exports south of the border.

Canadians need to have a secure supply of the pharmaceuticals they need. This is not to say that we do not understand that the health care system south of the border leaves much to be improved. More than 50 million Americans have no health coverage. Many other Americans have substandard coverage in the sense that they think they are covered by health care insurance, but when they become ill, they find out their hospital stay or drug coverage is not there to protect them.

We understand the need. Americans have been facing very high drug prices. That is why Canadian pharmaceutical companies have been appealing to Americans who have been accessing bulk exports of Canadian pharmaceuticals.

We do not want to be locked into a path where the security of supply for export supercedes the security of supply for Canadians. When Canadians need pharmaceutical drugs, whether for catastrophic care, or for an epidemic or pandemic of some kind, we need a policy to ensure we have the security of drugs we need. While we recognize the situation of Americans, the bulk export of Canadian drugs is not the solution.

My colleague, who introduced the bill, has explained that there are many drawbacks to relying on Canadian bulk exports, such as the scarcity of some ingredients that limit the amount of supply needed for some drugs. Many of them are time dated, so they cannot be stockpiled in a warehouse somewhere in case they might be needed by our neighbour south of the border.

We know what happens in a time of scarcity. During the SARS crisis a few years ago in Toronto, there was a great deal of panic about the cause of the epidemic and a great concern about how people could protect themselves from the spread of this disease. In a situation like this there is always the danger of hoarding. People will do what they think is in their best interests to protect themselves and their families. Some people also hoard because they think they can make some business from this situation. If there is a crisis situation, we want to ensure that Canadians will have access to the drug supply they need.

We also know there have been problems with counterfeit medications. Our border inspectors do not inspect every shipment that goes across the border. I have heard that 1% of shipments are physically inspected. This then leaves open the possibility of counterfeiting, which not only endangers the health of Americans, it also diverts production that could be put to beneficial use rather than counterfeit use.

It is important to safeguard the Canadian supply and to avert going down the path where we open ourselves or our neighbours to the south to the risks of bulk drug exports. The Government of Canada must do what is necessary to ensure that Canadians are protected.

I also want to speak about drug coverage in Canada. While Americans may think we have a more desirable situation here, because of lower drug prices, primarily through generic brand pharmaceuticals, we also have a problem with drug prices on this side of the border.

The drug patent laws have been giving brand name pharmaceutical companies more and more patent protection over the years. The Conservative government extended patent protection up to eight years now for brand name drugs. This will see hundreds of millions more dollars of costs added to our pharmaceutical costs in Canada. We also have the problem of evergreening of drugs under patent protection, which has not been addressed.

What it means is higher drug costs for Canadians. They are so costly that in fact many Canadians simply cannot afford to have their prescriptions filled as it stands today. It adds to the financial stress that many Canadian families are under. We can all imagine the situation of people who go to a drug store to fill their prescriptions. They find out the price and they simply cannot afford to have the prescription filled, which would help them regain their health.

It is time Canada had a national universal drug plan to promote better health for Canadians without breaking the bank. We have an opportunity while we have surplus budgets, surplus funds federally, if the government does not give it all away to the banks and the oil companies, to invest in Canadians. We can pool our resources to bulk purchase drugs for Canadians. We could do that through a universal pharmaceutical program.

We have seen with our universal health care program, medicare, that our costs are far below costs south of the border, by pooling our resources and ensuring that everyone is covered, rather than leaving too many people behind.

The government has dropped its promise to deal with wait times when it comes to health care. That has been a shameful oversight. Here is an opportunity for the Conservatives to introduce something positive with respect to health care, and that is a national pharmacare program.

An important step is to secure our supply of drugs for Canadians and to ensure we do not export drugs south of the border that could jeopardize supply in Canada. I believe a more fundamental, an important step and a necessary step for Canadians is to ensure they all have access to the pharmaceutical drugs they need. We have to keep costs down as a country. I believe a national pharmacare program is long overdue. It would make a huge difference for Canadian families.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of work hours and fatigue are fundamental in the transportation sector and have been an issue of debate and negotiation over the years. There has been a push of late to lengthen the work hours and to reduce the number of personnel, which is a safety concern.

I would remind the members of the House of the Air France fiery crash in Toronto where, due to the quick action of the crew, not one person died. That is the kind of job that airline workers do.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to know what was in the minds of the government members who initiated this bill. However, we have to ask ourselves: What is government for?

Surely one of the key roles of government is to protect its citizens from harm. After the fact, to say that we should have done this or perhaps we should have been responsible for that is cold comfort to people.

I believe that part of the rationale is simply a transition in the public service, a generational change. It will be costly and there is always a strategy that needs to be worked out to do that transition. I believe the government has not planned adequately for that. This is a very cut rate way to get out from under the responsibility of generational change in our inspectors. It is transferring responsibility to the private sector, to the companies themselves, surely something that is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. It is of great concern to the members of this caucus and, if Canadians knew about it, I think it also would be of great concern to them.

My colleague raised the issue of harmonization with U.S. laws. If that is a rationale, then I would argue that it is a poor one.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while many of the proposed amendments that we made and many of the witnesses made have been adopted, clear concerns remain among many of the workers and their organizations who presented before committee. They may have endorsed some of the changes that were made but they do not endorse transferring responsibility for setting safety requirements and enforcing safety to the companies that are in fact in a hyper-competitive environment right now in the airline industry.

In responding to my colleague's question, I must ask him if putting the companies themselves in this position is not a little disingenuous. I do not believe that they are asking for it. It is a way to solve the problem for the government, which really does not want to pay to do enforcement itself. Canadians may like privatization of some things but I am not sure they like the privatization of safety enforcement.

I disagree with my colleague that this is widely known by the public. I do not believe it is.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, airline employees have been through incredible turmoil over the last 20 or so years with the deregulation of the airline sector and incredible cut throat competition. We have seen bankruptcies in some companies and layoffs in others. We have seen real attacks on the wages and working conditions of airline workers.

I fear that this legislation may create a climate where people will be unwilling to raise their concerns because they do not believe that their voices, as the people closest to airline safety, will be listened to. It is a genuine concern that all MPs and, in fact, all Canadians ought to be concerned about.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today unfortunately to express that we will not be supporting this bill. Substantial progress was made at the committee stage, but Bill C-7 still emphasizes cutting costs rather than improving safety standards. There can be no compromise when it comes to airline safety.

Bill C-7 constitutes a major change in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come. It would enshrine in aviation safety the safety management system, or SMS, as part of Transport Canada's agenda to implement SMS in all modes of transportation, sometimes with disastrous effects as we have seen in the case of rail SMS with the escalating number of train derailments. We have all seen terrible examples of train derailments and other safety problems on the railway system. We believe that the introduction of SMS has been a factor.

Specifically, SMS is intended to allow the industry to increasingly decide the level of risk that those in the industry are willing to accept in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety set by the minister acting solely in the public interest.

SMS is also designed to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high numbers of projected inspector retirements. As the former chair of the government operations committee, I know that there has been and continues to be an examination of the generational change in all of the public sector positions.

This is an opportunity now for the people who are in these jobs today to pass their skills, experience, knowledge and expertise on to the younger generation who are looking for more skilled and better paying jobs.

I spoke earlier today about the disastrous layoffs that are taking place in the manufacturing sector. Young people are trying to support themselves and their families. They are trying to pay their mortgages or their rent, but the jobs that would pay them enough to be able to do that are being lost. Quite frankly, while the government has said that lots of jobs are being created, a minimum wage job in the service sector does not pay the bills of the average Canadian family today.

We have an opportunity with a generational change in the public service to offer good jobs, interesting jobs, highly skilled jobs, decent paying jobs to a whole new generation of young people, but instead, the government is looking for ways to deny those opportunities. It is looking for ways to eliminate those job opportunities, to get rid of the need for jobs in what I would argue is one of the most safety sensitive sectors of our economy, the transportation sector.

Clearly, because Canada is such a vast country, airlines, rail, interprovincial trucking, shipping, all forms of transportation are fundamental to our economy. They are fundamental to who we are as a nation. They rest upon the absolute security that the utmost is being done to protect the safety of those who are using the transportation system, but also to protect the communities across Canada that would be very vulnerable to an erosion of transport safety, especially in the airline sector.

SMS will let the government increasingly transfer responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own standards, because the government will have less and less of its own resources to do these activities.

Again I have to ask about the logic in cutting taxes for bank presidents and giving more money back to the oil and gas sector. The government tries to hide an embarrassment of riches rather than investing in communities, investing in people, investing in social services, investing in infrastructure, and investing in the generational change that the government is facing. Baby boomers are retiring and young people are looking for decent and secure skilled jobs so that they can make a contribution to this country. This is an opportunity in the transportation sector that is being squandered by the government.

This bill was originally a Liberal bill sponsored by the former transport minister. The Liberal and Conservative members were initially willing to pass the bill without further amendments. Then the chorus of opposition began and there was real concern from the witnesses who were heard by the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Those witnesses included: Justice Virgil Moshansky of the Dryden crash inquiry; two Transport Canada inspectors unions, the CFPA and UCTE; the Canada Safety Council; some smaller air carriers and operators; Ken Rubin, an access to information expert; and unions representing flight attendants, the Teamsters and CUPE.

Their criticism focused on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada and the greater ability for the industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny, among other issues. It is unfortunate that the only time transportation safety seems to make the front pages of the newspapers is when a disaster takes place. If the average Canadian knew that this bill was transferring responsibility for safety regulations and enforcement over to the very companies that increasingly are engaged in the incredibly fierce competition in the airline sector, they would be concerned. Canadians would be concerned that perhaps the temptation would be too great in some instances that the needs of the operation, the need to have the business imperatives would take precedence over public safety.

Having said that, we have some of the best airlines in the world. We have award winning airlines. We have an excellent record of safety, but that is because we have had stringent safety requirements.

I remember the debate around the deregulation of the airline industry. What was stated by the government of the day was that fundamental in a deregulated airline environment was the requirement to make safety absolutely paramount. It was argued at the time as a way of reassuring Canadians that there would be no compromise to safety. Under no circumstances would safety requirements be slackened or would there be any undermining of regulations or safety inspectors that protect Canadians in the transportation sector.

Here we are many years later and I fear that is exactly what is happening. The people who work in this industry, the ones who are closest to it who see airline operations every day, are the ones who are expressing concerns about this bill. As parliamentarians we have to listen to their concerns and take their concerns very seriously.

As I said, this bill has been amended. Some amendments were adopted unanimously, but unfortunately, the amendments only go part of the way.

The other half of the work has been left undone and it represents serious flaws in the bill that continue to jeopardize Canadian aviation safety and the safety of the travelling public and aviation workers. We have been proposing further amendments that would actually improve aviation safety, not reduce it.

Part of the problem with the bill, which I will highlight, is that it heightens secrecy. When there are public regulations and enforcement, there is public scrutiny. When safety requirements, their determination and enforcement are left to individual companies to determine, then a veil comes over the safety provisions and we will not have access to safety information.

Our amendments would have preserved the operation of the Access to Information Act in key areas but that proposal was defeated at the committee stage, which makes us very concerned about the secrecy provisions.

We are also concerned about the lack of whistleblower protection. While a form of whistleblower protection has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who face reprisals taken against them, other than a warning or possible fine.

However, it is small comfort to a person who, out of concern for the travelling public, raises an issue of public safety and then is penalized for doing so, potentially even losing his or her job, which is disastrous. It is a potential outcome that most people would simply not risk. I would hate to think that safety concerns are not brought to the attention of the public, especially if they have been brought to the attention of the airline and no action is taken.

Employees are granted immunity from prosecution for reporting violations only under certain conditions but conditional whistleblower protection is really no protection at all and this ought to be of great concern to all Canadians.

The bill would provide the airlines with the same opportunities as whistleblowers to divulge breaches in SMS regulations with impugnity, but under the new hands-off enforcement policy of Transport Canada under SMS, no action will be taken against corporate offenders if the problem is corrected in a timely fashion. It is like someone travelling down the highway at 150 kilometres and, even though it comes to the attention of the police, by deciding to voluntarily slow the car down under the speed limit no action will be taken. It is not the way the law of the land should work.

The government contends that companies will no longer divulge safety problems without this provision. This is unconvincing. It is kind of an unwillingness to enforce what ought to be strict, visible, clear public regulations that assure Canadians and the travelling public of the utmost in safety.

I want to quote Dave Ritchie, the president of the machinists union, which represents mechanics and ramp workers who are very concerned about safety. Mr. Ritchie says:

Without constant and effective public regulation, corporations will constantly push the limits of safe operations, at growing risk to the traveling public.

While the government’s intention to download the regulation and monitoring of safety to the private sector is dangerous, we are particularly concerned about the use of SMS in foreign repair stations. If the effective monitoring by Transport Canada of SMS in Canada is problematic, it is even more unlikely at foreign worksites.

Canadians rely on transportation and they have confidence in their transportation system. I believe we must maintain that integrity but that is not the case with the bill. I regret that the proposed changes that would have made the bill acceptable have not been adopted in their entirety. Canadians will be the worse off for it.

I regret to say again that we will not be supporting the bill. It is a real missed opportunity to reassure Canadians about their transportation safety.