Brian Masse

[November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the former BHP chairman talked about foreign investment in Australia. He referred to Canada by saying that too much can actually result in Australia becoming a branch plant just like Canada is.

The problem is that we still do not have proper legislation going through this House. We have mentioned a number of different situations that have affected many value-added jobs in Canada.

For example, the government refused to act with Falconbridge and Inco. Also, we just needed a delay when U.S. processes were forcing the Xstrata situation to go on further, and it was the U.S. that was doing that. The government could have acted, but it did not, and we have lost a national champion in mining.

We saw the results with Vale workers being thrown out on strike for over a year. That is unacceptable. It is trying to bring Brazil standards into the Canadian market as opposed to looking at improvements for workers and productivity in this country.

This government has a duty to--

[November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again on a very important issue, the Investment Canada Act.

I asked a question in this chamber on October 26 related to BHP's takeover bid on PotashCorp. I want to thank the great Canadians who supported our campaign, and especially the Saskatchewan NDP that fought so hard to make sure this takeover did not take place.

It is important to note that the Investment Canada Act is the trigger point on how to do these types of acquisitions and is the backstop for the investment as to whether it is of net benefit to Canada. That legislation is so poorly crafted that it has created serious vulnerabilities for Canadians, not just in terms of the companies that have been built up and basically been sold off, but also, on top of that, the jobs, value-added jobs in particular, that we have.

I want to point out that the present government is responsible for that poor legislation because it added changes to the legislation in a budget bill, so it did not get a chance to go to committee. It did not have a chance to hear from Canadians, be it the business community, the workers or others who are experts in this law, and have that input to look at the changes that were going to be made.

That denial of the proper democratic process is like Americanizing our legislative process by attaching what in the U.S. is called a rider bill to legislation. It has very much been at the expense of our business community and our economic development.

One of the key things that needs to be recognized is that the minister is now talking about reviewing the Investment Canada Act, especially after an NDP motion and debate has already taken place.

The reality is that the government is responsible for this hollowing out that has taken place and it has done so without even consulting the business community that wants to be consulted on this. There are many economists and other business people who want to be part of a process to modernize the Investment Canada Act.

Back in 2003, I fought vigorously against China Minmetals, because here we had a non-democratic state government that was actually going to take over Canadian companies. I thought that was wrong.

How do we have that process? How is it that Canada cannot own its own oil shares through Petro-Canada? The previous Liberals actually sold our last bit of shares in Petro-Canada. We actually lost money on that because a month later it went up incredibly. On top of that, a non-democratic government can actually own Canadian oil projects, which it is now purchasing across the land.

I want to be clear that the government has a responsibility to modernize the Investment Canada Act through legislation to make it more clear, more accountable and to have more net benefits. When we look at Stelco, Inco and Vale, we had all those terrible deals where we had tons of problems from those takeovers at the expense of working class Canadians. It is unacceptable and the government is responsible for those things.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there is an important point that needs clarification in tonight's debate. The banks have been used as a model and have been upheld as making the right decisions, but I was here in the chamber when John Manley and the then Alliance tried to actually Americanize our banks. It is important to point out that the stability is here today because of a campaign to push against that and prevent it from taking place.

It is important to look at the fiscal capacity of Canada and the process we are doing right now. I would like the member's opinion. Is it because of the Liberals and the Conservatives voting earlier to make large corporate tax cuts, and it is interesting that the Liberals are now opposed to this, that we are actually borrowing money to do that and paying interest on it, similar to the HST, where there were $6 billion of expenditures federally to implement this new tax on Canadians? We will have to borrow for that and pay interest on it. I would like the hon. member's comments on those two issues.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague regarding the account gap that is growing and the trade deficit that is happening because of the petro-dollar.

We know the government has been using the oil industry to inflate Canada's dollar and now we have lost hundreds of thousands of value-added manufacturing jobs. That is important to note because some of the job creation has been through public spending, through borrowing and a lot of part-time jobs in which Canadians cannot sustain themselves. I would simply ask the member about that.

As well, it is now projected that the actual growth rate that will be announced for GDP tomorrow will be lower than expected and will create further problems.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a rosy picture of the economy is counter to what is happening out there. Reuters just posted an interesting story stating, “Canada record-high current account gap spurs worry”. It goes on to say:

Canada entered the club of countries with oversized current account deficits in the third quarter, posting the biggest shortfall on record as its worsening trade profile heralded a further slowdown in economic growth.

This is the eighth consecutive deficit and this one is $13 billion. Doug Porter, the deputy chief economist at the BMO Capital Market, said:

Canada suddenly finds its broadest trade deficit in the company of countries that have typically been cited as extravagant over-spenders/under-savers.

Part of the problem is that our trade deficit with the United States is growing. That is part and parcel because we have a government with a petro-dollar philosophy that has pushed the Canadian dollar significantly up and is destroying manufacturing across this country. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary about that.

How long will the government continue to fuel an artificial dollar up when it is clearly affecting so many value-added jobs in Canada, which is different than the jobs that have been added?

[Petitions, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents from Windsor and Essex County. They are calling for stricter animal cruelty legislation to be passed and for fines and penalties to be improved.

The petitioners note that we are among the worst regarding penalties and fines and for bringing to justice those with criminal behaviour. We have had a series of abuses in the communities. The petitioners are very clear that they want to see Canada modernize this legislation.

It is important to note that animal abuse is also connected to human abuse. The petitioners would like to see the government do something on this issue.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that this member voted for Bill C-311.

[Windsor Goodfellows Club, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as its annual Old Boys Newspaper campaign gets under way, I would like to recognize the Windsor Goodfellows Club, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary of giving.

Founded in 1910 out of the deep concern that no child or family go hungry, the organization has established essential programs to address this need. In the past year alone, over 11,000 food boxes were distributed by the food bank, feeding over 60,000 people, assisting nine area schools with their breakfast programs. More than 1,300 pairs of new shoes were given to children.

All these efforts were made possible by one paid staff member and 152 volunteers. This organization exemplifies volunteer service as it receives no funding from any level of government or not-for-profit agency.

Unfortunately the concerns and issues that initiated the Goodfellows founding 100 years ago are still with us today. Its continued efforts, which have significant support from across the community, display what determination and citizen action can accomplish when we all work together.

I thank the Goodfellows.

[November 24th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, to move this debate along, some of the processes that the parliamentary secretary talked about are still ongoing. The reality is, at the end of the day, the city of Toronto and the businesses there were affected dramatically, with $750,000 worth of damages. The government chose to have it in Toronto. It chose a very difficult logistical place. The government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on security, but still was unable to protect the citizens of Toronto and their property.

There is a responsibility for the government to now act to help those who were affected. The government failed on that. It was not successful as the damage was done and it was the government's choice.

To be reasonable and fair to people, the government needs to help with reciprocity. It should not be the ratepayers of Toronto or the small businesses of Toronto that suffer the consequences of the actions of the government.

[November 24th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight on a question that I raised in the House of Commons relating to the G8 and G20 summits.

We have been raising issues relating to the costs of the summits, especially at a time when taxpayers are hurting so much. Some of the costs of the summits are still unaccountable. Some of the decision-making was questionable at best but deplorable most likely, especially when we consider things like the fake lake and the gazebos in the middle of nowhere. Costs were exceedingly high for policing.

What we have been asking for is accountability because Canadians saw the photo opportunity of the G8 and G20 being made into a circus for the government, especially since it was held in Toronto where those costs were significantly inflated.

What is important here is that the government borrowed money for this and we will be paying interest on it, which will be a significant cost.

When we look at ridings like mine, Windsor West, where there is high unemployment, we really need to question the government's decisions on this. The fact that Canadians will continue to foot the bill for that and pay the interest on it is unacceptable, especially when people do not have employment insurance improvements.

A lot of Canadians in my riding would have done better in their lives if they had actually had the two week waiting period for employment insurance waived as opposed to the billions of dollars lost on the summits.

What is important is what we get out of the summits at the end of the day, and the government really did not get anything of it. There are many media reports right now about whether or not these are even purposeful anymore.

One of the things that is important to point out is the cost of a whole series of things, but one of them is the costs for a series of vandalisms in Toronto that took place at 40 different stores in the downtown Yonge Street business improvement area, which the government will not help with. About $750,000 worth of repairs need to be made.

I am familiar with some of this because in Windsor we had the OAS come in at one point. The city was reassured by the federal government that we would get all our expenses paid but that was not true. We were left with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and increased charges.

Years later, I remember touring our police station and seeing skids full of tear gas and other types of equipment that was no longer necessary. I believe at the end of the day we ended up actually selling that to another jurisdiction that was going to have one of these events in its riding.

When we look at the example of South Korea and its projected $25 million in security costs and our security costs of around $676 million, we have to wonder where the accountability is.

We do know there are a number of different costs that have yet to have been accounted for. We still have no details on the $100 million that the OPP had available to it. Where is the accountability? If the government says that it will be tough on crime, that it will be tough on ensuring there is accountability for taxpayer dollars and that it will be open and transparent, why can we not get all these figures? Why can we not have disclosure?

If public money is spent, surely there should be a great deal of accountability for that. We have seen improvements to the accountability of other types of departments, including the office budgets of members and so forth. We now have greater disclosure than ever before, which is an important improvement.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary where the value is out of this? Where is the accountability?