Brian Masse

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2010]

I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, presented to the House on Wednesday, September 22, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the motion. I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

This is very important. We are coming to a crossroads in our history. The motion calls for the reinstatement of the long form census. It is a very critical part of Canadian culture, society and business. What has taken place has been a debacle with regard to scrapping the long form census and replacing it with a survey in which the data will be skewed.

Universally, there has been outrage about this from all sectors of society. When we have the Chamber of Commerce all the way to the Canadian Labour Congress agreeing on something, then we know there is a problem. The Minister of Industry did a disservice to the House and to Parliament by introducing this change at a time when the doors of the House were closed over the summer.

I want to start by acknowledging that this will be the second time the New Democrats have fought to save the census. Back in 2004, we raised concerns when the Liberal government of the time brought forth a contract with Lockheed Martin. Through freedom of information requests and a series of different information gathering, we were able to determine that the government would privatize this, which it did. It cost more money and it also made sure it created a problem. In 2006 I warned the government of the day that there would be a problem. The information would be gathered and compiled outside of Canada's borders, which made it vulnerable to the patriot act.

What ensued was a campaign to have that information gathered, assessed and stored in Canada, where it was done, to ensure that there would be greater privacy protection for the census. That cost Canadians more money as well because of the ideology of privatization.

With this census, the Minister of Industry said, during his testimony at committee in the summer, that he had worked on this for months. He did this at a time when the doors of Parliament were closed. We reconvened the committee to hold hearings on the issue, at great public expense. Ironically one of the meetings was totally unnecessary, but the Conservatives wanted to make a point and it cost us more public money to have a brief meeting.

We had testimony from experts from all across the country, experts who looked at this issue quite seriously. They noted that if we can't count our nation properly, if we can't have the proper information, we would not only lose this census, but, more important, we would also throw away the hundreds of millions of dollars that we had spent on the previous census, because there would be no comparable data.

That has a major impact. It has a major impact on the francophone community. It has a major impact on housing issues. It has a major impact on municipalities. It has a major impact on businesses that rely upon this information.

It is almost embarrassing to watch the Minister of Industry in the House of Commons when he tries to defend this. He says that the opposition wants people to be put in jail if they do not fill out the mandatory census, because that is one of the penalties. Ironically it is the Conservative government's policy. It has been in power for four years and it has not changed that, so it creates this straw man. To suggest that we will lock people up, that Dog the bounty hunter will go to their doors, knock them down and drag them off to jail is absolutely absurd. It is not true. It is almost pathetic to see the Minister of Industry's response on this issue being solely based on that. It is embarrassing to watch because it is not real.

It has been clear that this party and the other opposition parties do not agree with that. Many experts do not agree. In fact, nobody has ever been arrested and locked up for not filling out the census. That is the government's policy. It did not change it. For the minister to use that is purely pathetic.

The second argument the government tries to use, with fearmongering, is related to the fact that some people feel the census violates their privacy. There is a big privacy conspiracy hatched by the minister. One of the first things I did was call the privacy commission and I talked to the deputy minister. I found out there had been very few complaints over the years. In fact, they had a 25-year working relationship with the privacy commission and Statistics Canada. That relationship was described as excellent working conditions.

What came to light, and it is important to note, is the census that the minister was saying had a privacy issue and was a problem, had to pass a Board of Internal Economy audit and a privacy audit with the Privacy Commissioner. The work has already been done. The complaints were not coming in. In fact, the office works on a regular basis to improve it.

What is critical about the census is getting accurate information from Canadians from all different economic and social backgrounds so we can use that information for our economy, for our culture and for planning our future. The census is important. It was brought in many years ago. Egypt, China, all developed countries do a census. People want to plan for the future. How can we do that?

We know what ends up happening with a voluntary census. We found out that during this process, Statistics Canada had run some tests on the minister's plan for a voluntary census and it showed that Canadians would not respond to this. The minister wants to increase the number of people who will get the census and voluntarily respond. He is going to bother more people. Supposedly the census is a problem, yet the minister is going to send it out to more people across Canada. On top of that, the minister's own little scheme is going to be a $30 million expense. It is going to cost Canadians more money to get the census on their doorstep, yet the test drive model failed.

We will get skewed data as a result of this. Interestingly enough, all the statisticians and experts agree that we will lose information on the lower and the upper income brackets. This will affect everything from social housing to transit, a whole series of things for municipalities. This is an absolute debacle when it comes to public planning and the use of taxpayer money.

Of the over 3,000 contacts to the minister's offices, through a freedom of information request, we found out that only a few hundred supported the minister. Over 90% of those individuals who called said that they disagreed with the minister's plan to pay more money to get a worse census and to throw away the data that we have accumulated over the last number of years. That is important.

As the Conservatives were doing their privacy fearmongering, as they were threatening people with jail, they were also saying that ordinary Canadians were the ones who did not want it. They were saying that the elite wanted this census, but they were not even paying their fair share, suggesting that a number of different research branches, a number of different municipalities, a number of different businesses were not paying the proper amount for the census and that they were freeloading on the public purse.

It turns out that the vast majority of the people who were complaining, over 80%, were just ordinary citizens who were concerned about our changing society, concerned about not having the proper information. They want to participate in this and not have a plan that will cost more, will get worse results and will cost them more in the long run.

I want to touch briefly on the fact that I helped with the 2000 complete count census in Windsor West. One of the reasons for the complete count was we were one of the few places that had door to door campaigning to increase the response rate. It is because it is a multi-cultural community. Windsor and Essex County is the fourth most diverse in Canada. The area has a lot of individuals who speak English as a second language. There are a lot of newcomers. There is also a university and a college, so we have a transient population of students, depending upon where they are in their careers. We are also a border community where people are active on both sides of the border.

We found we had poorer results in this area, so a plan was paraded for three ridings in Canada, and Windsor West was one. We worked with the multi-cultural community. We worked with many organizations. We increased that number. Why was that important? So we could plan the necessary services.

This is not just an issue related to poverty and health. It is also related to the economy, because we can actually plan out things, such as skill sets. That is critically important when we look at an area like Windsor West where there is a high unemployment rate. We have been hit hard by these economic times. We need to have that statistic information to plan and try to turn things around.

That is why so many experts are pleading with the government not to spend the money but to do the census the way it was actually designed. Do the census the way that it went through the privacy audit, when it went through the Board of Internal Economy audit. It has been through all of those different things that have now provided it a good stable base to get out the door. Do not print more censuses. Do it the way it was done before so Canadians will have the stability that is necessary

The government in all its candour and attempts to appease even tried at one point to misrepresent the chief statistician in this matter. The Chief Statistician stepped down during this process. That is terribly unfortunate. One of the most important things is we have some independence with this position. I believe this position should eventually be hands-off.

The government has a record of interfering in third party government agencies. There is no doubt about it. This is one where somebody stood up and said that this was wrong, that it would be wrong for the operation he was leading and for the men and women who served him diligently every day. He could not stand there with any credibility as a scientist and maintain his position anymore. The person then left and now we do not even have a chief statistician in place, as the government tries to run through the census really quickly. That is really sad.

Once again, it is like divisive wedge politics, trying to scare and spook on different things that are outside of facts. That is why we have seen so many people really upset about this issue and that is one of the reasons we think it should be returned. Quite simply, turn this around now.

The motion calls upon the government to cease its behaviour, stop and go back to what we have been doing. It is prepared, and Canadians need to know, understand and appreciate this. The census, in the old form, is ready to go. It has been audited and it can be done properly to gain the information necessary.

If we do not do this, the back door of all of this will be the Conservatives being able to cut measures for the weak and most vulnerable. This is really what it is going to be about. We will lose out on a series of studies and important measures that prove some of the important social measures that are necessary for a country. We know the government is not necessarily interested in doing some of those things, but it is still the responsibility of a government to know who is in the country, how they are, how they are doing, what their behaviours are and what the trends are.

As well, it is important for our economy. When we have businesses that will no longer be able to appeal to this information in a reliable fashion, it will undermine our competitiveness. There is no doubt about it that productivity and planning will suffer and we will lose investment as well.

A key component to all of this is at least having some type of a landmark, a picture, a frame of what a country looks like and what a country needs to do to go forward. Unfortunately the Conservative government is interested in neither.

We call upon the House to pass this motion. We call upon the minister to reverse his direction and to listen to the non-partisan experts who have inundated him with calls. Listen to Canadians. The government made a big to-do about the registry and voting with our constituents. When over 80% of those who called in as individuals are opposed to the minister, and it was in the thousands in a few weeks, the government should listen to them.

If the government wants to do what is right and does not want to be a hypocrite, it should listen to those people who have taken the time to say that they want to do this, instead of this madness plan where we will spend $30 million sending out the census to more and more people. More money will be spent on advertising, and we know the Conservatives are fond of that. There will probably be some billboards, a number of TV ads and a whole series of things, all to try to convince people of what we know scientifically does not happen, and that is when there is a voluntary census, the response rates do not go up.

Ironically, the government has not changed the law on the short form census. There is actually still prison or jail time for that. We had testimony in front of our committee. The agricultural survey is still mandatory. In cross-examining a witness who was a farmer, he complained about the fact that the census was too long. He had to take a couple of days off to file it out. He had to get an accountant and pay for that as well. It turns out he was talking about the long form agricultural survey, which the government is still maintaining.

At the end of the day, he did not appear too upset about the fact that this is still something he has to do. It is contributing to Canada. His concern was the cost. However, nothing changed for him in his world. It was all counter to the arguments that the government was putting forth. In fact, the government had a hard time finding witnesses who would come forward to talk about this issue. It was fairly interesting. It even brought radio personalities in, which was fun to a certain degree, but at the same time it was not the type of testimony that we would expect. In fact, the witness wondered what he was doing there.

I find it particularly strange that the minister would be working behind the scenes on this, that he would be scheming about doing this, and then when the House closes, take the first opportunity to go out with this and try to actually prevent the proper channels of democracy from working. We had to reconvene the committee itself and that cost taxpayers more money. Apparently the Conservatives are quite comfortable with this type of an atmosphere and this behaviour. We have seen it again this week.

I would say that it is the wrong way to do it. If we are going to try to create an environment with all the huff and puff about creating a Parliament that works, taking it easy and working in a more collegial way, why would the government start that off by basically trying to sneak something through the back door, especially something so important? We need to have those issues examined.

I think this is very important for Canadian society. If we are going to lose out on this particular census form, we are going to lose an opportunity to reverse a trend that we have seen with the government. I would hope that it would see things through and reinstate the census.

Many Canadians would simply just move on from this and would accept it. They do not want to have the additional information put forth to them at more cost, another $30 million, and they do not want to lose out on all the information that was necessary for this to go forward in the past and be able to compare that data.

In conclusion, I am hoping this motion is going to be passed in this chamber and that the government is going to live up to it. The Prime Minister at one point said that there was a moral and ethical responsibility to pass motions in the House of Commons. He has not lived by the mantra that he had often proposed when he was in opposition. I am hoping that the government reverses this, we work together and just move on.

There is a lot of stuff that we have to do in the industry committee. There is a lot of other information and bills that we have to press on. I certainly want to move on, but at the same time, if the government wants to kill our census and destroy some of the things that the census really helps to evolve, then it is going to have a fight, and we are going to stand strongly by it.

We have done it in the past with the Lockheed Martin and New Democrats will do it again with this particular issue.

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in Windsor West there is a significant immigration element and a number of terrible situations have taken place. People have been exploited quite significantly, and what is sad is that sometimes it is the first experience people have getting assistance when they come to Canada. Unfortunately, sometimes they have gone to these consultants or even lawyers who have charged significant fees, and the lawyers and consultants sometimes contact my office to get assistance in doing the work. It is unacceptable.

I would like to know from my colleague, is he looking at this in terms of creating a penalty system? I hope there are going to be some strong incentives to crack down. In fact, in Windsor the consultants have billboards and different types of advertisements around the immigration centres so that people are attracted to them immediately. I am hoping we are going to look at issues such as that in terms of advertising and the ethics surrounding that.

This is an important opportunity to fix it. A lot of women and children get taken advantage of in the system, as well as men. With English as a second language, people sometimes do not know all the ins and outs of it or about the services they can get from constituency offices. I am lucky to have Karen Boyce, who works pretty well full time for me on immigration matters and can solve some of the problems that some of these consultants are getting away with charging hundreds of dollars for, which unnecessarily sets immigrants back when they first come to Canada, especially when their incomes are very modest, to say the least.

I would like to ask my friend what he would like to do with regard to penalties or having some enforcement mechanism. It needs to be sent as a message to some of the worst of the offenders.

[Census, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the current government believes it is better to make decisions without the facts. On the census, Conservatives are happy to put reason aside, ignore schools, municipalities and hospitals and forge ahead. This simply is irresponsible and is going to cost more money to the taxpayers.

We have learned that over 90% of all correspondence the Conservatives have received is opposed to their changes. Almost all are from individual Canadians, not academics or other elites who make them scared.

When will the minister listen to Canadians and reinstate Canada's long form census?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to Canada's foreign policy: (a) what is the government's explanation for its refusal to recognize as a genocide the murder of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim civilians by Serbian forces and the displacement of more than 25,000 other civilians in Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995; and (b) will the government revisit its decision with respect to recognizing the events in (a) as a genocide and, if so, has it put in place plans to meet with members of the Bosnian Muslim diaspora?

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there is no money for Canadians in need, but the ShamWow minister is apparently flush with cash.

Highway travellers from Windsor to Toronto have faced shut down rest stops for more than a year. Meanwhile, money is being dumped into outhouses and bathrooms in remote parts of the minister's riding nowhere near the summit site.

The government's G8 and G20 boondoggle is a skid mark on our country's reputation. How much higher must the pile of shenanigans get before we do anything about it?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is to avoid accountability. It is unfortunate because we could get a better process for that. We could have had the opportunity to understand some of the work that is happening out there. I think it is afraid for that to come forward because then we would have the chance to see the type of scientists that we have and their skill sets.

I had a chance to be at a press conference with some of the workers. They were here in this chamber watching one day. It is incredible to see the value and commitment that they have. If that story gets out there along with the serious nature and vulnerability of the work that they do, it could expose a really bad decision to do that. However, that would at least put it out there for debate.

Unfortunately, we are not. Unfortunately, we are beginning a process right now that is going to erode the ability for us to actually be a major world player and also to maintain that work that is so valuable. Lastly, it really is showing that we are distancing ourselves from our traditional world path, which has been nuclear power and public safety.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. This is basically out with the new and back in with the old. Today in the House of Commons, the Conservatives used one of their questions to talk and brag about Brian Mulroney. At the same time, they have spent a lot of time trying to distance themselves from Brian Mulroney.

Something interesting is happening here, especially with these agencies that are going to get more power. We have seen that the Prime Minister is incapable of resisting the temptation of putting political hacks and special favours into these commissions as well the senate. The people from the former Alliance and former Reform Party, and those who have signed to the Wildrose Alliance Party must be thinking this is déjà vu all over again.

Now we have record spending with less accountability. Now we have a system put in place again that brings in some of the old practices and takes away the elected officials' capability to respond to them.

We have to really wonder about all of those people who talked about those issues and felt them so dearly that they even brought some of the members of Parliament here to flip-flop and cross the floor. Why would they continue to support this when they are bringing back the old and throwing away the new?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege always to rise in the House of Commons, but sadly Bill C-9 is coming to a conclusion with most likely its passage and I would like to speak against the bill for a number of different reasons.

It is an omnibus bill, so it is a bill that has several additional chapters added on to it. The government has chosen the Americanization of our legislature in many respects. It is similar to state and Congress bills that have riders and pet projects that are added to pass legislation in the United States. What has happened here is that cabinet ministers' pet projects and agendas are moved separately.

I am going to spend a lot of time talking about the bill, but I am not going to necessarily attack the Liberals. I am hopefully going to appeal to the Liberals and the progressive forces who are there to come forward, to change their ways, and vote against the budget.

The reality is that the Conservative government will not fall on this with the G8 and G20 coming. To declare these things as confidence, Canadians would be upset in many respects. Normally those issues that we are talking about should be going to legislation and should have the full debate.

This is a high water mark in terms of what is happening to Canadian democracy and also the repercussions of what is being proposed. I have already seen this.

I saw the thousands of jobs that have been lost, as well as thousands of workers thrown out on the streets in the strike, for example, at Vale Inco in Sudbury. The government changed the Investment Canada Act through a previous budget document, which has now resulted in a foreign takeover that is locking workers out from a fair deal, whereas we could have had a significant difference had that legislation gone through the normal process.

Viewers across the country really need to understand that the government has grouped together and piled on a series of significant social policy changes that are even outside the scope of the discussion of whether or not we should be building fake lakes, whether we should be spending money on employment insurance, whether we should be giving corporate tax cuts, or whether we should be increasing pensions and the politics around that.

This is about a further add-on of legislative changes in hundreds of pages that do not receive accountability. They do not get the input of Canadians. They are excluded from that, whether they are the individuals sitting at home who want to contribute when the government talks about changing Canada Post, who live in a rural community and perhaps would be losing that service, or whether they are in the city and dealing with smog and the environment, or whether they work for an organization actively trying to push for change to public policy. They are being denied the right and usual process in the House to change our ways about doing things.

We are also missing, which sometimes happens in the House, resolutions at the table, with debate in the House, and at committee with witnesses and all those things.

The Liberal Party, by not making a stand on that, is providing this window of opportunity for basically a bully government to get its way, to change public policy through the back door. It is afraid to do that and knows it cannot do that through the democratic process democratically that we normally have.

That is a significant departure from what we have had in the past. We have had this happen a couple of times recently with the Conservatives with regard to the Investment Canada Act and we have seen the hollowing out of the country. We have seen the debacles that have resulted with U.S. Steel, and as I mentioned, Vale Inco. As well, we have a series of divestments in the mining industry that otherwise would have had greater scrutiny.

We have seen the loss of Nortel. That is all because the Investment Canada Act was changed without due process. Pensioners were ripped off, employees have lost their jobs, and we have lost the opportunities of RIM, for example, to become a greater Canadian iconic company that could have brought in some of the technology from Nortel because the government changed the process and created a new process without diligence.

We have seen that happen with the Immigration Act. Canadians are upset about the Immigration Act no matter which way they feel about it. The Conservative government is responsible because it has been fiddling with it without having the proper process.

That is what is unacceptable. It is a watershed moment when it decided to pile it on even further and farther which will cost significantly down the road when we look at the Environmental Assessment Act that is going to be changed.

If we do not have the proper process in place or accountability, if people peddle their pet projects or get permission to avoid the process, we could end up hurting our economy and the environment, and I have seen that happen before.

I saw the government's short-natured approach when we looked at the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It was changed in a budget bill. We heard significant uproar from native fishermen, anglers, and a series of other groups who had no opportunity to consult.

Now the government has decided to up the ante. We just need to look at what the government is going to do with AECL, our nuclear power industry. It is important to note that 30,000 value-added jobs are in this industry in Canada. AECL has demonstrated that it is one of the most reliable operators in the world. It has demonstrated that it can actually be a progressive force for nuclear energy, but also making sure that it is not connected to weaponization.

AECL has led the way in many respects and it is now going to be sold, probably to the lowest bid. The government is desperate and it is trying to make up for the deficit. Everyone knows that so bids will come in low. That is unacceptable because billions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been invested in AECL.

I come from the auto industry. That industry has seen the loss of many value-added jobs. The manufacturing sector has lost many value-added jobs. The forestry sector has lost many value-added jobs. The effect is not only the bang at the moment when people are sent home and do not know what their future will hold but it also has an echo effect on the community, when their EI runs out or when they no longer have a pension or benefits so they cannot afford to send their kid to college or university.

We are undermining ourselves significantly by not doing the proper planning. It is frustrating when we see some of the things that are happening.

There is a big stink right now with regard to the $2 million fake lake, which is now being called a pavilion. Let me put some perspective on this $2 million lake that is being built in Toronto and is going to be filled in after the summit.

The government only has $8 million in this budget for the Great Lakes, the most important natural resource on this planet. It provides freshwater which is not only a commodity but essential to our everyday living and our farming communities. This is causing regional conflict across this country. It will be the new gold of the future.

The government is providing $8 million for the Great Lakes, yet in Toronto it will dig a hole, fill it with water, put out some Muskoka furniture, add some screens and some fences, and it is going to cost $2 million. This fake lake is probably going to get more money than Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and Lake St. Clair. It is going to get more than all the Great Lakes. This fake lake is getting $2 million and meanwhile $8 million has to be divided up even though we know freshwater is one of the most significant things that we have.

Lake levels are down right now and that is affecting our economy. We have already witnessed that fact. The shipping port through Windsor and that area is one of the busiest in the world. It has actually had to lessen the loads to make sure that they can actually get through. A whole series of other issues related to dredging are going to emerge. Environmental contaminants occur as a result of dredging. We will lose the use of our waters, whether we use them for pleasure, recreation or the economy.

What do we get from the government in this budget? We get $8 million for that and $2 million will go toward something that will be dug out, filled with water, carved up, and then three or four days later be filled back in.

We have to borrow this money as the government has raked up a record deficit. We will have to pay interest on that money. Whether it be the money for corporate taxes, the tens of billions of dollars that will have to be raked over until 2014, whether it be $6 billion for implementing the HST, we will have to pay interest on that.

Everything we do right now counts because we do it at a premium. We do it at an extra cost, and interesting to note is that it is being done on a credit card. The government's solution is to try to change the channel.

I ask the Liberals to think about this because it is significant for our economy and for our democracy. Now is the moment to call the government on the carpet.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Outremont for his intervention here today. It is very important to include the manufacturing sector, as well as what is happening with the dollar and the petro-economy.

One of the things that has not been touched upon yet but one which I would like him to expand upon is the insanity of borrowing this money for record corporate tax cuts, money we will be paying interest on for generations. Let us look at the HST, the $6 billion bribe to be brought in. I had independent economists estimate over 10 years the average borrowing rate of the government and they estimate it is will cost anywhere between $8 billion and $10 billion after interest, if we can pay it off in 10 years.

I would like the member for Outremont to talk a bit about the fact that we will continue to pay interest to provide this privilege. This is something that George Bush did in the United States and it has hollowed out the American economy quite a bit. That will continue to hollow out our economy as we pay a premium, not just with regard to the general corporate tax cut now, but the interest in the future of that actual cost.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to table a petition on Bill C-393 regarding the reform of Canada's access to medicines regime.

Fourteen thousand women, men and children die every day from infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV and AIDS. This country has yet to fix Canada's access to medicines regime which was created a number of years ago, back in 2003, which still has not helped provide access to low cost medicines for those abroad. We are literally letting children, women and men suffer unnecessarily.

The petitioners call upon Canada to reverse its policy and to become a contributor to the health and well-being of those individuals as opposed to ignoring them.