Brian Masse

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from the industry committee on a very good speech. He is often very articulate, passionate and well researched. In fact, this is the most relaxed I have seen him, so he must have had a good holiday.

I have two questions. I understand that this is a good bill for workers and their families, but other employers in Ontario have come to me asking for the same type of standards or practices that could be enforced when they want to do the right thing for workers by investing in health and safety. They see their competitors who undermine that by taking shortcuts and not having any enforcement, and are able to get a competitive advantage.

I wonder whether members are hearing the same type of comments in Quebec because it is something I hear. It is not just about the workers. It is about employers who want to do the right thing and their business plans are undermined by those who want to take shortcuts.

My second question is in relation to fines. Currently, the government has a practice of fines on environmental matters which are allowed as a business expense and companies are able to recover a good portion of those fines through tax deductions.

Does the member think that is a good situation or a bad situation? Personally, I do not think that is right. I think there are ethical issues and the practice must be changed. I would hate to see this type of situation develop where a fine can be tax deductible. Does the hon. member agree or disagree with that?

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to follow up with the concern that this bill will die a third death, will not get passed, and we will have thousands of Canadians who will not get due process in a very just way.

One of the concerns was that the incoming Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, has set an example where he has decided to fly his ships and operate his business with different flags that have different labour practices and employment wages. It sets an example and I would ask for a comment on that, whether or not that is something that will be part of this mix, and will it ensure the proper political support?

We hear a lot of discussion about other issues but nothing about this one and that gives me great concern.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add to this debate. I believe this is important legislation that needs to be pressed forward.

In the Windsor area, and in Chatham in particular, in this last year we have seen a difficult situation. Navistar International trucks actually had a strike. They brought in strikebreakers and a company from the United States for security. Approximately two miles away from the actual site location where the strike was happening, a worker, Mr. Milner, was run over by someone from the American security company. It has certainly had a big impact on his life and his family, as well as his future in terms of earnings, and it had a big impact on our community in terms of rallying against this type of practice and also in terms of corporate responsibility.

I would like to ask my colleague, as I recognize his long-standing commitment to this issue, what other things could happen over the duration of the next few years if this dies on the Order Paper again, and if we do not take the time and seize this opportunity to put this to bed and make sure we have the protection and the rules in place to have corporate responsibility. I ask him, if that does not happen this time, what is the potential for other things out there across the country?

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my last petition is to enact legislation that will provide legal recognition and protection of Canadian children from fertilization to their birth. There are approximately 300 names on that petition.

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition for same sex marriage, that marriage be restricted to being between one man and one woman. There are 27 signatures from my constituency on this petition.

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present deals with the issue of marijuana. I have approximately 70 signatures from my constituency for the legalization of marijuana.

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today and present a petition on behalf of the residents of Windsor West with specific reference to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the treatment of British products that are imported. They have been detained in Toronto because they do not have both official languages on the label although they are determined a specialty good.

There are actually approximately 1,000 people who petition that those goods be let into British stores in Canada and customers who want those goods.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, herein lies the interesting part of today's debate. It is the fact that the former finance minister has talked about a similar plan, either stealing it or at least borrowing it, and it does not deal with the sustainability element because there are ebbs and flows and a number of different things. The heart of the matter does at least try to acknowledge the fact that there is efficient infrastructure. People cannot get away from that.

In the last budget we have an amount that works out to be about $50,000 per municipality. What can a municipality do for $50,000? Is that sufficient or should more money be put in? When will that happen?

The current finance minister is at least now saying that it is a down payment, a very small down payment, probably about a 5% down payment on a home. The FCM has declared that it needs $57 billion in a deficit. I think under the current budget for the 10 years, it would take until the year 2193 to actually achieve that target.

When will the municipalities receive the proper financial support? It is hard to criticize when at the same time the tools are in front of the government and the member for LaSalle—Émard for 10 years never did give the financial support. When municipalities will receive their fair deal?

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I think that we do have a right-wing party being the Alliance and the Liberal Party and that is why the member for LaSalle—Émard has basically tried to steal this idea, I believe in many respects.

It is interesting the government's record on municipal infrastructure is certainly not there. The concern I have with the motion is that we still do not have sustainable long term funding. That is part of the problem. There could be ebbs and flows depending upon the tax ratio and the price of gasoline, all those things.

In the current budget there is a 10 year plan that provides only $50,000 per municipality. I would like to ask the member for Yukon who sits on the industry committee, what could he provide his community for $50,000 per year?

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and the facts do not play themselves out. I do not blame the hon. member; I think she has a canned speech.

I want to ask a question specifically on the Windsor gateway action plan. There was a government program set up between the federal and provincial governments, including a 60 day committee which took eight months. They deliberately kept the municipality out of the process so there was no partnership there.

Their recommendations are to work with two private proponents for a border crossing. They are not supporting the municipality's own border crossing, being the tunnel. They said they will work with the city to help do its own plan for the tunnel but will not provide funds for it, but they are going to provide funds for private corporations, the privatization of roads and services, with public money of $300 million.

They also left out the ferry service. The ferry service is a proposal that actually works to get trucks carrying hazardous materials off city streets so the municipality does not have to police them.

My question quite specifically is why was the municipality left out of the process? Why, unlike the private proponents, is it not going to receive money for its actual programs?