Brian Masse

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. First, when we talk about a humane and compassionate manner, let me say that persons with disabilities just want to be treated like anyone else. That is what they are really asking for. This $950 is to offset some of the additional challenges because of the barriers we in our society have created. We are the ones who created the extra barriers by not having accessible transportation, by not investing our public funds in it for so many years. We are the ones who have created architecture that is a barrier to people. That is what we are talking about: being able to eliminate those extra costs they incur on a regular basis.

With regard to the specific number in terms of walking, we should go about it in terms of whether walking is relatively impaired or whether there is difficulty from time to time. It does not have to be 50 metres. What it has to be, medically, is that they have difficulty with ambulatory transportation by themselves. I think that is the way that we should approach this issue. We do not have to look at 50, 51 or 49 metres. We should open that clause so that people who have a difficult time with ambulatory movement and have to use some of their income to purchase some offsetting means for it are the ones who receive the credit.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about the process and the way the government is going. I am not sure whether it is meanspirited, whether it is ignorant or whether a lot of people on the government side have not done their work and maybe will look at this matter, hear from the public and join us in opposition to this meanspirited attack.

A few moments ago a comment was made regarding whether we can make a visual judgment as to whether or not an individual is disabled. That is a lot of the problem. People are making assumptions. They are drawing conclusions. They have no knowledge or understanding of or respect for those individuals who have muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia, psychiatric disorders, cerebral palsy or AIDS. We cannot judge just by looking at them, and we should not be doing it anyway, but that is what we in the House are reduced to. That is the insinuation: that one can make a diagnosis on the spot as to whether a person should get money or not. We are talking about $950. It is $950 and we are talking about whether they should be taught self-reliance or self-respect.

I have news for members. The disabled population in Canada is overrepresented in terms of lower income and overrepresented in terms of unemployment. I can tell the House this because I spent seven years as a job developer for persons with physical disabilities and also for persons with developmental disabilities, at two fine organizations that were underfunded. We actually were able to save taxpayers money by helping people get off assistance by working part time or full time, but during that process those individuals incurred additional expenses. If they had to go to work and could not use public transit because it was not accessible, they had to take cabs. These people did not have timeframes that allowed them to use Handi-Transit or other types of accessible transportation systems that ran on a regular basis. They needed systems at alternative times, so they had to take cabs to get to and from work.

There are all kinds of personal support needs required as well and we are talking about $950. We are not talking about something that is a luxury for people. We are not talking about something they can claim because they went on a corporate golf outing or to a sporting event somewhere and were able to write it off. This is not a choice. It is not their choice to be disabled. This is something people have to deal with and we should be supporting them. It is not about making them feel that they have to be more self-reliant. They understand that. They do not want to be a burden to their community or to Canada. They want to contribute and participate.

The process we have gone through is clearly a mess. Anybody across the country who is watching this debate realizes that the comprehensive platforms or tax issues that have been put forth to persons with disabilities are barriers. This is not working for them. The application process is something else again. It is dehumanizing to these individuals to have to go to a doctor again and have him or her reaffirm that they are disabled. It is not something they want to do. They do not want to go back to their doctor to prove again that they are disabled.

I have a letter from one of my constituents, who states:

I have used a cane since I was 62. I have a damaged balance organ because I was given massive doses of Genomycin when I had a ruptured appendix. It made no difference that I used a cane or walker--as long as I could walk 50 metres, I was refused. Over the years I have also developed spinal stenosis and diabetes, which is treated with insulin and metformin. I am certainly much worse than I was 14 years ago.

This is somebody who was collecting the disability tax benefit when she was 62. She is now 76 and has been denied that tax benefit, so somehow age has improved her condition. I just cannot believe that.

In my excitement to get started, Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser. I apologize for not noting that at the beginning of my speech.

In general, we have to look at persons with disabilities in our society and this tax credit is something that could facilitate their inclusion. That is an improvement. The tax credit will provide people with the means to offset their actual incidentals so that they can be more involved in society, involved in employment and in social activities and all kinds of different things. That is why the tax credit is so important. It is a tool. It is a means necessary for them to be able to achieve some of their goals.

With regard to some other situations we have seen, I believe that is the reason why this has been an emotional debate in the House and I think it is one of the reasons why we have to look at this issue. The government has claimed to be opening the tax bracket for many other people, such as the capital gains tax. We heard a recent report involving the return of $1 billion to people because of capital gains tax differences and we are talking about $950 per person. That will not come anywhere near the billion dollars. What about the GST and not closing in those gaps? What about all the uncollected revenue because it chooses not to go after people? One could go on and on.

In the parliamentary subcommittee hearings that were reported in March, 2002, members were unanimous in what they recommended. They also showed a teamwork initiative that should be respected in the House. The amendments clearly defined that there was a participation point for persons with disabilities and one for the agencies that represented them. They said clearly that they wanted to have changes that were more inclusive and they did not want there to be a restrictive element, but that is what has happened.

My local constituency has been really affected by this. Petitions, forms and letters keep coming in on a daily basis. We get more and more examples.

Another gentleman came to see me just the other day and I talked to him. He has cerebral palsy. It is a lifetime condition. He has extreme difficulty with walking and a staff member saw it when he came into the office. His form mentioned the 50 metre rule in terms of the walking distance. On some days he is able to do it, but on most days he is not. The doctor is in a quandary in terms of whether he can or cannot walk 50 metres. Some doctors would say yes and when that happens, people would get disqualified. But it is not all the time, so how can they? Also, where does this 50 metres come from? Why is it not 49? Why not 51? Can anybody answer that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

This issue is something that is very important to Canadians in general and to society. A number of disabled persons have had challenges over the years. It is something we need to change. We need to be more inclusive. I know that a number of opposition backbenchers have been talking about the troubles that they have had with this in their local offices. There are 30,000 people who are affected by this right now. It is the unknown quantity, the unknown element,that makes it difficult. People are waiting for the shoe to drop, so to speak, with regard to their tax credit. When they have to reapply, it is an additional cost for them. It is also a gamble because if they do not get it, then they are not reimbursed for the doctor's costs and the medical costs. That is something that is very traumatic. It is also about their sense of security.

For those reasons, we need to have this motion debated and, more important, we need to have it implemented. I think the will is out there. I am hoping that people will not draw conclusions and that they will assist in at least maintaining the status quo, while at the same time the government is opening up breaks for big business, corporations and other people.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today with regard to integrity. The government has used that word a number of times. However we have to look at the broader issues.

The government introduced a litany of small piecemeal tax credits with regard to persons with disabilities. However over the last 10 years my community has had increased employment challenges. We have had a widening of the gap in terms of our standard of living and additional challenges.

Within the hon. member's community, does he think there has been integrity in this process? Is he seeing more vulnerable Canadians in his community similar to those in mine of Windsor West where this government has not addressed the general issue of disability? This tax credit is really an attack when the government is widening the scope of people's ability to have tax exemptions and capital losses. It is focusing all those things on one small group. I would like to ask the hon. member how he feels about integrity in this process.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question in the sense of the definition of the actual bill. There are a lot of discrepancies that can happen through its actual interpretation. It is a good point that has to be taken in mind. We have to have clarity with some of those issues. If they are not vetted through this process, it will lead to more confusion than we have seen through immigration, citizenship and the actual application process. It is something that has to be debated thoroughly with regard to the clear definitions of how things are constituted and how they will be applied. If that does not happen, the bill will fail again.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is a good one. It poses a philosophical challenge in terms of thinking about what has taken place over the last few months in Windsor.

I live on Elm and University, about a block away from the Detroit River. I can look down my street and see the Detroit River. It is a multicultural, working class neighbourhood.

What is interesting is that when I walk down the street to our beautiful waterfront and look across to Detroit, Michigan, one of the buildings I see is the Rosa Parks Tower. Rosa Parks, as we know, was someone who fought for civil liberties because of the experience of hate, racism, bigotry and all those different things.

I look at the towers standing on the Detroit waterfront. It is very empowering because they have been there for many years and they signify something very special.

Rosa Parks' commitment and her dedication to fighting for some of these issues are being challenged nowadays and it is by the same country which I think has forgotten that it is not about the colour of a person's skin. but it is about the content of an individual and his or her ability to participate, to be a functioning member. More important, it is about the belief in building a country in which one should not be judged by the colour of one's skin. Unfortunately, we are seeing that in Windsor. We see other groups and organizations that will be sucked into this vortex. It is very meanspirited. It is very disconcerting, the ability to do it.

I am an Ontarian, a Windsor resident. When the atrocities were committed by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma bombing, he was from Michigan and I did not assume that anybody who came from Michigan was a terrorist. I did not assume that he represented the general population at large. I did not draw any conclusion or make any specific reference to that. I feel more of a sense of solidarity for fighting back against horrible people like that who create atrocities on all of us.

It is unfortunate what is happening right now at our border. It is not just the economic issue of people being able to go back and forth and being able to trade. There are social and cultural elements as well. We have a great symbiotic relationship with the city of Detroit which is only two miles across from Windsor in terms of the border. It is a very special relationship. I would like to see that relationship protected and enhanced.

We are seeing a wonderful revitalization of downtown Detroit. It has very special connotations for the whole nation. We play a good role on our side. However the current situation is making it very difficult and it is setting us back in many respects. More important, more people are fighting back on this issue and they will not give up because it is not about what one looks like, it is about who one is as a person.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-18. When we talk about citizenship, it is one of those inherent rights that is a privilege as well as an important process of involving oneself in society. People receive the opportunity to vote and receive a status that was granted to other people who have been here for many years, decades as well as generations. Citizenship is an inherent process that has to be taken seriously.

This bill is another attempt to improve the process and there are actually some improvements in the bill that the government should be commended for. I have some reservations with some other points and I want to discuss them now because this will be an important debate as we move along during this process.

The hon. member before me had mentioned some specific negative cases that are serious with regard to citizenship and immigration. However to give a balance in terms of what else is out there, we have recently seen many immigrants become citizens and contribute quite profoundly to the formation of this country not only in the past but even currently.

We can look at authors such as Rohinton Mistry, who is a nominee for the Giller prize. During his book tour he was recently harassed at the American border because of his ethnicity, despite the fact that he is a Canadian citizen. He is contributing quite profoundly to the arts, culture and economy of Canada and is a good example of bringing people forward who can contribute. Our own Governor General, for example, is someone who has become a Canadian citizen and is contributing quite well to the Canadian public discourse and service.

Those people cannot be forgotten. That whole process must be scrutinized very significantly. We are talking about a process where by we are building a country because our current birth rate is deficient in renewing itself in a healthy manner to sustain ourselves in terms of our quality of life, our economy, and the way that we can function in the world.

Canada's population has now reached 30 million people. Census data shows us that the main source of Canada's population growth between 1996 and 2001 was immigration. It is something that I have concerns about in terms of a nation. We must have a healthy policy to bring in new citizens and have the resources available because I believe other government policies are affecting our birth rate and ability to sustain ourselves.

A good example is the debate that recently took place with regard to student and youth issues in our country, They are having to go to school much longer in life. They are offset with significant financial burdens that have been profound and have developed at rates much higher than the rate of inflation and the cost of living. They have had to delay their marriages, families and other opportunities and that has contributed to some of the problems we have.

Youth these days often work two or three jobs to be able to sustain family development. That has had a result with regard to our population growth. Nevertheless, that is what makes Bill C-18 so important in terms of getting it right and renewing our numbers in this country.

One of the things that is important to recognize in Bill C-18 and has not been talked about very much in the discussions I have heard but raises some concern with me are the fees that are increasing. Working formerly at the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County I have had the opportunity to work with refugees, landed immigrants, as well as new citizens. There is an increasing financial burden on those people coming into our country. It is taking a toll on their ability to live with dignity and, more importantly, to get on their feet, qualify for certain educational or training programs and get into the economy in a full capacity that is going to lead to their contribution to our country in a meaningful manner.

The fees for actual citizenship would be increasing. It would be $200 for an adult and $100 for children. There is no distinction. For example, a family consisting of two parents and two children would now pay $600 more. This is similar to some of the fees of the past, namely the head tax on landed immigrants. It is something that has been substantially added to the process where people must pay thereby creating another financial burden. It is like, “Welcome to Canada, you are now in debt”. That is a big problem because we must provide the opportunity for people to contribute back into society quickly and readily. Having a debt load will not encourage people to pursue the educational aspects necessary to be productive and invest in other options such as training or the things they need to be successful in our country.

Another issue that gives me some concern is the changing role of the commissioners. The decision making process is being taken from them. I would rather see that as opposed to a potential patronage appointment. Perhaps local communities could get involved in terms of selecting a commissioner who would be someone who is responsive to their community and has been involved there for many years. Some of the commissioners who are doing that now are actually from those backgrounds. I would like to see the ownership happen from the bottom up in terms of the community having access to the commissioner and being able to participate in that process.

Through my program I have seen youth come through and find training programs or go back to school. Eventually those with landed immigrant status got their citizenship. One of their proudest moments is to have the opportunity to be able to swear allegiance in the ceremony. To have some specific local connection is very important. Having the bottom up approach for the selection would be much more advantageous.

Another interesting aspect to the bill is the new oath. I will read the new oath for the general public so it understands what new citizens are saying with regard to their commitment to Canada. It states:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country’s rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen

Our country must ensure that it is not a rhetorical comment back, something that is not going to be met on the other side without the full support of our community and government. That is something that sadly enough has happened with some qualified people coming to our country who have the credentials that are necessary but are not allowed to practise their skills.

In Windsor we have many people who are physicians or engineers. They have a number of different professional credentials and they cannot practise their educational skills, qualifications and investments that they have made in themselves to be fully productive. When they take that oath the government should be mindful that it needs to provide the appropriate bridging mechanisms so that these people can be successful and also have a country that believes in them as much as they believe in their new country.

There is a new program called clear residency requirements. I have some reservations with regard to that process. There are different individuals and they have to spend three to six years here, but at the same time if they are students, visitors or temporary workers they only get a half day for every day they are in Canada. I have some reservations about that particular aspect of the program.

Students studying full time might become immersed in their studies. They become very involved. They are paying significant tuition. As well as that they are paying an advanced tuition if they are from outside the country. They can fall in love with this country. I know that has happened. One just has to go to the university and one will find people who have come here who truly fall in love with this country. They are dedicated full time students. They are involved and volunteering. Why are they getting a half day? I do not know why that was decided. Why not a quarter? Why not an eighth? Why not a full day? That is important when they are making a significant financial commitment to our country and it should be recognized. It is also a cultural and educational commitment.

I do not understand why half days are imposed on students. It really takes from the momentum of them graduating as, for example, Canadian citizens after spending three or four years getting an undergraduate degree and maybe a graduate degree after that. They would only be enhanced. It also takes away from the business argument. We have seen what is happening at our border right now where even Canadian citizens are being harassed by the United States because of their background and race.

Specific people who are being targeted have come to my office in Windsor. It is not right or fair for them to be targeted, because they are Canadian citizens.

I will use students as an example. They have gone through the programs and have met the education criteria and are ready to contribute. They might have the opportunity to do business elsewhere in terms of living in Windsor and working in Detroit. A lot of that actually develops, which is healthy for the Canadian economy because they are bringing in new wages and taxes, and they are advancing themselves.

Having Canadian citizenship is so important for them to be able to do that. I would like to see that advanced. It could actually help their business and development growth. The recent border problems really illustrate the need to have the foresight to protect people who invest in our country and contribute.

That situation in itself is really interesting. There are doctors, lawyers, and other people who go over just to visit family. They have lived here for 10 and 20 years and they are being fingerprinted and photographed. There are individuals whose family members have been detained for over two hours, and their young children sleep on the floor in the United States office, and they are not able to get back into Canada. They have done this when they wanted to get into the U.S. Then when they want to come back to Canada, they have to go through this process. I do not know how their fingerprints are going to change over a matter of hours. Nonetheless that has been happening.

We should really support those people who get this type of responsibility and make this oath to Canada. One of the reasons I feel so strongly about the residency concerns relates to the fact that we are going to lose opportunities for people because they will still be waiting with an unknown status. It is bad enough that the dual citizenship of Canada is not always respected right now, but it will be even worse for those who actually have a graduate degree, who have been paying taxes in Canada and who have been contributing to this country. They might be made more vulnerable because they happen to be students. I do not think that is right.

With regard to the rest of the bill, it does have some positive elements with regard to the opening up of second generation Canadian families born in other countries. We see a lot of that. Reconnecting the family unit is very positive. It is something in which we need to invest, in terms of making sure there is access for people to bring people forward who are going to contribute. They have the actual wherewithal and more important, they have the support not just within the extended family but also within the business community and this makes our communities strong.

Windsor has 94 different ethnic communities. That makes us the second most diverse area, outside of Toronto. It is a healthy environment with people supporting people. We need to recognize that having the family unit strengthened is a value that we have currently in Canada and it is one we want to extend as we develop the citizenship portfolio for people.

With regard to the actual bill itself, my concerns have been expressed. I look forward to further debate on it before making my personal decision about supporting the bill. There need to be some changes. There need to be some improvements. It is something that at least has been worked on. It has failed in the past but I am hopeful that this time we can work on some of these problems and accomplish some benefits.

We really do not have time to waste in the sense of making sure that our citizenship and immigration is something that thrives. Our other government policies certainly are making it difficult for Canadians to have a strong birth rate that will sustain our economy.

[Border Security, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on September 25 the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario launched a 60-day process to determine the best use of $300 million to alleviate the border problems in Windsor. We looked forward to an open and accessible process that would have the best interests of the community in mind. That is not happening. The joint management committee will not hold a single public meeting. The integrity of the process is also in question.

Can the acting Prime Minister tell us if the Minister for International Cooperation has used her office to influence or interfere with the integrity of the process and will there be a public meeting before decisions are made?

[Automobile Industry, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Industry responded to my question on the need for an auto policy by saying he “convened a sector council”. That meeting was in June. His answer to how he was protecting one in seven Canadian jobs, he said not to worry, that he had talked to some people four months ago.

People are worried. In fact more than 20 Ontario mayors have called on the minister to meet with him to discuss a new auto policy. The mayors have joined the CAW and the big three and it seems that everybody is on side. In fact the list of those who do not understand seem to have dwindled to one, the industry minister himself.

Will the minister commit today to finally taking some real action and agree to meet with the mayors in December? Yes or no.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, sitting in between the two hon. members, it was much like watching a tennis match left and right. My neck is sore from the last five to ten minutes of debate, but at least it was lively.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about Bill C-3. I have some concerns with regard to the bill, as do my New Democratic colleagues. There are three main points I would like to talk about.

The first is the lack of rules with regard to pension funds and how they would be administered, monitored and where they would go. The second is that there does not seem to be a comprehensive business plan for such a large investment that is really in a public trust through the Canada pension plan and the historic relevance to Canadians. The third is just outright bad timing, looking at the market right now. If a person's house were on fire, the person would not rush the furniture back inside the house.

This is very bad timing. We have seen tremendous upheaval and losses in markets. They will be rushing public funds, suitcases full of Canadian taxpayers' money, into the fire and making them very vulnerable at a time when the market needs to straighten itself out.

The Canada pension plan is one of those pillars in Canada and in the free world with regard to securing some type of relevance and more important, some type of stability for one's working commitment and then having the ability to retire with security. It is about the ability for a person to pay for his or her housing, food and clothing and to participate in a meaningful social life once the person has completed his or her term of service in the workplace. That is something that is being put at risk with regard to this particular amendment.

That is one of the reasons the timing element is so critical. By 2012 there will be $120 billion to $150 billion that will be put into the basic domain and at risk. That is a concern because that growth is something that should be secured as opposed to potentially put at risk at this particular time.

Today we saw the release of an ethics package by the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians are yearning for more ethical conduct in Parliament. As well they are looking for more ethical conduct in the business community. We have seen the recent scandals. A few examples are Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen, where there has been clear void of ethics in terms of reporting their financial earnings, what their business plans have been and what their actual profits were. That is a real concern. That is no different from the ethics issue in Parliament.

Canadians feel really uncomfortable with the current conditions and the treatment by the business community in business practices that have cost them earnings that they and their families have worked for. They have put that in the trust of investment and they have not had returns but have had significant losses. I do not think there have been many people who invest in the market who have not been affected by some of these things. Some of it is poor ethical behaviour on behalf of corporations. They have boards of directors too and some of them may not have been aware of all the things that were happening with their prospective businesses.

That brings me to the appointment of the 12 member board. There does not seem to be a clear process with regard to the appointment being independent. It is going to be a patronage system. It is not going to be representative of the public trust, being the actual pensioners and their earnings, citizens or different types of representative organizations. They are going to be appointments. That is not very fair and that is not proper. More important, it is going to lead to some very questionable practices.

Even if the 12 members are selected in earnest, their decisions in terms of the financial investments could have ties with regard to patronage or government contracts, all of those things. Whether it is intentional or unintentional, it casts a cloud of concern or at least ill repute over the whole process. We need to make sure that the Canada pension plan is one that is above reproach.

Canadians want to feel comfortable that their pension and future are tied significantly to a process that is pure, pristine and proper and not one that can be evolved through patronage appointments and basically who the appointees supported and how they contributed. That is the potential element with regard to the process that is underway.

We have had in this last stock market year 14% to 33% losses where normally we would have had 8%. Once again the timing is bad. We know that there is volatility. We know it is not resolved.

We know that the United States is having a difficult time with its economy. The latest projections are that it will actually have to borrow money. It will be in a deficit and it will have to borrow money to give tax incentives back to its citizens. We know that the market might be connected toward its productivity in terms of Canada and that makes us more vulnerable.

One of the concerns we have is the 30% in foreign ownership and once again the lack of rules with regard to the process. I quote from the actual document:

Our legislation specifically prohibits us from engaging in any investment activities other than maximizing investment returns....The policy further states that we will not accept or reject investments based on non-investment criteria.

That is very disconcerting because we could have the potential of no screening of where the money in the funds goes. We could actually prop up businesses as well as products that are harmful to the objectives of the Canadian government and Canadian people, whether it be sweatshops, arms production or any of the child labour situations that we have seen evolve. There will not be that due process and the board will not focus on that either. That will not be a criteria.

If Canadians had the reverse happening to them, where we had other investors propping up investment opportunities in Canada that had significant economic and social impacts on our communities, we would not feel very comfortable about it. I think that role by Canada would be very shameful if we had situations evolve where we had business investments made on the backs of immoral or questionable practices just so that we could extract a couple of percentage points more out of the system.

With regard to the opportunities that are facing the country, the challenges also lead to opportunities. With some of the funds there could be more of a focus on the municipal bonds programs or the Ontario bonds program. I note they do not pay the same rates of return as other opportunities but there is one taxpayer and the fact is that if we do not achieve the full result from the actual investment in terms of maximizing profit with maximized return, we will have stability. There are plenty of infrastructure opportunities to build our economy and to build our business community through the bond system.

I know municipally we have always sold bonds and they have been sold out within a day or two. They present anything from 6% to 7% at times for the actual return which is solid in terms of the inflation rate. It also provides an opportunity for the municipality to retrieve long term vision and goals so that we are able to build society, a community and advance our future business plans as a people.

We have to keep that in mind because there is only one taxpayer. Perhaps in getting a sense of security we would lose a couple of points. We could save because we know that even in the last results the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board lost $1.5 billion on stocks, just from April to June. We know that the money could have been paid off through lending to municipal projects or provincial projects that were actually offering successful rates of return. It is actually a win-win.

There is a real problem with regard to the bill and the lack of public participation. We have a problem with regard to the actual reporting of the board. It has 12 members. We know that they will be selected by the minister and they are going to be above reproach.

We have a situation where the fund will be up to $150 billion by 2012 and there will have been only four board meetings accountable to the public by then, one every two years. We will have $150 billion potentially and the board will only have to report to Parliament and to the citizens of Canada four times. That is incredible. It is an incredible public trust on people who are appointed through a patronage system and I do not think it is proper. It is shameful because it puts this situation at risk.

Canadians are looking for more stability now. We have our situation with our health care, our pensions and with regard to deciding upon where we want to move forward with social planning. We do not want to put things further at risk. For that reason, I cannot support this bill. I believe it should be turned down by the government, especially in the time frame we have right now.

[Automobile Industry, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government sat and watched the Auto Pact die and the industry slide into crisis. The CAW, the big three and municipalities are calling for a federal auto policy. Last week Navistar Chatham announced the closure of its truck plant. It is moving to Mexico. At almost the same time a Windsor plant was proposed by DCX with a request for federal support. All the Minister of Industry can say is that our health care system is incentive enough, the health care system he and his government gutted.

Can the minister explain why he is so intent on screwing up our auto industry, just like he did our health care system?