Brian Masse

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was good to hear the hon. member talk about the national crime prevention strategy because it is important for community capacity building. Perhaps with more investment and with more crime prevention in the agenda this will prohibit and stop situations like Groupaction and other scandals that we have seen over the last year.

Congestion and backups continue to be problematic at the border in Windsor West. This is a violation of NAFTA whereby goods and services are supposed to flow on both sides on an equal basis. The local Chamber of Commerce has noted that Americans are not staffing their border at the capacity they should to allow vehicles to go through, especially with security measures having been increased. In fact, a task force was set up by the government and one of the things it noted is the specific capacity with regard to staffing on the American side. They are actually back to 1992 levels.

Would the parliamentary secretary agree that we should have a written agreement with the United States to enforce NAFTA or go to dispute resolution to ensure that the border is staffed correctly so that goods and services trade equally on both sides of the border?

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to request an emergency debate on softwood lumber. It is very important that the House of Commons have the opportunity to debate the issue as there will be an announcement today. However there are many other issues that have not been vetted in this chamber.

With regard to the softwood lumber industry in general, there has been turmoil for the last year and a half and uncertainty in communities, as well as companies, with regard to the future of this industry and the importance it plays with regard to our economy.

Since 1996, the government has had the opportunity to take a plan of action to the people but it has not done so. In fact we know that the court case will be extending to 2004. There has been an exodus of companies from Canada, as well as citizens who have been laid off from their jobs. This morning we heard from another hon. member that five more mills closed.

There will be a media release today and we understand an aid package will be announced. We feel it is very important for this industry to have the opportunity to debate the issue in the House of Commons because it is of national concern.

Softwood lumber has contributed to the growth of a nation and the House of Commons deserves the opportunity to discuss the future of it. More important, the government's record and what it will do for the families and communities, as we have seen tremendous loss in this industry, is of such importance to Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this government has had since 1996 to deal with the softwood lumber issue.

Yesterday in the House the Minister for International Trade said “everyone knows, good progress continues to be made”. This morning we learned that Tembec, Canada's second largest lumber producer, is laying workers off and curtailing operations as a result of U.S. trade actions.

It would appear that the government considers the destruction of the Canadian softwood lumber industry and the resulting job losses as “good progress”.

Will the Minister of Industry commit today to implementing a plan of action to protect this industry and the jobs it provides until the Minister for International Trade finally manages to get this trade dispute resolved?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for his views regarding environmental protection and national parks. He believed that on page 7 the throne speech referenced the Toronto waterfront.

There is a Spring Garden in Windsor, Ontario which is one of the last remaining spots for tall grass prairie. It has endangered species like the massasauga rattler that needs to be protected. The federal government has played a minor role in terms of that preservation. The municipality is bearing the burden of it right now.

I do not see the Toronto waterfront and its protection referenced on page 7 of the throne speech. Does that mean we can expect in Windsor West, for example, that this ecological and biological spot significant to North America will be protected? Can I bring that back to my constituents?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear my colleague from Ontario talk about the importance of health care in the Speech from the Throne but it gives me great distress to hear some of the comments with regard to the lack of action by the government on health care since 1993.

In particular, the comments were “bringing in other practitioners from other countries.” Windsor West has a significant shortage in our community of practitioners in many of the different departments of health. On top of that we have issues with regard to foreign trained professionals who cannot practise in this country because of the lack of support received from the government. They are driving cabs, working in convenience stores and going into businesses.

Sadly, what is happening in our community is that many of them, hundreds in the medical professions, are going to the United States to practise. Ironically Canadians are often sent there to get services they cannot get here and they are practised on by people who are not recognized here by our own government. It is ironic and sad.

I would like to direct my question to the member with regard to specific timelines for these people with these current credentials and qualifications. Michigan state is moving toward reciprocity with regard to nurses, doctors and respirologists. What can they expect--

[Windsor, Ontario, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Windsor is the busiest and most vital crossing point between Canada and the United States.

The three crossings in Windsor play a significant role in business, social and political interactions for our nations. Sadly the residents of the area have been taken for granted.

Although the Minister of Transport did indicate that the government needs to move faster on a binational study to address border congestion, I am concerned that the government will not follow through with any real action on his words.

Compounding my concern is the lack of public consultation and the behind closed door meetings that have occurred, and may continue to happen.

I understand the Deputy Prime Minister has established a handpicked task force to report back to him by the end of July. Without being provided any information on the membership, mandate, terms of reference and specifics on the task force, I can only hope the process is open, inclusive and involves the public and city of Windsor residents who will pay the ultimate price for any recommendations from the panel. He should also act on the city's request for $1.2 million for immediate operational improvements to show good faith.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Anglican Church of Canada who reside in the Anglican diocese of Huron in the province of Ontario, I wish to submit a petition for the case of litigation involving the Mohawk Institute and the Anglican diocese. The petition calls upon parliament to resolve this issue of residential school litigation outside the court system before further ruin is brought upon the diocese of Huron and the Anglican Church of Canada, as $1.5 million has gone to legal fees already with no resolution to the situation.

[Steel Industry, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's inability to negotiate fair trade deals and respond to American tariffs continues to punish Canadian industry. Last March the U.S. president slapped tariffs of up to 30% on steel imports to protect its industry.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why does the government not listen to our steelworkers, take safeguard actions against dumping, including retroactive penalties,and support Canadian industry and jobs for a change?

[Automobile Industry, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while they are still planning and not reacting, they are hanging the families out to dry in this indifference. They seem to be content with the ignorance and they show equal indifference to the auto industry.

The auto industry is vital to the economy of Ontario and all of Canada. It has seen well over 15,000 jobs disappear in the past two years with more to come. Earlier this year the Canadian auto workers put forward a comprehensive strategy for the federal government to take action and protect auto jobs and the industry in Canada.

Will the minister take action to address the facing crisis or will he stand idly by as with the softwood lumber where he has done the exact same thing?

[Softwood Lumber, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement expired on March 31, 2001. More than one year later the government has had no success in negotiations having to desperately rely upon challenges of the WTO and NAFTA. These remedies could take to mid-2003 to reach a decision.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, so forth and so forth. On Friday the minister told the media that we would have to deal with the impact of softwood tariffs somehow. Aside from the marketing contracts that will benefit U.S. firms or Liberal fundraisers through media campaigns, will the minister invest in Canadian communities and families devastated by the government's inability to handle this trade dispute?