Brian Masse

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the budget bill as well as the immigration changes included in the bill.

Let me be clear. We in the NDP were attempting to negotiate with the Liberals to keep them in government with our deal on health care but they refused. We actually extended the opportunity to change the path they were moving toward and they refused to negotiate. They were behaving like the current administration.

When it came time to vote in the House of Commons, there were not enough NDP votes to prop up the Liberals because independent members voted against them. The Liberals cannot even do simple basic math. Surprise, surprise.

Liberals members want to blame everyone else for their misfortunes. At the end of the day, Canadians defeated their administration because they were sick and tired of the constant empty promises and most importantly, because they were sick and tired of the Liberals ignoring the greatest needs of Canadians.

We have been left with the current environment of Liberals continuing to feel sorry for themselves. They expect some empathy from Canadian citizens but at the same time they prop up the current administration for their own benefit without any type of hesitation whatsoever. They have been explicitly doing that under their current leader and will probably still do that under their new slate of leaders now sitting in the House. Liberal self-interest always comes first. Nothing has changed over there.

I once again remind the Liberals that they did not actually work in a forthright way to negotiate a change in health care. They brought themselves down.

I do want to speak to the government's current fiscal plan, which is a clear gutting of Canada's capacity. The slew of corporate tax cuts are once again being supported by the Liberals. This was originally started by the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is always missing from the House of Commons.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech.

I come from Windsor, Ontario, where we have suffered incredibly with manufacturing job losses. Not just this year but for the last four to five years we have seen a significant downturn. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in my community while government policy has been very much absent. People basically have to make decisions about whether to keep their homes or whether to send their kids to college or university. We have witnessed a downturn that is so significant it has undermined the fiscal capacity even of this country. We used to have economic earners that would contribute quite a bit to the tax coffers of this country.

We have not seen any government policy. We have been fighting this nonsense for a number of years, with the current Conservative regime and with the previous Liberal one, where they thought that if they just gave general corporate tax cuts without a strategy, we would see economic development and growth. That is not the case for the automotive industry. It is not the case for the tool and die and mould-making industry. The best on the planet, in Windsor, is actually going under because of the fiscal problems and the borrowing practices.

They are being undermined by the unfair competition of trade barriers, be it particular ones or non-tariff trade barriers that are implemented. They cost Canadians jobs, and they are the best in the world.

I listened to my colleague. He understands that have a corporate tax cut when companies do not make a profit does not help them rebound. The same holds true with research and development, if they do not have access to the grants that are available through the SR and D program. Because they did not make a profit, it does not lead to the changes that are necessary, or it does not provide the capital that they need to advance into alternative types of competitive industries, transforming, for example, from the auto sector to some other sector. They do not have that availability even to compete.

My question for my friend is simple. He sat on the plane thinking about this. Why does he not support his friend and vote against this budget bill so we do not undermine the fiscal capacity of this country and instead put in programs that actually work for him and his friend?

[Gasoline Prices, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, gas prices in Canada are on the rise again. As working families were taking their children to school this morning, gas stations across this country were jacking up prices at the pump. They cannot blame it on hurricane Katrina any more. This time it is speculators and profiteers fuelled by pure greed.

The Competition Bureau has proven useless on this file and has not protected Canadians. Canadians need a real solution: an oil and gas monitoring and regulatory system. Why will this Conservative government not get the job done?

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the government's position is to go on a case-by-case scenario to decide whether or not it will intervene in the case of a Canadian abroad who is facing the death penalty.

I would like to ask my colleague about this type of strategy. My concern is that we did not hear the parliamentary secretary outline a case about how the Conservatives would go about deciding who would be left behind and who would get advocacy. We also have not heard what that criteria might be and whether there would be a public policy. It will be interesting to see whether the Conservative government will actually table the rationale and the process that will be undertaken to identify who will receive support for advocacy or who will be abandoned.

I also was wondering what type of resources the government might actually invest on investigating a case that it may or may not advocate. Will the Conservatives actually put the proper resources in place to evaluate whether or not someone should get this advocacy?

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the case by case basis, what is the exact criteria the government uses to make that case by case status? I would like to hear specific criteria on how the Conservatives evaluate those who the will advocate for and those who they will abandon.

[Petitions, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions is related to animal cruelty. The petitioners are calling for changes to the animal cruelty laws, which have not been dealt with since 1892.

It is important to note that thousands of people in my area alone have signed the petition to update the animal cruelty laws.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh has been active on this case and we are looking forward to seeing him bring amendments to the Senate bill.

It is important to note that this law has not changed since 1892 and New Democrats have been pushing for more responsible animal cruelty legislation in this country.

[Petitions, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table two sets of petitions. The first set is on Bill C-476 and I am glad the member for Winnipeg Centre is here.

This bill addresses the charitable tax rate in this country. It introduces more generous tax deductions for those who give to charities. It mirrors the political tax credit which is very generous right now. The bill would revolutionize charitable giving in Canada. It would make it fairer and would treat charities the same as political parties.

As well, it is of interest to note that the government has actually reduced the charitable tax rate. It has actually gone in the opposite direction. Right now we have submissions from around 200 people on this issue.

[Automotive Industry, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to call upon this House to institute a national auto policy. The Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, continues to move the auto industry in the wrong direction and cost Canadian jobs.

The 2008 budget in particular adds taxes to the auto industry and eliminates funding for new technology and programs that could actually create green sustainable jobs.

Why does the government continue to pursue trade policies where we cannot actually ship our auto products into other markets because of tariff and non-tariff barriers put on Canadians?

I call upon the Liberals to stand up and stop this disastrous auto policy. The Minister of International Trade, was a Liberal before he crossed the floor. He said the Conservatives would kill the auto industry. Well, he is right and he is doing it with his colleagues right now.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary is about the automotive industry.

The minister and the government have cut the eco-auto rebate program. This was the incentive program of $116 million, a disastrous program that did not have an effect on the positive influence to buy vehicles.

We have a transition in the auto industry which is an opportunity to get greener technologies. At the same time the government is cutting the $116 million, it is going to keep in place the $50 million tax on the companies. It has rolled out a new program worth $50 million a year, but at the end of the day it has actually cut the automotive sector back by $8 million per year, and it continues to keep the $50 million tax in place.

What is the government preparing to do, given that the United States is going to be instituting loan guarantees and a series of other initiatives to secure the new green auto industry? The fact is that what we have shown is the government actually cut the $116 million, which the Minister of Finance did not roll over into initiatives, and it has only introduced a $250 million five year program, which once again will be funded by a tax on the industry itself.

[March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the minister himself has recently written to a number of different border operators, people in the community and so forth, one of them in particular being Mayor Bradley, and basically has said that it is up to them to figure it out for themselves.

That is unacceptable. We need to have at least some support from the minister to make sure that there is going to be the adherence of a policy for everything from emergency vehicles, as well as to fire and rescue and so forth. That reciprocal arrangement is very important from the leadership level because we have seen different departments in the United States basically run roughshod over the government.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has introduced new policies, and the American Department of Transportation and Homeland Security all at different times have introduced things without even consulting our government.

We need the Minister of Public Safety to live up to his words. He recently tabled a bill to amend the Customs Act and said, “Stopping illegal activity and protecting Canadians from threats to their health, safety and security is a key priority for this Government”.

If it is a key priority, why does the minister not show some leadership and make sure he is going to do it for all--