Brian Masse

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, over the last decade, the Liberal and Conservative plans for the manufacturing sector have been abysmal. When we look at the record, it was the Liberals, under the member for LaSalle—Émard, who introduced the notion of having a Korea trade agreement, which right now would cost our auto manufacturing sector. Ironically, the Liberal minister who was supposed to actually develop an auto policy, crossed the floor to the Conservatives and is now driving this home at the expense of our auto workers across the country.

Second, there is a connection with the Conservatives policy. The Conservatives have implemented a market policy under Transport Canada that is a feebate system, which is a tax on cars. Interestingly, it was done under the guise of incentivizing eco-efficient vehicles but it has done the exact opposite. The system they put in place is so flawed. Subcompact car sales have not gone down for those feebate vehicles. It is the same with the SUVs and large cars. It has had the exact opposite effect.

What is ironic is that right now auto workers are being laid off in Oshawa, Brantford and other parts of the country where their hard-earned tax-paying dollars are actually going overseas to subsidize those vehicles that are flooding into our market. We do not even have the ability to ship our cars back into places like South Korea. South Korean has put hundreds of thousands of cars into Canada's market while we have only put a few hundred into its market.

I would ask my colleague from the Bloc--

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the auto critic for the NDP, I have been pushing for a green auto strategy for a number of years, which is to have manufactured vehicles in Canada that were eco-friendly receive some type of incentive in a program that we outlined. Instead, the government has introduced a program, shockingly enough, that actually sends money to foreign nations.

For example, the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic, the Toyota Camry, the Nissan Altima and the Toyota Yaris are all made in Japan, and the list goes on and on. The Conservative government's program sends literally millions of dollars per vehicle annually to overseas manufacturers that are competing against Canadian manufacturers. We are watching our jobs disappear from Oshawa, Brantford and other areas.

Is this the type of program that the Bloc would support or would it be better to have an auto strategy that actually produces vehicles in our own country because we can control that? This program of watching Canadian taxpayer dollars going overseas is being celebrated in Tokyo City because they have millions of dollars coming onto their plant floors at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Would the Bloc rather see something actually done so the manufacturing of green autos is done in our own country?

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to ask a question of my Bloc colleague.

One of the interesting things that the Conservative government has done is to bring in a fee bate program against the automotive industry. This is a program which taxes vehicles, often manufactured in Canada, which may also provide a rebate for vehicles. It has not changed the trend with regard to purchasing fuel efficiency vehicles. The evidence from the automotive industry shows that.

An interesting part of this is that auto workers in Oshawa, Brantford and other parts of Ontario who are being laid off because of this situation are watching their taxpaying dollars go to companies that produce vehicles offshore. Companies based in South Korea or Japan which are flooding vehicles into Canada are receiving thousands upon thousands of dollars individually. Millions of dollars are going to those corporations that are then once again running workers in this country out of jobs.

What does my colleague think about a program that sends the tax dollars of hard-working Canadians to other countries which are then used in those countries' industries to make sure that we lose jobs over here? What does he think about that Conservative strategy?

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa did not talk about the feebate program. Right now, as his constituents are being laid off, their tax dollars are being paid into a feebate program that is sending money to South Korea, Japan and other parts of the world. His constituents are subsidizing auto jobs, which are taking jobs away from Canadians, and he has done nothing to stop it.

The member has also not addressed the fact that we still do not have a TPC program for the automotive industry. Quebec and Ontario have one for the aerospace industry, but nothing for the automotive industry.

My last point is really interesting when we hear the rhetoric that has come out of the member's speech. He mentioned that 21 out of 22 recommendations from the industry committee have been taken care of. I sat on that committee. He said the number one recommendation had been fulfilled, but it was not. It is fraud to suggest that it has happened. The recommendation was quite specific. It was for a five year capital cost reduction allowance plus a review for another five years. That is very important when it comes to the third, fourth and fifth year of investment.

How can that member get up in this chamber in front of his constituents and say that was delivered when it was not?

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's passionate pleas for the Conservative government. I wish Liberals would do that for Canadians as opposed to the Conservatives. That is what should happen in the House, not excuse after excuse for the government's inaction for consumers. They should be defending the interests of Canadians, not their Conservative cousins.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will not dare try to crawl into the context of the Liberal mind. It is far too scary, even on Halloween, to consider what is actually in that dark chamber.

However, what I have seen in the House is the Liberals being a sidekick to the Conservative government and providing it with all the unfettered tools necessary to bulldoze anything it wants down the general system.

The type of situation evolving here is one which I think the Conservatives are quite happy to be engaged in, quite frankly. At least something is happening on bills they had professed, brought forth and never really acted upon. Now they are coming to fruition at the expense, in this case, of Canadian consumers, of the Canadian public and our national infrastructure. The airline industry is very important for our future, not only in terms of passenger travel but also for cargo and the networks of multi-modal delivery that are so necessary in our modern economy.

I would argue that this is an opportunity for us to take a step back, fix the bill and approve the necessary changes to the accountability. Then Canadians will be far more content if we solve the problems of the bill.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

They enjoy deregulation and giving the corporate citizen a break all the time at the expense of hard-working Canadians.

This is counter to its own department. I am reading from a story on the report put out by the Department of Transport with regard to the regulatory process. It states that “cutting the audit program could increase the chances that certain problems won't be detected, that airlines will--

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that the Conservatives and the Liberals are ideological twins when it comes to this stuff.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for Winnipeg Centre. I note that he has obviously hit a root in the Conservatives. They certainly feel very sensitive, and so they should, because once this gets out even more, Canadians will understand that the Conservatives are now using the tools of the former government, tools similar to those of their cousins over there, who seem quite close to them these days as they work together as a majority government, in harmony and without any accountability aside from that in this corner of the House.

This is an issue I think Canadians will wake up to, especially if we see the development of problems that we could have fixed. It is interesting because even the U.S. is trying to deal with this issue. This NASA issue is very pertinent to what is happening here today.

I want to quote two headlines. USA Today states, “NASA refuses to disclose air safety survey”. CNN states, “NASA mum on plane data that might scare you”. Why? Because a confidential survey of 24,000 pilots across the United States found that aircraft near-collisions, runway interference and other safety problems occur far more often than previously recognized.

It is interesting that because of the way it was hiding this information and not coming forward, NASA actually had to issue a statement. Michael Griffin, NASA administrator, stated:

I regret the impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and will never be the case.

The reality is that it was backtracking because it put the industry first as opposed to consumers.

Very quickly, on the second question on access to information, it is unacceptable that CEOs and management will report less openly to the public. When consumers are paying with their own hard-earned cash, they deserve that information. They have paid for it. They should expect it.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to again speak to Bill C-7. As the debate resumes in the House, I want to wish Canadians a safe and happy Halloween. I also would like to take this moment to wish my son, Wade, and daughter, Alexandria, fun tonight. I will not be with them but a lot of Canadians will be out having fun tonight.

With regard to Bill C-7, it is important and ironic that we have been able to carry over the debate to today because there have been significant movement with regard to this situation, in the last few hours in fact.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has termed the bill the “unsafe skies act”, has been defending the interests of consumers and safety in this country by himself and is not getting any support in the last repertoire of debate between the Liberals and the Bloc.

It is important to note that today NASA actually had to come forward to the U.S. Congress with information showing there are far more safety issues out there than were ever recognized before. This bill would protect the interests of the industry, would remove accountability and it would not provide the security that is necessary.

The survey, which will be released by NASA, regarding pilots, which I will get into a little later, shows the amount of concern in the United States that this issue has in terms of airline safety.

I need to back up a little with regard to Bill C-7 so that those who are watching this debate understand the importance of why the airline industry needs the respect and the investment through Transport Canada and also the independence to be able to provide the type of supports and evaluation of safety and management risks that are so desperately needed.

We need to talk about a couple of facts. Canada actually has the second largest population of licensed pilots. We also have the second largest fleet of aircraft vehicles in the world. Right now there are more than 1,000 air operators carrying passengers across our skies. It is important to note that this is part of the national infrastructure. Our airline industry and how it supports passengers and cargo are very important to the future of economic prosperity.

The safety management system that the government is trying to introduce and which is being supported, although I cannot understand why, by the other parties, is something that loses the accountability aspect and will also threaten the viability of the industry if we actually have an erosion over safety and an erosion over the type of accountability that is necessary to ensure, first, that passengers feel confident in their airline services, and second, it does not address some of the issues that the airline industry faces that are challenges.

I did not get a chance to note the other day the fact that we in the industry committee have been studying a number of different intellectual property and theft issues. In my riding, the tool and die mould making industry, for example, we have seen parts from that industry replicated, ripped off and fraudulently put in automotive and aerospace products. That is important because what has ended up happening is some of those materials that are used are not validated or safe products.

In the industry committee we tabled a report on counterfeiting and we had evidence in front of us. It is not just the dollar store knock-off things happening out there. Hospitals in Canada is a good example where it was shown that one hospital actually had a circuit breaker that was supposedly CSA approved but it was a knock-off of a Canadian product.

In the past, we have seen aeronautic parts being used as part of the scam and scandals coming from overseas. These were not proper parts going into our vehicles. That was some of the evidence that we heard.

It is important to note that groups have said that the safety management system in Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-6, is problematic. We had a number of different witnesses before committee, but it is not just the witnesses who came forward who identified the problems in this industry and that there would be further problems, the department itself also said that.

There was an interesting report in the National Post entitled:

Report decries reduction of airline safety audits; Transport Canada reducing aviation regulations.

The government's own department actually identified that the assessment and risk in the industry would be increased. It disagreed with regard to the fact that a safety management system would be the best way to go. It identified that there would be further problems.

That is important because that validation is everything that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been saying. It also comes at a time when we see airline companies, like Air Canada for example, outsourcing some of their maintenance contracts.

What we are witnessing is a lack of accountability. When some of the maintenance contracts are outsourced, they are actually being moved overseas. What ends up happening is that we do not have the greater inspection, the accountability and the maintenance capacity. All those things become off jurisdiction and then Canadian passengers are very much put at risk.

I do want to move to the evaluation done by the NASA aviation system. This was big news in the United States. NASA actually did an independent survey of pilots across the United States related to everything from close calls to problems with the industry. When it completed the survey it would not release the results. In fact, under the freedom of information act, the Associated Press was able to get a hold of it but it took 14 months to get out. NASA at one time did not want to release the information because in its talking points on this, in terms of all the media, such as CNN and USA Today, it identified that it did not want to disclose the data and the information because it thought people would be scared.

What does that tell us? It tells us that even in the United States there are serious problems with the potential mishaps that can happen in the airline industry. Why would we want to abandon the whole operations, the controls and the accountability, and give the corporations basically a blank cheque in that department, whereas they will be the ones that will bring forth the problems and we will not even see all of them? That is unacceptable.

In this corner of the House, we have talked in the past about the fact that Canadian consumers want more information about everything from fees that are charged to the issues related to safety, and all those things. They did not want to have less of that.

The NASA report is actually in congress today. NASA spent $11.3 million on the research. The study was done on over a thousand pilots and it identified a series of problems that were happening.

I would say that study is another reason we need to back up at this point in time. We need to ensure we are doing the right thing. We know the Aeronautics Act has not been significantly changed in 20 years and we are supportive of some measures to change it but we do not want to lessen the accountability.

However, that has been the exact opposite of what we have actually had to do on major industries recently. I would point to the fact that the New Democrats were able to fight to get the Westray Mine bill passed through the House of Commons which actually created greater accountability.

Why are we backing up on this issue right now for the airline industry? I know, let us say for example in Ontario, we have witnessed deregulation through Transport Canada and a lessening of inspections on the railway systems and that has caused significant problems. That has been, I think, a loss. I think there is a greater accountability necessary, which is why I believe Transport Canada should play a better role.

We have had derailments in Ontario and in British Columbia. Those are things I think Canadians are concerned about. They do not want to have just an independent kind of incestuous examination of their own practices in-house by corporations.

What they do want is public accountability so that when they are travelling with their loved ones they know they will be safe. Also, for economic prosperity, we need to ensure that those companies that are investing in Canada, that have operations here, will get their goods and services appropriately on time to their destinations but without derailments and other types of problems.

We know that has happened in the rail sector, but now we are moving to the whole transport sector. We understand that the path to the future will be multimodal. It will be rail, air and cargo through trucks and transport and air will be a significant part of that new modern movement.

Why would we then start to abandon a system that, quite frankly, is one of the best in the world? We have some of the best air safety in the world. That is an asset for this country's economy, I would argue, and I would say it is worth making sure that we continue to have our own independent watchdog to complete the task that is necessary.

This industry has its ups and downs and a lot of turbulence and I quite frankly just cannot believe that the government is going to have the industry come forward and speak publicly about its problems. That could create concerns for its customer and it will not be the industry's first priority. Once again, that is another reason why we need to continue to have independence. When we have these types of changes, there certainly is a consequence for consumers. That is why we in the NDP do not accept this.

In wrapping up, I want to note that I appreciate the work the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done on this issue.

Given the situation with NASA in the United States, in which NASA is currently before Congress, I think this is an opportunity for us to take a step back and improve the bill. Pilots in the United States were independently surveyed and have noted double the problems of ours in airline safety, with everything from near misses to other types of problems on the aircraft. This is an opportunity for us to take a step back and improve the bill, an opportunity to get the proper amendments in place so that we will have accountability and confidence in the system, not the erosion that we have now.

It is amazing to think that NASA, an agency in the United States, was more concerned about the profits of the airline industry as opposed to the interests of American citizens. NASA has been caught out there on this and is getting a lot of criticism for this. This type of scenario is not mythological scaremongering. This is happening today. Once again, it is time to take a step back, improve the bill and then move forward.

Therefore, I move:

That Bill C-7 be read a third time six months hence.