Brian Masse

[Petitions, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to improving the animal cruelty laws in Canada. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to move on animal cruelty legislation. For example, in my constituency a dog was seriously abused and the proper penalties are not there for the government to act on this issue.

There are about 700 petitioners who are calling on the government to implement an animal cruelty law that is more modern and advanced.

[Petitions, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions today. The first petition is with regard to a very important issue. It is a petition to the Government of Canada to improve our contribution in the fight against HIV-AIDS worldwide. There are a couple of hundred people who have signed the petition. They are calling for Canada to have an increased contribution to fight AIDS and HIV across the planet. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

[Aeronautics Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act . I am pleased to support our party's opposition to this bill. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster did excellent work at the committee level and in making sure that this issue was raised throughout debate today.

I would like to cover some points that have not been addressed. They relate to the safety management system. A couple of things identify the importance of this bill.

We are not opposed to amending this bill and making a new aeronautics act, but at the same time, we want an improvement. Where we really have a difference of opinion is on the safety management system issue that is being advanced through this element. Nobody will disagree that we are literally turning the whole system over to the operators. We are giving them a blank cheque in terms of accountability. That is why we believe this bill needs to be defeated.

It is important to note that Canada has one of the safest aviation records. It is also key for our economic development. Thousands of passengers are shuttled about the country daily. At the same time, we see it as an opportunity for economic development in the future. Why would we put all that risk in that CEOs would not be accountable? Also, there is more secrecy in the industry. Consumers are put at the butt end of this bill.

That is why we believe there should be changes to this bill before it moves forward. That is very important. It is true that the legislation needs reformation. It has been through several machinations over the last number of years and there really have not been any consequential changes in 20 years to the legislation. We agree with that. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been trying to advance the issue so that at least we would be able to participate in supporting the bill, but we cannot do so because of its lack of accountability.

Also I think it would eventually undermine a real competitive advantage that we have in our industry. When it comes to safety and openness, that is what consumers want more of these days, not less. They want to know more about fees and charges and safety issues. They do not want to know less about them, nor do they want more obstructions. That is what this bill would do.

It is interesting that it is not just the New Democrats who are talking about this system having particular problems. Basically it is offloading Transport Canada by not investing in the infrastructure for public service when it comes to the safety management system. That is what it is really about, not putting the proper resources into our public service. It is not just the New Democrats who are talking about it; a report was commissioned by the department. CanWest News Service obtained a copy under the access to information act. The report showed that the department itself had concerns about this system going forward.

It is not just the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but the department itself has flagged this system as a potential problem. We have not seen the consequential changes necessary to alleviate our concerns, and I would argue, probably the department's concerns as well. There has been discussion about that.

I want to read a section of a National Post article which encapsulates some of the concerns:

Specifically, it states that cutting the audit program could increase the chances that certain problems won't be detected, that airlines “will not comply with regulatory requirements,” as well as cause the public to lose confidence in Canada's air safety systems.

Confidence in that business is very important. That is why we have seen a number of different issues. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster talked about the case of Jetsgo, where all these factors came forward later on despite the fact that a number of people could have reported these grievances.

We have seen it in the rail system. The Bloc has said that there are not enough inspectors in the rail system. We would agree with that. We have turned it over to the rail companies. We have seen continued problems and accidents across this country, in particular in British Columbia, but there have been others in Ontario. We have not seen the inspection levels that are really necessary to protect the public and also to maintain confidence in those transportation systems.

The solution is not to deregulate in this manner. The solution is to invest in better public services to ensure confidence in a thriving industry so that once again it will be competitive and reliable.

It is very important because so many other parts of our economy depend upon a viable air carrier service. It is not only the Jetsgo situation that raises concerns about air traffic safety and consumer confidence. For example, I know that the Danish authorities now have grounded the Bombardier planes that are used by Porter Airlines. This is not to suggest that those airplanes that Porter is using are deficient or that there are problems, but the fact of the matter is that the Danes using the same model have taken action.

What we on our side of the House believe should be happening is that the proper systems should be in place. Different from those of the corporate CEOs who have their interests, we should have them out there to protect the public interest. The public interest is served by the impartial regulatory system that is in place today. We would argue that if this capacity is increased it certainly would be better than deregulating to the actual corporate sector the entirety of our safety systems.

This is important because there is a bias and an interest from different employees and different management levels. We have seen this decision making across Canada at different times. Workers and people have been put at risk. Their values have been diminished because of the profits or the interests of those companies.

Jetsgo is a great example in terms of that. How much risk did there have to be or how many more accidents did it take before someone acted? We have seen the airline industry rise and fall in many respects and have a lot of challenges. If the airline industry is vulnerable to different issues, such as profitability and reporting to their shareholders, is it going to come forward and admit to the public some of its safety issues and problems when it could mean loss of profits for the industry and for their people's own personal wallets?

We would argue that this bill needs to go back. It needs more work. It needs to be improved, because it is important for our economy, for consumers and for the Canadian public at large.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question with regard to trade policy. She noted manufacturing concerns. We have lost 300,000 jobs in five years and one of the reasons has been because of trade policy practices.

Her former leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, started negotiations on the Korea trade agreement. He gave the file to the member for Vancouver Kingsway who was part of her caucus at one point before he crossed the floor to the Conservatives and continues to work on that actual agreement today. It is of great concern to many Canadians in many different types of manufacturing industries.

I would like to know from the member whether her party still supports a trade deal with South Korea and under what terms and conditions it would support or not support that deal.

New Democrats have been calling for this to cease and desist, especially given the complexities of the auto industry in particular right now. I would like to know specifically what her party is doing to address this and what its policy is on either accepting or rejecting it. If it is going to be accepted, what are the conditions?

[Manufacturing Industry, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak with my brothers and sisters in the CAW calling for a federal task force on manufacturing.

In the last five years more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country. These are real jobs, where Canadians were able to provide for their families, that are gone. They have disappeared and the government has not been fighting back to maintain those jobs. Hence, we need a task force.

On top of this, we have seen a government continue down a wrong path of not putting in sectoral strategies. Instead, what it is doing is large corporate tax cuts that would actually reward companies when they move to Mexico, Alabama and other places.

Today we are calling for a fight for our jobs and, most importantly, to put actual workers back on the workshop floor so they are actually able to support their families.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the seniors charter of rights, something which, for a number of years, the NDP has pushed to have passed in the House of Commons. We have not seen real action on that.

I would like the hon. member to talk about how we can improve those elements which will actually assist seniors not only in terms of income supports but more important, in terms of their quality of life. I would like her to explain why that charter is so important, not only in terms of its being passed as a figurative motion in the House of Commons but more important, in terms of real action for seniors who are living in poverty today.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's debate and presentation. He is a former chair of the industry committee. I would argue, all partisanship aside, that he did a very good job. I have been in the House of Commons for five years and we actually have had consensus building on that committee. He has departed to another committee, but certainly his work in the previous committee as well as the current one has been very positive.

The hon. member noted that the capital cost reduction allowance issue is very important. In fact, the industry committee tabled 22 recommendations in a common report supported by all parties, including a capital cost reduction allowance for equipment. The finance minister instead did a two year window, but I actually tabled a five year window, plus a renewal period after an evaluation, because industries like mine in Windsor, for example, where there is the tool, die and mold making industry, need to have the third, fourth and fifth year to make those investments in terms of the time rolled out.

I would like to ask my colleague why he believes it is important to move on this. For example, I believe this is much more effective than a general corporate tax cut, because once again, I have industries leaving my constituency that are going to get taxpayer funds to set up somewhere else, whereas actually getting equipment in on the ground floor will protect Canadian workers and their jobs and provide the livelihood that we all want.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get this into a debate over some issues of substance as opposed to personalities. One of the things I am interested in is manufacturing.

The member talked about issues related to manufacturing and his concerns about that. I expressed similar concerns to the previous administration when I was promised an auto policy. It did not deliver on that. The current government is continuing down that path, which gives me great concern.

Also, with what is being debated right now, the only economic lever will be a corporate tax reduction, which has not historically led to improvement in manufacturing. It has not created more jobs. I know the member's leader has been racing the Prime Minister in terms of how many more corporate tax cuts can actually happen. Ironically, in ridings like mine we are witnessing plants going to Mexico and those companies are getting a tax cut at a time when they are relocating Canadian jobs and throwing people out on the streets.

In terms of the Liberal position right now, is it just for corporate tax cuts? Is that all the Liberals have in the repertoire dealing with manufacturing? If they have something else, I would like to hear it.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member incorrectly noted that the NDP voted with the Conservatives and we could have somehow mythologically kept his party in power. The reality is we did not even have enough votes. The independent members actually voted against the Liberal government. Maybe, like many Liberals, the member does not know how to count or he wants to continue to mislead the public on something. I will leave that for him to decide.

The member's discussion about manufacturing was rather interesting given the previous government's promise after promise to me over several years for an auto policy which was never delivered. Interestingly enough, the then minister of industry, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, flip-flopped and crossed the floor to the Conservatives. He did not bring the auto policy that we so desperately need. What he actually brought were the South Korea trade negotiations that are continuing to this day. Why is the member's party supporting that? Why is it that there is no real significant change?

The member noted the situation with Canadian air travellers having to disclose personal information when travelling across the United States, but it was his party while in government, Jean Chrétien and the member for LaSalle—Émard who did nothing when Canadians were put on the NSEERS and U.S. visit list, fingerprinted and photographed at the Canadian-American border when crossing into or exiting the United States. Why does the Liberal Party support the fingerprinting of Canadian citizens by the United States?

[Address in Reply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the past five years Canadian manufacturers have lost over 250,000 jobs. The Canadian dollar has increased. There are issues around the lack of sectoral strategies. The previous Liberal administration promised an auto policy but it did not deliver. In fact, one of its members, the minister of industry at that time, flip-flopped and crossed the floor to the Conservatives in order to pursue an aggressive strategy to sign a deal with Korea that will cost the manufacturers and auto jobs in Ontario.

Why has the government abandoned a unanimous report from the industry committee that included 22 recommendations that were agreed to by all parties, including his party. Where are those recommendations? Where are the supports for the manufacturers across this country? Why is there no auto policy? Why are the Conservatives continuing to move toward trade deals that would cost Canadians their jobs?