Brian Masse

[March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know that those studies are absolutely bogus, shallow and short-sighted. It is interesting to note that the Americans this week will be actually pulling out of negotiations with South Korea because they are going to decide to protect their industry, just like they did with regard to the free trade agreement with Canada.

While the government and its predecessor, the Liberal government, gave lip service and watched while we lost our auto pact. The United States protects its aerospace industry, its bus industry and a series of others because it demands protection for certain industries. This deal with the South Korean government right now needs to be pulled from the table immediately. We cannot have another attack on our domestic auto producers.

Yes, there is restructuring happening right now, but that is not a reason to abandon those communities that have successfully paid taxes across this country and have contributed to Canadian coffers for years, day in and day out. Those are the jobs that we have to protect and ensure they are going to be there for the future.

Why is the government so easily going to give up with regard to the existing base of auto manufacturers just because it thinks it is convenient? It is not acceptable and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to look in his own community where his new tax is going to have an effect because it is certainly going to be one that is regressive.

If he does not want to listen to me, he should listen to the media reports out there, headline after headline, that are condemning this new tax. The investment should be in Canada not in foreign countries.

[March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak again in the House of Commons about a very serious issue, our automotive industry.

We have witnessed a decline in Canada of our market share in the automotive industry. I put a question about this to the Minister of Industry, who really should be named the minister of industrial disasters given the lack of action by the government with respect to industrial strategies, not just for the automotive industry but also for the textile industry.

We are now hearing news reports about the Gilden manufacturing company abandoning its Canadian market, particularly in Montreal, and moving offshore. The Conservative government had an opportunity to protect those jobs and chose not to do so.

In the automotive sector, we have witnessed a number of different problems. I have been speaking on this subject in the House of Commons for many years, trying to push the government forward. I thought that when the flip-flopping, floor crossing Minister of International Trade went from being a Liberal to a Conservative, he would have at least brought his auto policy that he promised the House of Commons industry committee with him. He promised a number of times in the House to deliver an action plan to the Minister of Industry, who has done nothing to bring a public policy forward.

My question really pertained to the terrible news that we heard in my constituency and across this country about 2,000 Chrysler workers being laid off. The government's response has only been a veiled empathy. It claims it cannot do anything, but that is not true.

The government has acted with hostility toward the auto industry. It repealed the Technology Partnerships Canada program that was the only instrument available to the government to induce automotive incentives. That program was well abused by the Liberals at the time and it needed a review.

The House may remember that it involved a number of different scandals with regard to David Dingwall and a whole series of kickbacks and schemes that really made problems for the program. It was the only program available to do something. The Conservative government cancelled that program but has provided no vision for a substitute program.

I asked in February why the minister had not brought forth a comprehensive automotive strategy. Basically, once again, what I received in reply to my question was complete neglect for the industry. There was no appreciation or understanding of the industry. The government announced in its budget a fee based system to work against our automotive sector. It is incredible to think what has happened.

The Canadian auto workers that I represent and those in Oakville and Oshawa, as well as those across this country, are going to work every single day at companies that need renewed investment and new technology. These workers see taxpayers' dollars going to other countries. It is shameful.

We know the government is pursuing a trade policy with South Korea which will be detrimental to the auto industry. It is going full speed ahead with no brakes. Canadians are now going to send millions of dollars to South Korea, so that country can set up its own factories and promote its own workforce as opposed to the government making investments in Oakville, Oshawa, Windsor and St. Thomas.

I once again call upon the Conservative government to invest money and resources in the people of Canada to close the prosperity gap as opposed to sending money overseas.

[Automobile Industry, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry should listen to what Canadians think and what the people of Windsor, Oshawa and Oakville think. Why is money not being invested in their communities? They do not want their taxpayer money to go to Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo.

That is what the minister is doing. He is subsidizing plants in other countries as opposed to putting the green technology on the ground floor in Canada, ensuring Canadians are doing the work on fuel efficiency vehicles.

I ask the minister to abandon his plan, invest in Canadians and ensure we have the jobs, not shift our money overseas.

[Automobile Industry, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like its Liberal predecessor, the Conservative government has done nothing and stood idly by as the auto industry has been shedding jobs and losing market shares.

The budget on Monday was another catastrophic attack on the auto industry. We will continue to see companies restructure, plant after plant closedown and worker after worker told to go home without a job. Canadians and the industry are outraged.

When will the industry minister introduce a real auto strategy so jobs are made here and developed here, and more important, so we can compete with the world and not turn over hard cash from Canadian people to other people in other countries?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question concerning the infrastructure at the Windsor-Detroit corridor, which is actually in the budget. I saw a notation in the budget that in 2007, $400 million will be set aside for the connecting road that will be required to get to the new border crossing.

The concern I have is that it is only in for the 2007 year and this infrastructure piece will be required at a much more significant cost if it is to have tunnelling and other types of environmental important work that is necessary to meet the needs of the municipality and also the proficiency of the amount of traffic that goes along this trade route.

Why did this not get multi-year funding similar to the project team, for example, which received three years of multi-year funding to actually oversee this? Is that because the government will not fund this in the future? Why was it not provided the multi-year funding that, for example, the Pacific Gateway got or, similarly, the other plans in the budget that gave them multi-year funding? Why is it excluded for this particular project?

[Foreign Aid, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the reason no country has asked to benefit from this law is because it does not work and it will not work unless the government actually fixes it. It is no longer acceptable for the Conservatives to stand and say that it is the Liberals' problem, and they are not going to do anything about it.

What we want is some real action. We know Canadians want to contribute with this type of bill. We know that the world supports it and the minister referring to the Internet is not going to help individuals suffering from HIV-AIDS. Canadians want to make a difference so changes can happen now. Why does he not do it? We do not need to wait any longer.

[Foreign Aid, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in May 2004 this House adopted a bill that was supposed to provide HIV-AIDS medicines to Africa. Despite this law being passed, not a single pill has reached anyone anywhere. The pain and the suffering continues as millions of people die without any action.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Did Bill Gates ask why Canada's legislation has not been fixed and what is the legacy of our country's name in the international community because this bad Liberal law has not been fixed by the government despite a year having passed?

[February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this infrastructure and the future of our country, it is a slam dunk in terms of moving toward public accountability and ownership.

I have done parliamentary research in the past. What has been concluded when examining public versus private ownership is that under public ownership we have direct control over access, safety, quality and pricing. It is very important for national security issues.

Second to that, I point out that I am concerned about the way the government is operating and moving toward an American style privatization of highway systems, which means increased tolls. What ends up happening is we get investment bankers. For example, Australian and Spanish builders in the United States have taken advantage of the public assets and have make huge profits at the expense of ordinary citizens. However, now there is a backlash because they have gone too far down that road.

What I want to hear from the government is whether it will support the call for public ownership.

Now the province of Ontario has joined the cause. In the parliamentary secretary's response to me he mentioned the provincial government. Last Friday in the Windsor Star, David Caplan, the province's public infrastructure minister, said:

The Ontario government is urging Ottawa to steer clear of private ownership of the next Windsor-Detroit border crossing...

Once again, I stress the importance of public ownership. Get on with the next crossing and avoid lawsuits. It will happen if we have public-private partnerships.

[February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to ask a question in the House of Commons. On December 7 I asked a question of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I wanted to find out from the minister the position of the government on public versus private ownership of the Windsor-Detroit border. For those who are not aware, this is the busiest international trade corridor in North America. It is one that has a significant impact on the economy.

Recently Citigroup, a financial institution and one that anyone could hardly suggest is a left leaning think tank, did a study on public versus private ownership of international bridges and tunnels. From that, it measured several different factors. It looked at interest rates, equity, corporate income tax and sales tax. The result of all those analyses was that private ownership would have a 35% to 40% increase in toll rates versus those of under public ownership.

Windsor and the surrounding area have four border crossings right now, with a mixture of ownership. One that is privately held has significantly higher tolls than even its competitors, for example, in Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Buffalo and also in the region.

As we move forward with a brand new border crossing in my region, our concern is that it be publicly owned and operated and that we ensure the lowest fares possible to add increased competition, but not tax the users too much. We all know about the manufacturing issues in Ontario right now. Being able to compete fairly with the international trade agreements coming into force is very concerning to manufacturers. We do not want to add an additional tax burden on the businesses currently there.

I ask for a commitment from the parliamentary secretary's government that the next bridge crossing between Windsor and Detroit will be one publicly owned and operated, similar to others being built across the country.

[Automobile Industry, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is cold comfort for the families of the auto workers who are going to suffer from this inaction.

The Minister of Industry sits with the Minister of International Trade, the same minister who was a flip-flopping, floor-crossing minister. As a minister for the Liberal Party he promised an auto policy and never delivered it to the House, broken promise after broken promise that is costing Canadians jobs.

Today we saw 20% of Canada's workforce at DaimlerChrysler get laid off and fired. What I want to know is this. Why do the Minister of Industry and the Minister of International Trade want to finish the sector off? Why do they want to continue with the Korea trade pact that is going to kill this industry and ensure that we are not going to recover?