Brian Masse

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the next two petitions are very important. They are signed by members of the CAW who are opposed to the Canadian negotiations that are going on with South Korea with respect to free trade.

This is historic because the first two sets of petitions are part of 47,000 signatures that will be tabled in the House of Commons. I have invited members of all parties to table these petitions to reject the current actions of the Minister of International Trade who is moving ahead with a trade deal which is very much against the interests of Canadian manufacturers across this country.

I am pleased to table this historic petition to stop the madness and make sure that our auto jobs, our shipbuilding jobs, and other manufacturing jobs are protected against the harmful practices of the South Korea free trade deal.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table four petitions. The first two relate to crime and punishment in our society, and are signed by residents of Windsor West, Windsor--Tecumseh, and Essex County. The petitioners call for sentences to be fully abided by with respect to serious crimes.

[Canada-U.S. Border, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer this government did nothing when the United States tore up a treaty that had been in existence from the War of 1812 that prohibited gunboats on the Great Lakes system.

Since that time, the American coast guard has indicated it wants a firing range flotilla to be set up that will conduct live fire exercises on a regular basis on the Great Lakes. This is dangerous for the environment, as well as for boaters and the tourism industry.

I want to know from this government, will it stand up and demand a cessation of this? The militarization of the border, including more helicopters, drone planes and watchtowers are what the Americans are moving toward. When will the government stand up and make sure that this is not going to put Canadian citizens at risk?

[Privilege, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Liberals or the Conservatives who deserve an apology, it is Mr. Arar and his family who deserve an apology.

[Border Service Officers, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge River made an appalling comment when he referred to our brave men and women who guard our borders as “wimps”.

His derogatory slur just displayed his ignorance to the fact that 17% of these workers are either veterans of the military or the police forces of this land. They have defended our country, protected our communities, and stand watch at our borders, continuing to put their lives on the line every day to enforce the laws of this nation.

To have from this chamber, the place where those laws are created, a member disparage and disrespect those charged with enforcing those laws is a disgrace and a shame brought on this House. He must apologize and admit he was wrong.

The fact that he has repeated his outburst brings into question his understanding that our borders are understaffed and our guards are not armed. We need more recruits and more training now, and not an interim plan. We need to have a long term solution. This 10 year delay is nonsense.

The Liberal leadership and the member must apologize for not only his outrageous attack but his own government's neglect and inaction on this file.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about hazardous materials.

A very important factor in the debate is the types of things we put on our rail system that put people at risk, not just the operators, but the populations around them. Chlorine gas has moved through a number of highly populated areas.

In the United States, that has been categorized as a weapon of mass destruction because it can kill up to 100,000 people within a 15 mile radius. The U.S. has introduced legislation to move those gases outside of densely populated areas.

Will the committee at least start to look at what the U.S. is doing in terms of rail safety and how it is dealing with the issue of chemicals going through communities that are densely populated.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's response. I would like to ask him about the issue of planning in the region with regard to safety and security.

I know that we are working toward having support in terms of training for first responders, especially if there is a crisis, whether it be hazardous materials or security issues. That is where we need to build stronger partnerships for safer and sounder communities. That is why we need to develop national strategies for that.

My local government as well as the provincial government, and I actually give credit to the federal government for providing me with a recent briefing on hazardous materials, which was very helpful, have been talking about those issues.

I would ask my colleague whether or not there should be more planning with regard to those measures to protect public safety?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie who has done terrific work with his community. It is important to acknowledge that the member has been very good about having an involvement, not only just in terms of people around him advising him with regard to this but also the municipality.

I would ask the member for Sault Ste. Marie if he believes the border authority commission, which he has in his community, has been of benefit to the community in many respects? In my area, where we do not have any border authority, there is basically no overall jurisdiction whatsoever to help coordinate the traffic. We have a worse situation.

Maybe the member could comment on the fact that there is an accountability process through his border authority, which I do not currently have in my region.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and shocked by the parliamentary secretary's question because I accepted, in good faith, an amendment proposed by the government which would allow security provisions for the minister.

It is important to note that right now the government relies on the Windsor police force to show up at the Ambassador Bridge plaza as well as the tunnel plaza to do the work because there are no federal people to stop the security risks which are happening on a regular basis. The government also relies on municipal first responders to take care of any problems at the borders, such as a fire, a safety issue or other type of issue. No overall plan was proposed by the previous government and none has been proposed by the Conservative government. The government must rely on these people to protect the citizens there. My constituents trust the people in their communities who serve them on a regular basis and do so on good faith.

All we are asking for is some consultation. Fearmongering about this consultation is not proper. I am talking specifically about my area but security risks happen in other areas. There are only 24 regions to begin with and 22 of them already have various levels of government involved in their operations. The ones that do not have government involvement will require some consultation. It can happen properly and efficiently. It has been a problem in the past but we can solve it now with this bill. The people in my community do trust that their city councillors, their school board trustees and other responders will at least have a voice at the table.

The bill calls for the minister to use his best discretion in a national security crisis situation. We would never hold that up. We understand there could be times when that could happen and we support that part of the bill, which is why we accepted the friendly amendment that was put forward for the minister to have some discretion. What we are looking for is a planning process that starts with the regular flow of trade and services that are not under a national security threat.

Officials for the Ambassador Bridge hire a municipal police contingent to oversee some of its security. They are already part of that security.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the whole bill would go back to committee, but we would specifically examine clauses 7 and 24. The motion also indicates quite strongly that it is unnecessary to deal with other matters in the bill. We have shown that there is some wide range support for it. I think all members of the House would see that as well.

It is important to note that we have tried to work with the government extensively. I give the government credit, it did hold meetings with us and consulted us. At the end of the day, the government never listened to that consultation. This is what gives me great concern. All I am asking for is a guarantee of consultation.

Even if the bill were to go forward with my amendments, there is no protection, ultimately, of what could happen in the community. The only protection would be due process. To give support to the bill, we need that important component in it. That is all we seek.

I have been criticized for not moving amendments earlier, but the process is the process. The amendments have been on the order paper for weeks, especially the report stage amendments.

The government had an idea and an indication of my concerns during the process. This is why the NDP would like to clean up those two elements. That is all it would be. This is similar to the deal that we thought we had with the government. The government along with other opposition parties went back on the deal. They supported the unanimous consent. We would have passed the bill in its entirety.

By cleaning up those two elements, it will give us a sense of comfort. More important, it will provide a better bill, not only for my constituents of Windsor West, but for all Canadians across the country.

It is a healthier environment when we can lay out the elements of consultation and what that means. That builds partnerships. Partnerships are very important. The movement and the secure and free flow of goods and services through our communities to the United States is paramount to our country's success, and we have to manage that on a regular basis.

I have often argued for a public border authority in the Windsor region, based upon the principle that we need to operate the border as a business, one that is efficient and one that has rules, regulations and oversight. Right now we do not do that in my constituency. That is why it is important we have these clauses. They build the natural partnerships that are important.

This is also about accountability as well. The people who throw up their hands and say there will be lawsuits, are the people who are not interested in consultation anyway. They are looking for weasel ways to get around having to hold meaningful discussion in the first place. We can do that. It happens on a regular basis. We can have those types of consultations, discussions and prescriptions and they can be done in a thoughtful and progressive way and in partnerships.

It is not a partnership when we allow a minister to become the unilateral authority without any accountability whatsoever. All we are asking for is to have this as part of this bill, hence the amendment I have proposed.