Brian Masse

[Federal Accountability Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague a question with regard to election financing. It has not been discussed very much lately, but there are improvements in the bill, in my opinion, in terms of restricting corporate and other donations, as well as the limits that I think will improve the availability of all individuals to be able to contribute in a fair way to politics.

I would like to have the member's comments with regard to capping the amount at $1,000 per individual and how that might better enhance our democracy by limiting the flow of cash that could be stuffed in at the last minute by special interests.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am working on the member's analogy of the situation and how he characterized that action. However, the member for St. Catharines was questioning the accountability of members crossing the floor.

What accountability is there in his government's legislation right now, which does not have a floor-crossing element, when the member for Vancouver--Kingsway, immediately after the election, crossed the floor for a cabinet position against the wishes of his constituents?

It is unacceptable that we are not fixing that in the legislation before us today. What credibility does the member have on this issue?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the his response to the question by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the member for St. Catharines questioned his accountability and whether he should even have to answer that because the member crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberal Party of Canada.

At the same time, though, one of the cabinet ministers, to whom the member has to report, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, crossed the floor from the Liberals to the Conservatives immediately after the election.

I find it interesting that a backbench Conservative would question the fact that --

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, no, absolutely not. That is why “levels of government” is part of the motion. Obviously the province is very much a part of this process. The mere fact that municipalities are creatures of the province is significant because that is bound by legislation itself. That covers this off fairly consistently.

In terms of other parties, of banks and whatnot potentially having an upset, then yes, if the government is not going to follow a fair due process and it is going to show favouritism to particular parties or interest groups or people it supports or has some connections to, as we have seen in the past, then they will bring on those lawsuits. This is calling for a greater scrutiny upfront for due consultation and due process. I think that is going to make a better bill and avoid lawsuits because those things will be scripted out very consistently.

What I think is important to remember is that it will be at the front end. The expectations will be there. That will alleviate the problem in itself. I believe in prevention. I think these clauses speak to an element of prevention that is very significant.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what had happened is that there was an agreement to actually unanimously move the NDP motions. There were four on the order paper that were tabled as early as June 13. We voluntarily withdrew two of those amendments because the government came up with logical reasons as to why Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 5 were not consistent with what the policy should be. I agreed with that decision.

From there, we were to work forward and get unanimous consent on amending Motions Nos. 1 and 4. That was agreed to by the government at that time. It was going to bring forward changes. What the government did at the last minute is withdraw that, and not only once, because the government withdrew that and our party tried a second time. We were told it was going to move forward and again the government withdrew it.

I know the government is concerned about lawsuits, but let us think of the lawsuits against the government with regard to changing civil marriage, for example. Let us think about the lawsuits on a whole series of things. If the government is going to be afraid of things and put out the lawsuit issue, that is not sufficient.

The amendments that were being proposed obviously would not lead to that situation. Everyone has seen them before. These amendments have been in the House before. If the government were serious about consultation, it would have actually come back to me at some point in time before tonight; it is not only ourselves. This is due process in this chamber. Everything that has been talked about is due process.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on this matter in the House of Commons and the amendments that have been proposed here tonight. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his work as well as members opposite. I enjoyed working on the transport committee and I thank those members too.

I am going to spend a few minutes correcting some misinformation. First of all, the notion of consulting municipalities and local governments was brought forth originally in a discussion in this chamber. We strongly objected to the fact that this was not part of the bill. Anyone can look up our objections in Hansard. This was raised continually in committee.

The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that this is a government amendment, but I would remind him that this amendment is standing in a government member's name only. An original amendment was put forth by the NDP which was debated extensively and there was agreement in principle. What we were looking for tonight were some additional amendments that would actually have provided consistency.

We have the situation where the operational elements of border crossings at an international bridge or tunnel have some vested partner input in the area, but the same situation does not apply for the sale, alteration or construction of the areas that affect border crossings, and these can be quite significant.

For the parliamentary secretary to give the impression here tonight that we are actually throwing something at the government is irresponsible, and I say that with all due respect. These amendments were tabled in this House of Commons on June 13. Despite the original discussion that we had over a month ago, despite the information that we traded at committee, and despite the fact that these amendments have been on the order paper since that time, the government is obviously not really interested in moving forward on due consultation with vested partners.

I think it is important to paint the reasons why as New Democrats we believe that this should move forward. There was an agreement between all parties here. I thank the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois for supporting a motion to move these amendments tonight. We have the power and the ability to do so, but the government has chosen not to at this moment. That is the reality.

The government has chosen to shut the door. It is shutting the door to other levels of government. It is shutting the door to the provinces. It is shutting the door on the people affected by these border crossings. People's lives are being affected.

Why is this important? It is important because border communities like Windsor, Fort Erie or places in Quebec have bottleneck problems with transportation. Often heavy-handed solutions are imposed on us. However, nobody wants the cars and trucks to move more freely through our municipalities than the people who live in these municipalities. They are choking on smog and pollution. They also have to face the heavy traffic congestion.

That is why these amendments are important and that is why they were put forward in this House. They were put forward to put consistency in the bill.

We are debating government Motion No. 3. It calls for the minister to consult with other levels of government that have jurisdiction over any place where an international bridge or tunnel is situated and with any person who has a direct interest in the matter. Why is this important? It is important because 24 international bridges and tunnels connect Canada with the United States. Of those 24, two are privately owned. There are no regulations or authority over them.

This is why we are looking at changing this bill in terms of having some accountability, which is so important as previous speakers have articulated. The daily transportation value between our two countries amounts to $1.5 billion a day. About 42% of the nation's trade travels on a regular basis through my community alone.

I have seen what has happened in the past and this is why I believe in these amendments. The government should change its position and listen for a change because it is in a minority position. The government needs to be reminded of that fact quite often. This is a minority Parliament. Canadians need to understand that we need to keep the government on a short leash. If we do not do that, it will use its heavy-handed nature. It is important that the Conservative government be kept on a short leash.

We have had a situation over a number of decades in Windsor. Thousands of trucks per day rumble through the city streets and there is no solution. A proposal was finally made to remedy this situation.

There were two phases. The first phase was signed with every single level of government participating. There were projects to create a pedestrian crosswalk. We actually have a high school where mothers have been killed.

The member for Essex is now saying that people do not use it. That is not true. The member for Essex should remember what is most important, that students should have a right to have a safe crossing to get to their high school. That should be a right. The member for Essex should remember that. That project had full consent. We actually have a pedestrian crosswalk now that crosses at Huron Church Road.

There are other projects that are very beneficial. The Walker Road rail separation has been held up, but there is consent and it is moving slowly forward. This is a rail separation grade that will be very important for the nation's trade, next to the most successful manufacturing plant since World War II, which is the minivan Chrysler plant. We will have a separation grade in the future.

Other highway updates for safety such as LED signage and a whole series of things were all signed, together with consultation. The projects are moving very slowly, but they are moving together.

Phase two is a different situation. Phase two was an imposed solution on the municipality by the provincial and federal governments of the day. Phase two has met resistance. It has met bureaucracy. It has met a whole series of problems because people are offside. All this amendment is calling for and all we are asking for is consultation. Consultation is so important.

For example, if the Ambassador Bridge were to be sold in the future, it is important to have that consultation, not only with the municipality, the local government, and the province, but other businesses because they would be affected as the Ambassador Bridge is owned by a private American citizen. There is a series of connections of businesses that literally monopolize the crossing. That is a very important fact to remember.

Who will own that crossing in the future? We do not know if it is going to be the government. We still do not have any commitment from the government that the new crossing to be built between Windsor and Detroit is to be publicly owned and operated. We still cannot get that far as it has not been put to paper. If it is sold in the future, there will be an onus to discuss the situation with the local people and the local partners.

I know there is a concern being expressed. I do not diminish the potential of lawsuits with this type of consultation process. That is why, if we use due diligence, we will see a consultation process that will carry its weight at the end of the day and we will discourage any attempt to stonewall things and prevent them from moving forward.

However, we must have the best possible legislation. At the end of the day, is this the best possible legislation? No, not without these clauses and amendments.

It is important to recognize one of the amendments that deals with construction on both sides of a border crossing. It is very important to ensure that we have coordination. As things currently stand, on the Ambassador Bridge side, there will be construction on the American side for a plaza. Right now there are scheduling conflicts on the Canadian side at the Windsor-Detroit tunnel because there will actually be construction there.

We can have projects overlapping and construction to fix facilities to move traffic which will slow traffic. We end up having a clogging of the arteries without the due process.

I do not think the minister would have any ill will and would not want to consult with people in local jurisdictions. I do not assume that as a premise, but as a witness, as a member in the House, there has not been, with due respect, a consultation process.

Coming from my municipal roots and seeing what the traffic, the pollution, and the congestion has done, and the lack of investment, we need to ensure that border crossings across this country are done efficiently, in terms of the process of consultation. They must be done effectively, so that they are managed on a regular basis. Finally, they must be supported by good, grounded legislation. The bill is failing in that department at this time.

[Mining Industry, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, regulatory delays in Europe and the U.S. are blocking an Inco-Falconbridge merger proposal, putting many Canadian miners at risk and their families in a status of limbo. Three weeks ago the industry committee put forth a unanimous recommendation calling upon the industry minister to actually delay the Xstrata hostile takeover of Falconbridge until at least the foreign bodies have ruled on the Inco favourable takeover.

Will the Minister of Industry commit to the House today to protect Canadian jobs, the industry and fair due process by ensuring that this hostile takeover does not take place because of bureaucrats in Brussels holding up the process?

[Automobile Industry, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is not just about free trade. It is about one way trade that is happening right now and there are protectionist items that are currently preventing Canadian vehicles from being exported to South Korea. Those are regulations and rules that need to be cleaned up first.

Why does the government not get action on that file now before selling us out like it did on softwood lumber?

[Automobile Industry, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for every dollar we export to Korea, Canada imports $268 of Korean made vehicles. This means Canada has a $3 billion trade deficit with South Korea equal to 15,000 lost manufacturing jobs. Now the government is walking blindly into free trade talks with Korea without thinking out the consequences to the auto industry.

Will the government insist that the Korean auto deal that is happening right now will put Canadian cars on equal footing in Korea or it will ditch the deal altogether?

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that those initiatives are important. I support them individually. I do not disagree that those initiatives will be benefits for seniors, but they pale in comparison to other tax cut measures and the other priorities in the budget.

As well, the issue of subsidies has not been addressed. The oil and gas sector will receive a subsidy of about $1.5 billion from the budget. In fact, that sector will probably receive even more as some of the market budget levers are being changed as well.

There are some good things happening. Like every budget proposed in the House of Commons, this budget contains good things and bad things. If a member were to stand up here and say that a budget is 100% bad, there would be no credibility, because good things always come out of the budget process. Lobbying is done by ordinary Canadians as well as organizations and that leads to specific and different actions. These actions are happening and that is good. In the previous administration, we just saw policy announcements and those really do not affect people at all.

I hope the Conservative Party supports the motion. It would at least partially redress the gaping hole in that party's budget as it focuses most of the tax cuts on other issues and at the end of the day really has only a pittance for seniors. This motion is a start on that redress.