Brian Masse

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the costing is important. Not only is there an outlying cost that has to be funded, but there is also a return investment that we get from lowering other costs.

I will use the example of the dental hygiene in health care that we have proposed. The oral treatment that we are asking to move forward on has an eventual cost of around $600 million annually for dental and hygiene care. Over time, that amount will diminish as the hygiene of individuals improves. There also will be cost savings later on when there are fewer problems related to hygiene and oral care.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important issue. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek.

I would like to commend the member for Hamilton Mountain, who has put forth this motion, for the hard work she has done in her constituency on this issue.

It is important to put some context into today's debate because it is not a motion that has just come out of thin air. The motion has actually had consultations with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Indeed, I introduced a motion in the House of Commons in the last session of Parliament on which the Liberals could have acted if they had wanted. It has been sitting on the books for a long time.

The member for Richmond talked about the fact that the Liberals had done so many things and gave us the sorry tale of blaming our party for their defeat and their problems. That is ironic because we did not even have enough votes necessary to prop them up, even if we wanted to. Second, Canadians were the ones who made that decision.

Interestingly, and the member obviously missed it, his former leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, unprecedentedly begged on national television for some time to continue his government. There was only a three week difference between the election and the time for which he begged Canadians, so it is a moot point.

It is important to note that the Liberal government could have acted on the motion at that time. It did not do so, which is fine. We are here today and we have to focus on what we can do at this point in time.

The motion is very important as it puts seniors in the forefront. That did not happen in the budget. We did not see significant progress on seniors issues. I have gone through the budget. There are a couple of specific points, but they do not put the importance of the issue of seniors to the forefront.

When we started to engage Canadians in terms of the seniors charter of rights, it was done through consultations and not only through public meetings. New Democrats had meetings all across this country with constituents of all political backgrounds. We received thousands of petitions, emails and correspondence. We engaged seniors groups and organizations, and the context of the motion comes from that dialogue with Canadians.

There are some suggestions about improvements to the motion. We, as New Democrats, are open to those and we are certainly willing to do so. However, the context of today's debate does not come from a decision made in a back room where something is thrown down on the table, it comes from the engagement of Canadians. It comes from talking with them and hearing their stories.

In Windsor West, when we had the national campaign to kick off the seniors charter, we engaged Canadians. We heard the stories of individuals whose incomes were affected. I heard the same stories from people in Vancouver and Winnipeg. For example, their disposable income is shrinking and contracting, based upon their rising costs. Whether it be issues over which we have little jurisdictional control or larger ones on which we have direct intervention, they expressed grave concern about the fact that all levels of government need to do some type of management and contribute more in terms of assisting seniors by presenting a policy because they are falling behind.

In Windsor West, for example, we heard everything about the energy crisis as an issue and the cost to people whose disposable income does not change based upon that. In Vancouver, for example, property evaluations were escalating so much that seniors were having to choose to leave their homes because they could not afford the property taxes. All those issues lead to the reasons why we have laid out a number of specific strategies to deal with this issue because it is on the minds of Canadians.

The Canadian Labour Congress polled Canadians about a year ago. The result was that 73% of seniors were concerned about their retirement and whether they were going to have enough income, and the effect on their health, wellness and livelihood. That is up 20% in one year. We know that on the public radar screen we have an aging population, and Canadians are concerned and they need to be engaged. That is what the motion does.

I am hoping that, because there was no type of examination of the issue in the budget, the Conservatives will support the motion. I am hoping, because the focus was so desperately needed in the last parliament, that the Liberals will support it. I hope the Bloc will think about it because it does provide for provincial programming and jurisdictional elements.

We are looking at strengthening, coordinating and giving seniors a voice. That is important to note because there is no overall coordinating voice.

We are looking at issues that we have identified as some of the highlights of this motion and they relate to: income security; secure, accessible and affordable housing; wellness; health care; and self-development and government services. All of those had particular points of interest.

When we heard from different people in the community, they had different types of experiences. Some were concerned, for example, that they had diabetes. They felt that they could not get the proper medical attention that was necessary or even testing. Some were only eligible for eye examinations once every two years when it should be done every year. These are things that cause problems later on in their lives if we cannot get to the front end of ensuring wellness. That is actually a cost saving to society.

It is the same for dental issues. The motion focuses as well on some of the dental problems. We heard from people across the country that they were concerned about the fact that they did not have proper dental and hygiene care. That affects not only seniors but also our health care system, as we end up treating people for more significant problems down the road that could have been helped much sooner.

In the discussions that we had with seniors these things were important for them because they also lost their participation in society and became more isolated when they did not have those proper services. In particular, for physiotherapy, people are on waiting lists for a number of different procedures and operations, and second to that there is a cost to access therapy.

We heard from people in the inner cities who were on waiting lists for a long period of time for knee replacements for example and others in the rural areas who were prescribed physiotherapy, but did not have transportation to get to and from rehabilitation. That subsequently affects their lifestyle and their contribution to society.

That is important because we know from the escalating costs that seniors are becoming more active in society in terms of employment. Some do so, not only because they want to contribute and make some money but others do so because their pensions are not enough. Therefore, we have people retiring from a main occupation and moving into another part time job or seeking other types of employment. People are working longer and harder than before just to get by and then their services are falling to the wayside. These are some of the elements that we feel are important.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the Centre for Seniors in my riding for the good work that it has done and is one of the reasons we proposed our strategies. The Centre for Seniors is an organization that is an advocacy body in many respects. It is a gathering place. It provides services such as evaluations, training, social programs, as well camaraderie.

The New Democratic Party identified that the government does not really have an independent individual minister for seniors. That is why we believe that we need a seniors advocate. We need someone who is going to act in an ombudsman-type position who will champion in the House seniors issues, looking at everything from our federal programs to cross-coordination.

We need to analyse those programs, whether it be income supplements, health care programs or services, and how they are actually affecting people on the ground. Are we being effective, are we being engaging, and are we actually leading to real progress? That is something that the advocate can do.

We know that many Canadians are not even tapping into the programs and services for which they are eligible. That is an absolute crime. It is a shame. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are entitled to supplement payments from their seniors pensions are not aware of this or they do not have the capability. Whether it be language skills or reading and writing skills, they are not tapping into these types of funds.

The government will hunt us down for taxes. It will make sure it crawls through any space to go after people to pay their taxes. However, when it comes to assisting seniors to tap into the supplement programs which are supposed to be there for them, there is no effort by the government to find those individuals who are in need. One hundred thousand seniors as a bare minimum for just one program is not acceptable.

The ombudsman, in an advocate position, could be a leveraging tool to get into those cases which will benefit all of us.

In conclusion, I note that this motion is tabled by the NDP, but at the same time it is important to recognize that this comes from cross-country consultation with Canadians and seniors, who are supporting this position and supporting this motion here today.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Bloc's perspective of saying that this intervenes on Quebec's jurisdiction. Previously in the House we had a vote where the New Democrats supported a Bloc motion on an issue related to oil and gas pricing and that issue was actually a provincial issue. One of the monitoring issues that we were looking at is being done in other provinces. In fact, four provincial governments have special legislation to regulate the price of gasoline.

How is it that Bloc members can conveniently pick things which they say are under Quebec's jurisdiction, while at the same time propose motions which have provincial jurisdiction and vote for them in this chamber? There is a direct correlation with the price of gasoline and the things that we actually pushed through our industry committee and the connection to the provinces of this country. Why is it good for that issue but not for this one?

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with the member for Edmonton—Leduc since 2002, on the industry committee and on private members' business, and I know his legislation is always thoughtful. However, on this particular bill, some issues need to be examined.

Overall, I see the strategy the member is pursuing here. He is trying to focus on a particular aspect of three different acts that has left a gaping wound in the public privacy of Canadians right now and the repercussions for individuals who are abusing the public trust in many respects. This is a serious crime because identity theft threatens not only adults, but also the youth in our society, especially as we see the use of text messaging and the Internet type of technologies expanded to their present capacities.

Prior to the last 10 years, this technology was less used in terms of business, commerce and personal use. It often was certain segments of society that used the Internet, email, web visualizations, as well as contact through different types of protocols. Now we have the use of voice-over protocols and a whole series of new technologies that are rolling out.

What we have witnessed is that the number of citizens who were able to use this type of information and technology has expanded significantly. Seniors are now able to use technologies such as never before because they have become a lot more proficient. The technology is much more accessible for individuals who are just becoming used to the system. People are becoming much more quickly involved in terms of using these technologies than in the past.

With this expansion, not only in the private sector but in the business sector as well, it requires changes in legislation. One of the difficulties we have with Bill C-299, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Competition Act, for personal information obtained by fraud, is what we need from the government at the end of the day, and this is not the responsibility of the member for Edmonton—Leduc because it is private members' business, but we need an omnibus review of the Criminal Code.

There is a series of updating that is required and this bill is a targeted piece of that update. I think it is worthy of support to move the bill to committee for second reading.

I must say that I am filling in for the New Democratic member for Windsor—Tecumseh who sits on the committee. I know the committee has a lot of legislation that is being tabled as private members' business, as well as government business. Hopefully the committee will get a chance to move this bill through the order so it can have a full review. Whether there is enough time to do so is a question in itself.

The issue of personal privacy is not new. The member went through a good examination of the details of the bill. I will touch on a few elements. One element concerned the data brokers. An important point to note is that the bill would bring into line the change in technologies that I noted. It was not unusual in the past to have individuals collect data information from people prior to the Internet and also the expansion of the Internet.

People do accumulate data information for purposes of marketing, although those with criminal intent do it for predatory practices. In my youth I worked for a telephone solicitation company. We made phone calls from a list of names that basically were out of the phone book. However, we eventually transferred that data to purchasing, decision making and tracking, whether there was an actual purchase of a circus ticket. If the person said no, we would track the person's reasons for saying no. Specific information was also used.

I know some of the information was sold or given to other types of companies. This was certainly a practice that was very valuable because the accumulation of that information can be very important, not just in terms of the type of customer we would get, but in terms of the contact. The list was certainly cleaned up in terms of new numbers, availability, a correct contact and was worth quite a bit for those trying to get customers.

I would like to outline a few specifics of the bill because they are important. The bill, as I noted, is an act to amend the Criminal Code to create the following criminal offences:

(a) obtaining personal information from a third party by a false pretence or by fraud;

(b) counselling a person to obtain personal information from a third party by a false pretence or by fraud; and

(c) selling or otherwise disclosing personal information obtained from a third party by a false pretence or by fraud.

It also amends the criminal offence of “personation with intent” to include fraudulent personation with intent to obtain any record containing personal information about a third party.

The bill would strengthen the Criminal Code and, as it has been identified, it would fill the hole or the void that is currently in legislation.

I know there was debate earlier about keeping the PIPEDA definition of privacy. What I interpret in terms of that, especially with private members' legislation and in particular this bill, is that to amend PIPEDA's definition of privacy would be a lot more complicated. We would have to amend that act to change the definition and a private members' act would then need to be amended later on to be consistent.

We have control of this right now but until the government actually examines or brings forth PIPEDA we need some type of way to proceed if the member's bill is to go forward. I think it is something that needs to be looked at.

I want to touch on another important point that cross-sections this in terms of privacy in general terms, which I hope members will take to heart. One point that is important to note is the one dealing with the patriot act and privacy. This bill in particular does have some elements related to the penalties of actually having data invasion and fraudulent use from the United States' perspective and having some type of Canadian repercussions so that companies are held more accountable when they do that, and then we have some international obligations.

What is important to note is that we cannot have that behaviour happening. I can understand that we do want to actually clamp down on those types of practices and we have an obligation to the rest of the world to do the same here but we are not addressing the larger picture. We have not and the bill does not address the issue of the patriot act. The patriot act, passed after September 11, 2001, has several clauses dealing with privacy. They basically allow the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, as well as other U.S. governmental agencies to access Canadian private information.

There have been a number of different subsequent responses to this. They have come from the provinces, in particular British Columbia. Quebec has been the latest and it intends to table legislation to deal with that.

Until the federal government brings forth an international treaty, we are susceptible to this privacy invasion. The privacy invasion is very important too because it also has the problem where our personal information is accumulated and taken by the American government. It is actually against the law for the company to disclose what happens to the information.

In the previous circumstance with which I was dealing, the CIBC decided to outsource its credit card data accumulation. It actually cannot tell Canadian customers, including myself, whether or not our information has been accumulated by any department of the U.S. government. Similar to that, there is no record of where the information goes.

The second point is that we do not know how that information is disposed of, treated or developed. What ends up happening is that we have a gaping hole that is not plugged.

I commend the member for bringing forth a private member's bill that does address some of the problems that we have on privacy. However, it opens up a larger issue, and perhaps the government is listening, that the Criminal Code is deficient at this point in time, not only in terms of protecting Canadian privacy from the elements of business and conduct on our side related to companies, but by individuals who use it for fraudulent purposes. The government has an obligation to protect the privacy of Canadians from American legislation.

[Automobile Industry, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern regarding the negative impact on Canada's important auto industry of a possible free trade agreement between Canada and Korea.

Canada's auto industry already faces some very difficult challenges. It already has lost 10,000 jobs in assembly since 1998 and another 10,000 parts jobs since 2003. The high dollar, a growing flood of offshore imports and structural problems are making matters worse by the month.

Canada already buys $1.7 billion worth of automotive products every year from Korea. In return, we export almost nothing back, with just $11.5 million last year. There are non-trading tariff barriers that are a problem for Canadian manufacturers and deny us access to the market. Korea has promised in the past to remove them, but has yet to do so.

We need to stop this deal. If the government wants to be helpful, what it should do is bring in a national auto policy, one New Democrats have been calling for. It would protect Canadian jobs and assure the future of an auto industry in the technological revolution. It would make sure that we have clean, efficient vehicles on our roads, produced by Canadians and our country.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the debate and points made by the member for Winnipeg North are well noted.

I want to focus on the auto industry in the context of today's debate. I find it ironic that the Liberals have a shopping list of things they want done in the motion, but they could never put that forth in terms of legislation when they actually had the power to do so. It is important to note the distinction that a motion discusses the principles of the House, whereas legislation would carry the day.

One piece of legislation I had been seeking since 2002, and which was promised by the then industry minister Allan Rock, and a previous minister, and then another minister from the Liberals, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, was an auto policy.

It is very important to note that we have a challenging environment in the auto industry. The assembly portion of auto manufacturing has declined in recent years. In fact there was a recent briefing with the department showing that the assembly component is substantially down in terms of the GDP revenue and the surplus that we would normally export to the United States in terms of the industry itself.

One of the most frustrating things in the current context in government is the fact that the member crossed the floor and is now the Minister of International Trade and we still do not have an auto policy. The Minister of Industry has been absolutely missing in action on many files including this one. In fact back in 2004, the then minister of industry who sat with the Liberals, and I plead with the audience to follow this ping-pong ball between the two parties, talked about having one within a couple of weeks but he never tabled it. At a subsequent industry committee meeting he did not table it when he had the chance to.

Why has the government not moved on an auto policy when it now owns the person who actually was supposed to be crafting one to begin with? If the Conservative government does not have one from him, why is it not holding him to account or getting the Minister of Industry to do something? That is important. The Conservatives brag about the minister's involvement in the softwood lumber sellout. They brag about his previous knowledge and his previous work as minister of industry in the Liberal government. They brag about the fact that he has delivered for Canada in that context. Putting that debate aside, why are the Conservatives not demanding the same expectations for our auto industry?

We had hearings today on auto manufacturing. Ironically the minister is once again involved in another issue that is negative to the auto industry, not only just in terms of not delivering on a promise, but now he is pushing a free trade deal with Korea. That is something the industry in Canada is against and something that our auto workers are against. We have had a briefing with the industry ministry on this subject and we know it is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb. That is unacceptable.

If the government wants to have an ounce of credibility, as it asked the minister to cross the floor, he should deliver the goods he was supposed to bring so that people of this country have some job protection.

[June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that we are still at this point in time. The Minister of International Trade, who the current government blamed for not doing anything, previously sat with the Liberal administration. I asked him back in April 7, 2005, to take some active steps. What do we have right now? We have a website that will be put in place as a solution. I do not know when that will happen, however.

We can have meetings, recommendations and all those things. That even is happening outside the government. The premiers recently expressed their concern about our current situation and the fact that the federal government had to get involved. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities expressed how important it was. Everyone has been expressing it, but the federal minister responsible for tourism has to come up with a plan and a website is not a plan.

It is not sufficient. We know people are going to lose their jobs this summer. First, there is going to be a decrease in trade because the dollar is escalating right now. Second, there is absolute, utter confusion out there about the requirement of a passport because of misinformation. The Minister of Industry has been missing in action on this file. When will they table a plan in the House of Commons so we can get some real action? A website is not enough.

[June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak about an issue that is very important for this country. It is in regard to economics and also in regard to my constituency and many others that are dependent upon the tourism trade.

It is also important to Americans and concerns the western hemisphere travel initiative. The introduction of passports for entry to and exit from the United States, not only for Americans and Canadians, will have significant economic impacts on our economy and trade.

Currently, the government has failed to put forth a plan on how it is going to deal with tourism. When I rose in the House of Commons, I agreed with the government that the previous Liberal administration had done nothing on that file. We heard a number of comments from the government side from a series of ministers, blaming the previous administration. However, it is not enough to criticize the previous Liberal government. We must have a plan. That has not happened yet.

Interestingly enough, the first question that was answered by the Minister of Public Safety said this of the Liberals: “They broke faith with Canadians in not taking action on this file”.

Subsequent to that, in a supplementary question, I talked about the NDP being asked for ideas by the Prime Minister. We actually did table a tourism strategy, one that deals with requesting expectations from the United States in terms of amelioration and the effects of the implementation of the WHTI.

For example, the American ambassador continues to talk about the documents the Americans want to have at the end of the day as being a work in progress. With a looming deadline, not knowing what the documents are and having no money to fund that process is a serious problem.

Second, we called for the extension of Canadian passports from 5 to 10 years, reducing the fee for seniors, and having them free for veterans. We also spoke about a national tourism strategy with the provinces and the municipalities to clear the air about what is going on right now. We see from Statistics Canada a continued decline of American tourism in Canada.

Interestingly enough, the Minister of Industry responded. He is responsible for this file in terms of tourism. He had previously declined many opportunities to discuss this in this chamber. He responded by actually blaming the previous administration and said, “This is a lot more than what was allocated in the previous Liberal Party budget”.

The problem with this issue is that the member for Vancouver Kingsway was the previous industry minister responsible for this file. He sat with the Liberals at the time. He crossed the floor and now he sits with the Conservatives. Quite frankly, the Minister of Industry probably has breakfast with the Minister of International Trade, who now sits with him in caucus and blamed him for not doing enough.

We just cannot have the blame game any more. We must have a plan. Why can the Minister of Industry not extract what the Minister of International Trade was going to do on this file? Why did he do nothing? Why will he not table a plan in the House of Commons because people will lose their jobs this summer?

[Veterans, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, for the 80th time, members of the Windsor Veterans Memorial Services Committee paid tribute and honoured those who served our country and have died in the past year from our area.

Created by Major Joe Brown and Clarence Forster, the WVMS began after World War I to assist families in burial services and support.

Unique to Windsor, our tribute includes a banquet and a ceremony at our cenotaph, where this year we recognized 353 veterans who passed away this year with the observance of the Last Post, a three gun salute and a vintage plane flyover.

We also recognized the 16 men and one woman who died in service in Afghanistan and Senior Constable John Atkinson, who was killed in the line of duty for our police services.

My grandfather, Mr. Fred Attwood, was a decorated World War II veteran. The WVMS provided support when he succumbed to cancer. Words will never fully express my family's gratitude that his Legion comrades helped lay him to rest.

Let me say to chairman Wayne Hillman and Reverend Stan Fraser and for all the past and present volunteers of WVMS that they are proof that heroes are still giving back to our community. I thank them. They do us proud.

[Tourism Industry, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry finally awoke from his 100 days of slumber to participate in the debate about passport issues and the effect on tourism.

In his response he blamed the previous administration and also the former minister of industry, who is now sitting with him on his own bench. The old saying goes that if you buy the dog, you get the fleas that come with it.

I want to know from the Minister of Industry, does he consult with the former minister of industry who is now with him in caucus about the fact that they did nothing and he is doing nothing right now? Is that the strategy, to consult with his own?