Brian Masse

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's question and his interest in the auto industry, but the reality is that the tax cuts are not even the number one thing the corporations are asking for. Looking at the CAPC report, tax cuts are not the priority. It is infrastructure and other things.

What is interesting about the budget and the infrastructure that is being delivered is it is over five to six years. We know from history that the length of minority governments is a couple of years at best. We have only seen a renewal of funds. We have not really seen significant improvements in border infrastructure. Coming from Windsor West, I have heard it all in terms of promises for infrastructure which are never delivered.

With regard to tax cuts, I would ask the hon. member to go back to his constituency and ask why it is that they support continuing a $1.5 billion tax cut or subsidies for the oil and gas industry and why those companies are not exempted in this respect. Canadians see the record profits in the oil and gas industry. All the companies have record prices at the pump and they are going to get another tax cut. That does not make any sense.

Yes, we can have some good tax cuts, there is no doubt about that, but they have to be strategic and they have to lead to good jobs for Canadians, enjoyed by all, not just a select few.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act.

I will start by making some corrections that I think are important in terms of the revisionist theory that is happening on the Liberal side with regard to what brought about an election. I also want to point out that the Liberals still have not learned a sense of responsibility regarding their conduct in the last Parliament in promising one thing to Canadians and then delivering another.

It is amazing to hear that the timing of the election was solely brought on by the NDP, when the fact of the matter is it was the member for LaSalle—Émard who literally went on television and begged for his life. There was only three weeks difference in when we actually had the election. He begged across this country. He set a precedent. It was the first time a prime minister had used the national media to ask for time so that the Liberals could actually bring something forward. The reality is there was only a three week difference. What else is amazing is at that time even if we had chosen to support the Liberals, there still would not have been enough votes in the House of Commons to prop them up.

The fact is the Liberals have really missed the point that Canadians made a decision. Canadians made a decision and their votes should not be taken for granted. They have that right.

What we have now is a budget which in many respects reminds me of the budgets that the member for LaSalle—Émard put forward in the late 1990s which focused on tax cuts for corporations as opposed to investing in Canadians. That is one of the reasons as a New Democrat I cannot support the present budget bill. It does not invest enough in Canadians. At a time when we have record surpluses we still have outstanding challenges.

One area I want to focus on today is the manufacturing sector. An industrial strategy has been repeatedly called for. We have witnessed the struggles of the aerospace and textile industries which are very important economic engines for the Canadian economy. This goes back to prior to the rise in the Canadian dollar. The rise in the Canadian dollar is in large part due to the high oil and gas exports to the United States. Those are having a significant impact on the dollar which has a subsequent impact on manufacturing in Canada.

Studies, the most recent of which was on January 27, have shown that with the labour market shifts in manufacturing, construction and natural resources, we are witnessing one of the biggest downturns in Canadian manufacturing history.

I come from Windsor, Ontario. The automotive industry traditionally has paid a lot of money into the federal government coffers through personal and corporate taxes, which has benefited this country significantly. That industry is at risk for a couple of reasons. There is no public policy of framework on how to increase the capacity to create manufacturing jobs and keep them going forward or, more importantly, incentives regarding employment on the shop floor.

The United States has incentives, economic relief and strategic elements for training as well as incentives for infrastructure which capture Canadian jobs. That is a real risk here. We know with the dollar going up it has had an significant impact.

In a study from 2002 to 2005, before we actually had a significant shift in the Canadian dollar which is further problematic, manufacturing jobs fell by nearly 149,000, representing a 6.4% loss during that time. This is significant because once we lose those jobs they are gone.

It is interesting that in the budget plan a chart on page 32 indicates a steep decline in manufacturing employment from 1970 to 2005. The decline is represented by a downward slope so steep that someone could ski jump off it. Unfortunately, we have not been doing anything to push that rate back up again. We have not done enough.

Interestingly, in the budget plan there is a graph showing immediate crude oil prices, but we witnessed the exact opposite. On budget day it was over $75 a barrel which is a significant increase. That pushes up the manufacturing issues relating to productivity which are so difficult to deal with. There are the elements of a higher dollar that had traditionally been relied upon as a crutch by the government without an actual strategy.

Potential solutions have been proposed. The Centre for Policy Alternatives has a good one. I am going to outline a few of the things where the budget does not allocate or speak to the auto sector which is very important. There are simple things we could do.

We could establish a multi-stakeholder sectoral development council. We did that in the past with CAPC recommendations. The Canadaian Automotive Partnership Council got together to create a national strategy. Everyone is on side, from business to labour to municipalities. It is a comprehensive strategy.

What is interesting about this budget, which reminds me once again of the regime of the member for LaSalle—Émard, was that a previous Liberal minister, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, could have acted on the CAPC recommendations. It is a model that is spoken about. He had an opportunity to act on it and he chose not to. At committee I challenged the then Liberal minister of industry, science and technology to bring forward an automotive manufacturing strategy. He promised on two different occasions that he would bring that back. He did not deliver.

What is interesting is that the member has now moved over to the Conservative Party as the Minister of International Trade. Why did he not bring the work related to the budget and auto policy with him? Will it come? We do not know. We have not heard. It is not in the budget. It is not in the speaking points. The Minister of Industry has been virtually silent. It is certainly not one of the five priorities. A convincing case could be made, but we have not heard about this very important file.

I cannot understand it. The member for Vancouver Kingsway carried the softwood lumber position that was constructed under the Liberal regime over to the Conservative side. The softwood lumber issue was basically trade crime against Canadians but he did not bring forward a piece of legislation for the automotive sector and the manufacturing sector at one of the most sensitive times. It is an interesting point in time because we have newer technologies. We hear a lot about the potential tax credits and some of the structures that could be put in place to move newer technologies from shop floors into manufacturing, but where is the sectoral strategy to deliver that? We have yet to hear.

I am very pleased that the industry committee has agreed to study manufacturing losses and jobs in the upcoming session of Parliament. It is a priority. It is very important, but we need to do more.

Another aspect is we could review the Canadian investment act to ensure that incoming foreign investment generates significant benefits in the public interest. This is something that has been put forth with regard to China Minmetals. China Minmetals was going to purchase Canadian companies. We objected to that. It was shot down at committee. We had tried to put that forth at that time. We now hear grumblings that the legislation might come back for amendment. We might have an interest in that. We need to look at that in terms of what type of export of Canadian jobs is happening.

This is not foreign to Canada. In the United States, congressmen and other legislators are looking at similar types of changes to their legislation and ownership rules. We have seen that most recently with Dubai and with other types of initiatives relating to manufacturing. Hopefully we will see that type of review come forward, and not just in terms of what I raised at industry committee. We talked a lot about safety and security and national security issues but there still is nothing today in our foreign investment act that prevents rogue nations, when we define them as rogue nations, from actually buying Canadian companies. Some of them could be sensitive strategically involving telecommunications and natural resources and could have a significant impact on the Canadian market and on manufacturing here and abroad. There is nothing in there. Currently all the information is kept private and there is no recourse for members of Parliament or the public to get the information.

Another thing that we are calling for, and I would have hoped to see a comment on this, is in regard to the free trade talks with Korea. There is a significant problem with regard to the automotive industry. Right now Korea has a significant trade surplus with us in the automotive sector that we cannot penetrate. We would like to hear about those things.

In closing, another very important issue which comes into play is the western hemisphere travel initiative. We never saw anything for the tourism sector in this budget to the detriment of our economy and our tourism sector. That should be in the budget as well.

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, again this week in Washington there will be debates surrounding the western hemisphere travel initiative, a new law that will require both Americans and Canadians to have passports or new identification to enter and exit the United States.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that this ill thought law will have devastating consequences to Canadian and U.S. tourism, trade and social-cultural exchange.

Most recently, the Zogby study went so far to demonstrate that many Americans will not comply with the new rules at all. With a looming deadline fast approaching, no specific regulations implemented and no detailed plan of implementation, we are on the fast track for economic loss. This is no longer theory as investor Jim Pattison of Ripley's fame recently pulled out of a $100 million investment for the Niagara region causing another loss.

New Democrats have been speaking on this issue since day one by forcing the Canadian Tourism Commission to study the consequences, demand expectations from the Bush administration, and calling for a Canadian tourism strategy specific to WHTI.

While in opposition, the Conservatives joined the initial fight for accountability. However, the government since abandoned Canadians in Cancun, when the Prime Minister told us to get used to it and was star struck by Condoleezza Rice while in Washington. What happened to standing up for Canadians? Canadian jobs in tourism and trade are at risk. The Conservatives should not be like the Liberals in the last administration. They should stand up for Canadians.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific gateway file has been surrounded by the whole issue of the member for Vancouver Kingsway who crossed the floor. He was the individual who left the Liberal Party and went to the Conservative Party. He purports at different times to be a champion of the gateway project itself.

It is important in terms of transparency and ethics to have the practice of floor crossing stopped. The member for Vancouver Kingsway should actually have to sit as an independent. He could vote with the government all he wants. He could be part of an independent system and decide what he wanted to do on individual issues. He could work with the government in some type of affiliation. However, to go from being a Liberal to being a Conservative in a matter of weeks is hypocrisy. It is fraud on the election system. It is reprehensible because people have been basically subverted in terms of their democratic right to choose.

It is important to ask the member for North Vancouver if he will support stopping the floor crossing that has happened in the House of Commons. The Manitoba government has done it. The reasonable expectation is that a member would either go back to the electorate and be brought back as a member of a different party or the member would sit as an independent and would vote with the government if the member chose to do so . At least the conflict of interest that there is on this file would be absent.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's interesting analysis of the NDP budget as well as the optics of the current Parliament.

It is very interesting to note that the Bloc is similar to the Conservative Party when it was working with the Liberals and they could actually work together. I remember when the Prime Minister was the opposition leader he supported the Liberals originally, then switched and flip-flopped on a number of different things.

I am wondering why the Bloc has not negotiated anything at all. It is almost like a dog with no legs. It barks but does not go anywhere.

It is time Canadians understood that protest for the sake of protest is not a policy position. We took a stand and money is coming out at least to some Canadians because of that, unlike the Bloc that is just demonstrating the ability to not take any position whatsoever at any point in time.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I would like to ask my colleague a question with regard to the budget and issues related to manufacturing.

On page 32 of the budget there is a good chart on manufacturing employment in terms of outlining some of the challenges. It shows that manufacturing employment is going down in Canada significantly. As well, our Canadian dollar is rising from the export of our oil and gas industry to the United States. It is creating an artificial environment that is not sustainable and is actually killing manufacturing jobs in Ontario, Quebec and other regions.

The only thing that is in the budget under the same philosophy is that by reducing corporate taxes we will actually increase employment investment, but the reality is that when we look at aerospace, textiles and auto manufacturing, those employers are calling for national strategies that actually target specific areas for their investment. They see that as the most preferred option.

Ste-Thérèse, Quebec, is where we lost an auto manufacturing plant. It is one of the reasons we have a new parts council that is in agreement with regard to calling for an incentive.

In terms of the budget, there seems to be a failing in recognizing that the industries themselves are calling for national strategies. They say, for example, the United States has incentives and subsidies for their industries which we do not have here. Unfortunately, I think the budget fails on the manufacturing component.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I heard my hon. colleague's commentary blaming the New Democratic Party for the failures of his own party, which had years of corruption, scandal, and blaming others, as those members quite often do, instead of taking responsibility. It is interesting to note this going on during the whole sponsorship scandal, the Liberal convention and the process leading up to the election.

Ironically, the member for LaSalle—Émard went on television across Canada, in an unprecedented way of reaching the Canadian public, and begged to have an election date. There was a difference of only three weeks in regard to when the election actually occurred. Also, because independents had decided to vote against the government, even if the NDP had voted with the government there were not enough New Democrats to actually make a difference. It is a subtle point of numbers that the hon. member obviously does not appreciate.

I will ask the hon. member and give him a chance to explain this to Canadians: why has his party has not apologized to Canadians for the sponsorship scandal? Second, when are the Liberals are going to take individual responsibility, which is a first step toward improving the situation in this chamber? It is unacceptable to continue to blame others when they do not take responsibility themselves.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 has a potential provision in it that could be very helpful. The NDP championed a motion, which was passed in the House of Commons, relating to the banning of trans fats. The member for Winnipeg Centre was a particular champion on this motion.

We know trans fats are in everything from children's baby food to regular types of packaged food. It is one of the things we can reduce, as a human health factor, through promotion, enforcement and regulations. Having an advocate for this through Bill C-5 would be an enhancement. Public policy could be shaped across the country that would improve wellness. More important, it could eliminate some of the risks factors on human health, which costs us on the medical side and shortens the span of life of our citizens.

What is the hon. member's opinion on how the bill might be able to tackle overall coordination and advancement of the elimination of trans fats and other types of human health issues that affect us on a regulation basis?

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting avenues the bill might actually create is the investigation and mitigation of different health factors in terms of food products. I would like the investigation to involve the elimination of trans fats. The House of Commons voted to work toward the reduction and elimination of trans fats. The NDP motion was accepted in 2005. I would like to see that administered.

I ask my colleague from the Bloc, would her party argue that Quebec should have different standards for trans fats? Trans fats appear in baby food and a whole series of products that affect human health.

Especially given the industrial use of different manufacturing processes in the goods that people buy, it would be an advantage to lower trans fats and have standardized reductions of trans fats across the country. It would also pressure the manufacturing industries to immediately reduce or lower trans fats which would create better market conditions to attain a quicker result in the elimination of trans fats.

Having Quebec as part of that would make it a speedier process, or do the Bloc members actually believe that Quebec should have a different level of trans fats than in the rest of the country, than eliminating products or restricting products or allowing more that would have increased trans fats?

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question regarding Bill C-5.

One of the things she mentioned in her speech was the environmental contaminants issue. In this chamber in 2002, I presented a motion on environmental contaminants and human health. It looked to create an investigative body that would go to hot spots where we know that cancer rates, for example, or other contaminant issues that are linked to environmental pollution are problematic for those communities. It would look at ways to take remedial action and investigations as well as introduce some best practices to lower the actual percentages of either the cancer rates or other types of illnesses.

In my area, we have respiratory diseases. We have a significant pollution problem from the United States and from our own industries that cause health problems. We actually have some benefits that could be introduced through remedial action.

It is important to add a prevention element to this as well because some of the issues that we deal with, related to disease as well as contaminants, could be done in the forefront by preventing those things in the first place. My question to the member is, how should that envisioned role be part of public health in terms of lowering our costs and, most important, improving the lives of our citizens on a daily basis in order to extend their lives?