Brian Masse

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand here today and support Bill C-278. It is an important bill and I would like to commend the member for Trois-Rivières for bringing this forward to the House of Commons.

This is an important issue not only for persons who have to collect employment insurance in times of need but also for those they support in their families, whether it be their sons, their daughters or other members of the family. They require a direct income in their households to provide food on the table, to ensure their kids go to school and that they will get the transitional support necessary to get back on their feet again because something has happened in the workplace that has dislodged them from an opportunity or from an employment situation that they had.

It is important to recognize at the outset that what we are talking about here are modest improvements to return the system back to what it was intended to do. It was intended to support workers and their families, and to ensure that we had a national strategy for people who are out of a job to get back on their feet and be productive again.

That is what it was about and those workers paid for that. They paid on a daily basis into a system for insurance, so that they could have the decency and integrity of chasing the Canadian dream to ensure that their families would be well taken care of and progress. They paid for that. It is not something that was handed to them on a plate. It is not a handout. It is something that people and workers paid into, and employers as well, because we all recognize the need to have the supports necessary when people lose their jobs, especially in this day and age when we have more transitional employment than ever before.

We have workers who are paying for upgrades at schools, putting out thousands of dollars in education because a lot of workplaces do not do it anymore. They have to pay that debt back at the same time that there are fewer opportunities to find employment that will be sustainable, consistent and support them in a decent lifestyle.

The government has stolen from them. It is as simple as that. People pay every single day that they work into a fund that should be there for them in a time of need. It is important to recognize the situation that happens when workers lose their employment and they end up having--

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-272.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas for resurrecting this important issue. It was first brought forward in a different form by the member for Vancouver East, who was originally the champion of this. She tried to bring some sense and some clarity to the issue. More important, she tried to ensure that there would be some justice in our immigration policy. I congratulate her for continuing to support this initiative.

The New Democratic Party has long sought changes to the Immigration Act relating to reunifying families. We want to ensure that they will be able to build their families over here which in turn will make our nation successful through their different contributions in lifestyles, cultures and economic activity.

Many nations seek individuals from other countries for different reasons. They want to expand their economies and their cultures. Canada has benefited from this type of experience. We have led the world in many respects. However, we have watched our system erode the principles that have made us successful.

Bill C-272 would reaffirm the elements of the family unit. The legislation would make it easier for people to be reunited. It would expand on the family unit. In particular, the bill states:

Subject to the regulations, a Canadian citizen or permanent resident may, once in their lifetime, sponsor one foreign national who is a relative but is not a member of the family class.

It is important to note that we are not looking to open the floodgates. We do not want people bringing in several family members, flooding our immigration system. Bill C-272 would allow an individual to be reunited with family members who are currently restricted through our class system. That hurts not only those families, but it hurts Canadians in general. I will give the House a specific example.

A gentleman residing in my constituency came to Canada and set up his own business. He wants to bring over his brother to help with the business but he is not eligible at the present time. He has to go through all kinds of hoops to be reunited with the family. This individual is needed for the family business because he has particular skills and abilities. I am talking about a very successful, law-abiding family that has contributed to the Canadian economy. They would like to have this individual become part of their family business.

Why should a family that has given so much of itself and has committed to this country be unable to bring over a brother over the age of 22 to make their life more complete?

It also would be beneficial on a selfish perspective for Canadians to bring this family member over because he would be able to help take care of the aging mother and father. He would ensure that they were cared for, nurtured and kept the healthy attitude required during the aging process. Those aging parents would be supported by another family member as opposed to being separated.

The human aspect is really important. The brother is living in another country by himself while his entire family is over here. These people are going through a considerable amount of stress because he cannot be a part of the life they have built here in Canada.

It is important that we reward those people who have the moxie to come to this country, often not knowing what is awaiting them and often not having the financial resources to set themselves up in a way they would like. When these people come to Canada, they often have to struggle to find employment. They work long hours to gain a position that would give them some degree of comfort. We should look at rewarding them for their contributions and reuniting them with family members.

This is the type of person we want to bring to Canada, someone who has a vested interest in a family that is prospering here. What better security is there than to have people come to our country where they will have family stability. They will have a vested interest in the current status of their family and also in perpetuity for generations to come. Such people are more likely to be valuable citizens which is very important for our society. It is very important not to miss that mark. It is not just opening the doors to anyone. We are offering our hand to help bring the partnerships back to people who really should be reunited.

We need to talk about the subsection referred to in this bill and what the technical aspect of it boils down to. We are talking about a sponsor's brother or sister, an aunt or an uncle, a niece or a nephew, a first cousin, or the sponsor's child who is 22 years of age or older and is not dependent on the sponsor. That is important to note. These are the people who will strengthen the extended family unit. That is so important in terms of our society today.

We often talk about issues that are plaguing Canadian society right now. There are issues such as child poverty and single mothers attempting to put food on the table and putting their kids through school and having to do so on their own.

We are talking about family members being able to reunite in order to strengthen the family unit. The extended family is very much part of the Canadian tradition.

In past generations extended family members were more likely to live together because of economic or social and cultural reasons. Then things shifted. I have an extended family. My parents divorced and then remarried and my family has grown because of that. It has been a benefit in many respects to my personal life. They are still part of my family. That is the reality we are dealing with today.

We are all stronger when we have people in our lives connected in a personal way. They add value because of the sustainability of their contributions, whether it be in finding a job or going to school. It is important for people to have that structure around them.

People in Windsor West are really suffering from the immigration process right now. It has been deplorable in terms of the processing of claims, the waiting and the lack of government support to deal with the backlogs. It is a net loss for this country. There are people who could be reunited.

One must also understand that families are sending money outside the country to support family members elsewhere. In countries such as Jordan individuals have to pay a daily head tax for their relatives who are waiting in limbo to be reunited. Some family members are paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per month to support people overseas who could be reunited with them in Canada.

We are watching that resource dissipate. The mental grief of those families pushes them to the edge. It often affects their work, their social elements and their contributions to society. Often they have to leave the country.

I know of one family in particular. They are very successful individuals. The gentleman wants to bring his mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are very healthy people, to Canada from another country and cannot do so right now. He would very much like to do that.

He and his family will probably have to leave the country. They have to support their relatives in South America. They are aging. They have the financial capability. They are not a burden. They are an asset. Their relatives should be brought here so that we can strengthen that family and not lose these well educated professionals to another country because we will not let their law-abiding mother and father be reunited with them in this country.

This type of nonsense is unacceptable. It really erodes the traditional values of Canadian culture and society that were based upon asking people from other parts of the world to have the conviction and strength to come to our country where they would be valued and would be able to contribute. Through a series of processes we have distanced them from their heritage and culture by not allowing them to reunite with their brethren, which is very important. These are people who contribute to the Canadian economy. They are not a burden.

I have a hard time understanding the motivation of the government. It is moving backwards in terms of what individuals have been told. It has done this in other cases with people who have credentials. It has done this in other cases by denying visitation permits to people who want to spend some together.

We ask people to come to this country. We say that they are a strong asset, that they could actually become citizens and that we trust they will make a contribution to our society. Why would we not at least once in their lifetime provide them with the opportunity to bring somebody over here to strengthen their lives and their neighbours' lives and all of Canada?

That is why it is very important to support this bill. This is a very modest and practical approach to deal with a significant problem in Canadian society right now. Economically it benefits this nation. More important it is about justice for those individuals who have been successful law-abiding citizens in our country to be able to reunite with family members.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her very eloquent speech. It is important that the terms of reference she deals with is the fact that this will affect all the country. I would like her to emphasize again and expand upon the government's handling of this situation and how it also relates to health care and other issues. More important, how this relates to the structures and pillars we have built as a Canadian society which give us our national identity. The issue of health care is an example. The different standards across the country are eroding our national vision and identity. Could she expand upon that?

[Privilege, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter is that I was not in the justice committee and I am not a member of that committee. The issue is that this specific document claims actions that did not take place.

This is about parliamentary privilege and the use of taxpayer money to spread lies and mistruths about members and that is not acceptable. On the issue of intimidation, it is a fact that members in the community would be replying to information that is not factually correct and having their private information accumulated based upon that and documented and stored with the Conservative Party of Canada based on mistruths.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to address a very important issue. As the member of Parliament for Windsor West, I feel that my privileges were breached by a mailing that was sent to several areas of my constituency. I received complaints from my constituents about it. It not only lied about my record as a member of Parliament, but it also lied about the role of Parliament.

The mailing was sent under the franking privileges of the member for Medicine Hat. I do not know if the member authorized it or saw it prior to it going out. I have now given him a copy of it. The return address on it is to the leader of the official opposition.

The mailing was quite shocking because it indicated that I did not support the RCMP. What was really disgusting and disturbing about the mailing was the fact that it arrived on the doorsteps of my home and others on the very day the country was mourning the loss of four RCMP officers.

There are ways to revoke mailings at the last minute. As a member of Parliament, I have done it myself, and I believe that should have been done.

The document itself is a breach of parliamentary privilege. Specifically, the mailing said, “In November your Member of Parliament had the opportunity to transfer $20 million from the gun registry to the RCMP”.

There was no vote in November, Mr. Speaker, in which I could participate. There was a vote in December in which I did oppose further supplementary money going to the gun registry. I voted with the Conservative side and other members of different political parties at that point in time. The mailing is factually wrong on that instance.

Procedurally, I would like to have this matter sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination. The mailing misleads the constituents of Windsor West about the procedures of the House of Commons. We cannot take money from one budget and put it into another on a whim, as the document indicates.

The document stated, “Instead of supporting Canada's hard-working Mounties, your M.P. voted against this proposal”.

I found that also disgusting. As a former municipal councillor and in my current role as a member of Parliament, I have always supported the police department as well as the RCMP.

The information in this mailing is wrong. It lied. It spread the wrong information to my constituents. It was not factual with respect to my voting record as well as with respect to the role of Parliament.

A series of questions were also included in the mailing such as: “Do you think the gun registry should be scrapped? Yes or No.” “Do you support the Conservative plan to ensure front-line officers are properly funded to keep your streets safe? Yes or No.” This is ironic because one could take the argument that I support the gun registry so therefore I would take RCMP officers off the street. One could argue that the Conservative Party has been pushing for tax cuts for corporations and taking RCMP officers off our streets. There is a double standard that is not acceptable.

It is important that this be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. An apology should be issued to the residents of Windsor West. Cards containing personal information will go to the data bank of the leader of the official opposition for whatever kind of distribution. This information will be accumulated under misleading and false pretences.

I do not have a problem with the government mailing information to my riding. For example, it recently mailed out literature with respect to farms even though I have only one farm in my community of 118,000 people. The government was speaking its voice. The information was not misleading. It did not state anything not factual about my record.

This case needs redress. The Conservative Party should pay back the taxpayers of the country for misleading information.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. member focused on the Department of Transport in his speech. It has often been neglected in terms of infrastructure and it is costing us dearly. In a number of circumstances it certainly shows that we have missed out on opportunities to create jobs and secure our future with a lack of investment in hard infrastructure.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on another issue the Minister of Transport seems to be involved in and the ineptness of the government to fund that department. In the budget speech the minister identified the Windsor-Detroit corridor as probably the most important corridor requiring infrastructure investment for this nation, and possibly the world, as 42% of the nation's traffic in trade goes through that corridor along two kilometres of the Detroit River. Yet in the actual budget itself and presented verbatim in the minister's speech, there is not a single penny for this infrastructure. How does it get fixed with no money?

I would like the hon. member to comment on the seriousness of this situation when his party is committed to a resolution that the city and county have come up with a plan for investing in that infrastructure and ensuring that we have prosperity for all of Canada.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a good evaluation of some of the farming issues that our people are facing now. What is also important to note in the budget is the actual $5 billion in corporate tax cuts.

In my constituency we have done a lot of outreach, mailings and received feedback in e-mails. I have not run across anyone in my constituency who has suggested corporate tax cuts. In fact, even the big three corporations that I represent in my riding have called for an auto policy and for fixing our border but they have not called for tax cuts in terms of the Canadian Auto Parts Council resolution.

If the farmers in his community had their choice, does the hon. member know how would they would rank corporate tax cuts versus appropriate aid for the situation they are in?

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about the issue of the Detroit-Windsor corridor which was mentioned in the budget speech, However, there was not a single dollar for the most important corridor to fix the gridlock for 42% of the nation's traffic.

The province of Ontario has agreed to the Schwartz report, which was produced by the city of Windsor. Also there is unanimous support from Essex county. The Premier of Ontario has endorsed the report. The only thing left is for the federal government to support the report.

Does the minister support it and why did the budget not have any money for the border? Why does the minister not get up and support the Schwartz report like the Prime Minister promised my constituency and Canadians?

[Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians hear from their Prime Minister. The Liberals have a rogue ambassador and it is the Prime Minister's duty to pull him back in.

My question is for the Minister of Health. It deals with the drug Vioxx which has been pulled from Canadian markets because it is not safe. The minister and the department knew about this and they did nothing to stop Canadians who are suffering from the effects of this medication from taking it. This drug is creating lab rats out of Canadians.

Will the minister pull it off the market and make sure it stays off the market? Will he make sure that we put safety first instead of drug pushers first?

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague who I serve with on the industry committee. I know that he takes all of his speeches here very seriously.

I have a couple of questions for him. What are his thoughts about the effects of this issue on human health? I want to use Ontario as an example. I know the member is from Yukon, but the Ontario Medical Association, for example, has done a study and estimates that smog and pollution will cost the Ontario economy about $1 billion each year.

Given that absolute loss to the economy, setting aside the issues of how it punishes our children, seniors and other Canadians by having this infectious attack on their human health, why has the government not produced or procured an auto strategy to give confidence to the industry? Where is that? We would certainly like to see that because it was promised.

The Minister of Industry told me that he hoped to have a document in front of cabinet. Has the actual auto strategy been given to cabinet at this point in time and when are we going to see action? It has been about three and a half years since the CAPC report was initiated. It has been completed for months.

Could the hon. member shed any light on that subject matter because I believe the industry would be much more supportive if it was confident the government was behind it 100%?