Brian Masse

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to the bill. It is important that we talk about it. It is interesting to note that when it comes to tax cuts and relief for corporations and for the most affluent, there is never any hesitation by the government to move forward on those initiatives. There is never any hesitation by the Conservative Party to move forward on those initiatives.

It is interesting to bring up the whole balance that has to be struck between the arts community and the sports community, as if we are trying to divide them. Two months ago the NDP put forward the motion for arts relief taxation. It would have provided an opportunity to allow some tax relief for artists. We received the same type of argument, that we could not do it for one group without doing it for another. That is unfair. Families require some type of tax relief, especially given the burden that has been placed upon the individuals who want to get their children to participate in sports. That is the important notation.

Being a former municipal councillor and also working for the not for profit sector for 10 years of my life, I know that the stretching of the envelope, which has existed over the last decade, has been incredible. We have watched sports associations go to businesses and families looking for support to continue to have children and others involved in sports, or entertainment, or whatever depending upon the association. However, for sports in particular, they have to go back and back to the private sector.

My community is one of the most giving. For numerous years, we have won the percentage per capita of donations to the United Way for all of Canada. However, the reality is the people have gone so far and they have done so much that they cannot do any more. This is an instance where the government could participate with that partnership.

I was interested to hear the comments from the government, such as it was inappropriate for the tax system. What is appropriate though is tax cuts. The government can afford $100 billion in tax cuts but it cannot afford a real pittance for amateur sports. It is unbelievable.

The bill is very progressive and it would create somewhat of a similar circumstance to that of charitable donations. What that would do is empower groups and organizations. They would have the ability to go out and offset some of those costs.

The second point the government noted was that it would cost money. Well it has plenty of money to dole out. The government has taken credit for the initiative to sell Petro-Canada. Its shares are estimated to be worth around $3 billion, depending upon the stock market. However, what is interesting is in the new year alone the government gave the oil and gas industry an approximate $2 billion tax cut, so it had to make that up. There is plenty of money for corporate tax cuts but not enough for our citizens or our children.

This is the inclusion aspect that is so important about this bill because there is a connection to the family. We have heard from so many Canadians about the family and their concerns about being involved in a community, having a safe environment and keeping kids active. Amateur sport is one of those investments where we can get kids away from the television screens, off the computers and out on the streets, involved in the community centres and contributing to the success of this nation. Their health will be improved because they will learn good habits about their wellness and about physical activity that will carry them through their lives, and that will be a benefit for our health care system. I believe that is an important recognition.

For example, we can look at hockey tournaments. Speaking as an Ontarian, we have a lot of different hockey tournaments across the province as well as in the United States, and there are goodwill ambassadors. We have so many opportunities to mix among ourselves as families and to connect with other people across the country and the United States, for the sportsmanship and for the actual involvement.

The bill would provide some tax relief so we could encourage that type of activity. I fail to understand the lack of foresight by the government in ensuring the bill does not go forward. It is unbelievable, especially when we have a system that has provided so much relief for other citizens.

We have an opportunity to make a difference for our young people. This is what the bill really goes to. We have an opportunity to do something progressive and to be involved in their involvement in the actual sports theatre. That is very important, and the government is showing regressive attitudes with the fact that it cannot provide a mere pittance for this activity.

I am going to be supporting this private member's bill. I find there is duplicity in what we are hearing from the government. I am not surprised to see the Conservative Party being part of this by not providing tax relief for citizens but having it for corporations.

[International Aid, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, four months have passed since the Liberals first introduced Bill C-9, a bill to assist developing countries to get affordable drugs. An estimated 800,000 Africans have died from AIDS and more than 1.5 million have been infected with HIV since that time.

When Kofi Annan was here, the Prime Minister told us that the time to act is now, but this month the Liberals have cancelled the committee four times for the meetings on Bill C-9.

For the Prime Minister, some of the Liberals have told us they want to change the name of the bill to the Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa. Is this why the Prime Minister is stalling the bill? Because of his personal vendetta?

[Border Crossings, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Bi-National Planning Group studying a new border crossing at the Windsor-Essex county area announced that it will drag its feet for another three years at the expense of our economy and the health of our citizens.

The incompetence, political interference and mismanagement of the border file by the Liberals has earned it the unflattering comparisons to the gun registry by local citizens.

The citizens of Windsor do not need more band-aid proposals. They need strong leadership.

Will the Prime Minister shorten the timelines or is it his intention to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for band-aid projects with Liberal connections? Will he support the community's request for a bypass?

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

They are subsidies. They are offering cash.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's discussion about tariffs and trade. It is an interesting topic that certainly has dominated a lot of discussion in Ontario and across the country. It also opens up some longstanding problems that we have especially when we look south of the border to the United States.

I come from, Windsor, Ontario. We have seen free trade affect our community through the border crossings as well as through the manufacturing industry and in particular the automotive industry.

It is important for me to outline what happened. Signing on to free trade killed the auto pact and put us in the situation we are in today where of the last 18 auto assembly manufacturing plants, only one has come to Canada. There have been several problems with that situation. That is very relevant because one in 7.5 jobs in Canada, and one in six in Ontario, are related specifically to the auto industry.

The United States has put in massive subsidies to steal jobs from Canadians in the auto sector. They literally pour in hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that plants go to the United States. It happened in the southern states, in Alabama, Missouri and others. Now it is happening in the northern states. Michigan recently received a plant for hybrid engines for DaimlerChrysler. They offered tens of millions of dollars of subsidies to be able to procure the plant, thus eliminating the option for communities in our country.

I would like the hon. member to address this situation. I have asked the government to at least challenge under the free trade agreement this subsidization of the auto industry that the U.S. is doing to steal the jobs, or to address the problem that we have.

What do we do when these companies demand hundreds of millions of dollars and then the United States provides those dollars and we lose those opportunities in our country? What do we do about that? We have been specifically told by those companies that taxation and health care do not interest them. What interests them is the subsidization that they get from the United States.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that part of the debate is talking about prevention because when we look at our dollars, the investment in certain practices can certainly lead to the reduction in health care costs and the wellness of our society.

One of the problems we have with the government is the lack of action on things that do not even cost money but set an example that could improve people's health.

I have a question for the hon. member. How does she reconcile the duplicity in the government by not getting these types of things off the books and one of them is the Canada pension plan? It has invested in big tobacco.

We know that the tobacco industry and the cancer issue costs us a lot of money in our health care system and at the same time we profit through our pension plan. How does the government reconcile that? How does it reconcile the fact that it has not acted with anything on trans fats? We know the cost of that. It could ban that and work on legislation that would remove that from our system for the wellness of people, or it could have labelling.

We cannot understand why we still cannot get labelling on alcohol products for women who are pregnant to warn them that the consumption of it could lead to some health impacts during their pregnancy and could impact also on their child. These are preventive things that do not cost money.

Also, providing consumers with choice for genetically altered foods, and allowing people to see what they are consuming and making educated decisions, these are things that do not cost a lot of money but could have a benefit for human health. How does the member reconcile the duplicity?

[Foreign Affairs, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what we have heard from many delegations and testimonials, and many experts at the industry committee. The Prime Minister is asking the House to pass this bill and he is passing the buck.

My question is for the Prime Minister. If a nation needs the drugs, it should be able to access the drugs. The bottom line is that many developing countries will not have access to the medications they desperately need. The Prime Minister praised Kofi Annan this morning for his work in East Timor. However, the ultimate irony is that, under this government proposed program, East Timor will not have access.

Will the Prime Minister explain this to the UN Secretary-General? Has he no shame?

[Foreign Affairs, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister urged the House to pass Bill C-9 to get generic drugs to developing countries.

Why then does he urge the House to pass a bill that would prevent at least 18 UN member states from accessing those drugs? Why is the government preventing countries like Vietnam, Algeria, Iran and Iraq from dealing with the health emergencies in their countries, such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria?

Will the Prime Minister commit to changing the bill and help all developing countries of the world access cheaper drugs and generic medications? What does he have against those UN member nation states?

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, surely there has to be some judgment in all of this. In these chambers we set national goals, agendas and priorities all the time. They are not judgments. They are policy and they are directives that come from elected members who represent the people of this country. Some of those things include the treaty on landmines, where Canada has been very progressive, but at the same time we are investing in companies that produce landmines. Surely that is not a judgment call. That comes as a directive of an electoral system that has asked us in the House to pass certain laws and legislation.

The member talked about a slippery slope in a sense of where we stop on these things, but I would like to have him respond. Surely where we actually have legislation passed in these chambers and in these halls because people have voted for people who made those decisions, could we not at least rule those companies out first, whether they be landmines or tobacco companies? Those things are clear. They are not judgment calls. They are directives from the people.

[Canada-U.S. Border, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the family of 40 year old Ms. Lori Bishop who was tragically killed in Niagara Falls.

On February 18 American police pursued a high speed chase through the border crossing with no regard to Canadian sovereignty. This action set off a chain of events that resulted in this tragedy.

This has happened before. American police have breached Canadian sovereignty, and put the general public and our customs workers at risk with total disregard for our laws.

Last summer, when a similar situation took place in Windsor, Ontario the minister of customs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs brushed off requests to deal with this issue seriously. They were both warned and requested to take decisive action. This was a tragedy waiting to happen.

Border communities demand action. Instead, here we are again. Now that someone has been killed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have the integrity to call upon the ambassador of the United States and convey that these breaches will not be tolerated.