Brian Masse

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order on answers I have received from the Minister of National Revenue over the last three days.

One of the primary reasons question period exists is so that elected representatives can bring the concerns of their constituents to the attention of the government and ministers of the Crown, and so the government, through ministers, can respond to those concerns. Canadians ought to have the right to expect those responses to be given in good faith and that they can trust the response is the position of their government.

We can all accept from time to time that there will be mistakes or that the information required is not available. This why we on this side of the House understand and respect it when a minister says that he or she does not have the answer but that he or she will look into the matter.

On Monday, I asked a question on a matter of very great concern to my community dealing with a facility already under construction in my riding for the inspection of U.S.-bound trains. This facility would require trains to slow down substantially, causing further traffic tie-ups in my community, as well as security risk issues. The minister told the House, and I will quote from Hansard :

I can assure the member opposite the actions that are being taken are both appropriate and well considered.

The very next day on the same subject, the minister told the House, and again I quote from Hansard :

I can tell the House that no project has been approved—

After that question I asked one of my staff to go immediately down to the site. They took pictures of the actual construction equipment that is operating and continues to operate today on that site, and somebody has approved that work.

[Canada-U.S. Border, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked about an American customs inspection facility being built on Canadian soil, the revenue minister assured us that “the actions that are being taken are both appropriate and well considered.” Yesterday she changed her tune, saying, “I can tell the House that no project has been approved”. Within minutes, her colleague from Essex told the media that the minister was surprised to hear where the facility was being built.

Meanwhile, CP Rail tells us the site was picked by the American Office of Homeland Security and it was told by the government to just do it. The bulldozers just rolled in.

Could the minister tell us how she could possibly not know that this facility was being built on Canadian soil? And if she did not, who approved it? Has she handed our sovereignty over to the Office of Homeland Security?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-428. I believe it is a bill that opens the door to talk about an important issue for Canadians. Pensions are something we invest in at a very young age when entering the workforce.

The Canada pension plan has a lifelong contribution. Individuals start to become aware of the fact that they have to retire at some point in time and plan for that. The CPP is a useful tool and important social program. It is not only sustaining the ability for people to have an income and security, but it teaches people along the way to save for their future, and to ensure that they develop the habits that are necessary to put money aside in the actual retirement setting.

Bill C-428 looks at the whole issue of pensions. I commend the member for bringing it forward; however, I disagree with the nature of the bill and what it would eventually do. Nevertheless, I think it is important to recognize that we should start talking about the issue.

Specific to the bill itself, we are concerned that it would eventually undermine our universal pension plan. We have had a strong tradition of creating some social programs that have some sense of vibrancy and security for individuals from coast to coast to coast.

We know that there has been a discussion about the sustainability of the Canada pension plan. There is a great debate about this but regardless of that, we know, and it was acknowledged, that we can sustain this program should we choose to do so, and we can do it in an affordable way that makes sense.

One of the things with which we do have a problem is that the CPP benefits under the system would become income tested. We believe it should be paid to workers in a way that would be fair. This complicates that element.

It would effectively also raise the retirement age and eliminate the mandatory age of retirement which we have yet to really discuss as a nation. I feel that it is something that we could discuss some more. The bill introduces that notion, but there are some good points that have been added.

People are choosing to work longer in life for a variety of reasons. Some people are also choosing to retire earlier if they can afford to do so. That is a personal decision and we should allow that freedom. That is what we should work toward. It should not be a crutch, which this system could become, for individuals to supplement their income because there is not a good solid pension system that the country can afford.

I can give a good example. A number of people have witnessed their income depreciate through cost of living and they have had to take on additional responsibilities and jobs. If they want to do so, and they can do so, that is a very positive thing, but other people are forced into that during the latter years of their lives. That creates some significant problems for them and their families. That is something that the country must address.

One of the pension issues that we should start talking more about in the future or at least discussing it, is what is happening with young people. We are going to see further problems if we do not address it. We are seeing people entering the workforce later in life and having fewer pensionable earning years. At the same time, they are transferring their pension as they move along through private sector jobs ensuring that they are going to have the maximum benefits that they can put in. But their pensionable years are going to be condensed because they will have fewer earning years and that is going to create some problems. That is why we need to start discussing the issue.

We are also very concerned about one aspect of the bill that deals with foreign investment. It is one of the things with which we have great difficulty. We believe that raising the level of foreign investment to 50% would be a wrong way to go about building Canada and building the confidence in our current pensionable investments that we do have.

We have a situation right now where the Canada pension plan itself has 30% of its investment overseas. It has no forms of control, no green screen, no ethic screen, none of those things. We do not know where that money is being invested. We do not have any control over it and that is the wrong way to do business.

As we invest our tax paying dollars and our personal income, we should ensure, for example, that we are not investing in tobacco companies which we know the Canada pension plan does.

For those reasons, we oppose the bill. I want to commend the member for at least bringing this forward. Pension issues should be discussed, but at a more opportune time.

[Canada-U.S. Border, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is building a search facility for the United States customs in the middle of Windsor. American customs will be inspecting trains to search for bombs and other security threats within yards of a high school, park, major roads and a football stadium.

The minister has said that this location was “appropriate and well considered”. Windsor city council does not think so.

Will the minister kill this project before she kills our community and our economy?

[Canada-U.S. Border, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Windsor has discovered that CP Rail, in conjunction with Transport Canada and Canada Customs, is building a centre for U.S. customs to inspect rail cars going to the U.S. on Canadian soil. With no notification and no planning, it will create more transportation chaos for our industry, health and security. I understand that the Manley-Ridge plan is the driving force for this process.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the municipality or local industry was not consulted? Will he meet with them immediately and put this on hold before we have more chaos and border destruction affecting our industries?

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending the member for the motion. He talked about the issues related to children and their welfare, which is very important. I believe the government has neglected these issues.

As well as the other opposition parties, I want to start by reading a letter I received from a constituent regarding a motion that I put forward in the House which dealt with children's issues and the way they were being exploited through some of our environmental conditions. It states:

Dear Brian Masse:

Our daughter was misdiagnosed four and a half years ago with Arthritis. She died four months later of leukemia. We can prove negligence but she died from bleeding internally due to a liver biopsy before treatment could begin.

Now the boy across the street from us is in London fighting for his life with cancer. I find it strange that this is happening in such a close proximity of each other. I think that our children are getting cancer in the Windsor area in far too great a number compared to other areas. They are also being sent to London too late.

The government has done little in terms protecting our children.

The member, in his speech, talked about the things that the government could be doing. Why are we not doing those things, for example, ending child poverty?

My motion interestingly enough was amended by the Bloc member who supported it unanimously and the members of the PC Party at supported it. The amendment was passed, but then when the main motion was voted on a number Alliance members and Liberals switched their votes and it lost narrowly. All the motion did was address the terrible conditions that children find themselves in.

Why do we not have a comprehensive vision of how to protect our children, not only from pornography and from predators, but in the ways in which we go about fashioning laws without providing accountability, when we know these types of things in society are hurting and killing them?

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can look at this jurisdiction issue and, if something does not happen soon, that we move strongly on that. I would encourage the government to do so.

Just to remind Canadians, regarding the emissions from this coal, we had solutions. Anyone can check out the new supply options for Ontario at the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. There are all kinds of options we can choose from to change our energy. However, coal-fired plants introduce nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury and heavy metals into the air. That impacts not only the individuals in those areas, but also individuals in the rest of the country. Another thing is it produces dioxins and dioxins interfere with the development of children and with adult reproductive systems.

These are known factors. I believe it is very important that the government move quickly on this and it can do so because it has jurisdiction. It sets a poor example for us in international standards. We know we should work toward our relationship with the United States. By being proactive, we show good faith so we can have clean air for all of us.

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about a serious issue affecting not only my community but also Ontario and other parts of the country.

Specifically, I asked a question about coal-fired plants and the effect they have on our communities and on our air quality and also what they do to our international relations. We have just had a discussion on softwood lumber disputes, but we also have a disruption happening because of transboundary pollution.

In Windsor, Ontario, we actually suffer some of the worst air quality at different times because of transboundary air pollution coming from the Ohio Valley and across Michigan. We have all kinds of issues related to smog as well as the environmental conditions that affect people's health because this actually affects the water, the soil and also the air we breathe.

One of the situations we have in Canada is that in Ontario we have some of the worst coal-fired plants in this area. They are actually affecting the State of New York. The State of New York is receiving a lot of pollution from Ontario and this country, to the point where New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, wants three coal-fired plants in southern Ontario to be shut down on their emissions because they are causing major damage to the state's environmental public health.

Mr. Spitzer actually filed a complaint with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement. He wants the board to investigate the pollution output of three coal-fired plants in particular.

Actually, a coalition of 40 groups and organizations are involved in this, but we have not seen the federal government come forward with its position, to make sure that there are going to be supports to phase out these plants.

We recently had a provincial election in Ontario in which the Liberal Party of Ontario promised at election time to phase them out by 2007, I believe, but now they seem to be waffling a little. I think that now is the time for the federal government to help eliminate these coal-fired plants and convert them or use other alternatives, which are outlined in a number of different initiatives. That could be quite possible.

One quote I have to note is this one from Mr. Spitzer:

Ontario's massive coal-fired power plants operate with wholly inadequate pollution controls and are a major factor contributing to acid rain and respiratory disease in New York and throughout the northeast.

This is a problem that is identified not only by Spitzer and the Americans who are doing something on this; the coalition even involves Canadian groups. We also have other groups and organizations in Ontario, such as the Ontario Public Health Association, that are calling for the elimination of these plants.

Also, in regard to the Ontario economy, it costs billions of dollars each year because of the smog and air congestion we face from the plants.

My question for the government is about what specifically it can do seeing that we have signed the Kyoto agreement and seeing that reductions of these emissions themselves would have a significant effect on the overall situation if our country met the obligations of the commitment which we as the New Democratic Party support. Why will the government not be proactive and move on the issue as opposed to just letting it drag on?

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that we still cannot get at least this done, but once again I caution that it cannot be the only avenue. It is absolutely pathetic if we are reduced to this. We are completely reduced to making a small amendment so that widowers are not tiered. The tiering has been a big mistake. The government is tiering the different types of efforts we could make to provide some decent standards for people in their homes.

Providing assistance for people to remain in their homes is something that we as a country have talked about. This is by no means like a handout. It is a hand that is being extended to people so that they can live with dignity and integrity. I think it is unbelievable that we are reduced to these things for such a small amount. In the larger picture of things, it would also be an economic generator. It is money that will not go to some offshore account so somebody gets a corporate tax cut and can hide it in the Bahamas or somewhere like that. It will pay for services so people can stay in their homes and be healthy. It will go directly back to the citizens of this country. That is the shame of this.

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for his motion in some respects. At least it is coming forward. At the same time, I have to exercise some caution and also bring some recent history back to the House.

I do not believe this is beyond partisanship. This is clearly a decision made by the Liberal government on what to do with the resources. We had a similar situation with the disability tax credit, whereby the Department of Finance decided that it was going to arbitrarily reduce the number of persons in the country who could collect a $1,000 tax credit. Our party put forth a motion, which was adopted unanimously in the House. Later on it was clawed back by the government in its bill for the budget. It did that, so I exercise some caution about a motion from all of us.

The real issue here is this: Why does the party over there not have the political will to provide a decent if paltry amount? It basically made a big political mistake and that is what this is about. It is clawing back after a big political mistake. Why does it not have the decency, when it has a $7 billion surplus, to provide this minuscule amount? Why does it not have the political will to do the right thing?

And this is partisan, because the government is making choices.