Brian Masse

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, now I know why I believe the Minister of Transport will take a patronage position very soon and why Premier Ernie Eves will lose in the next election.

What we have here is an absolute disrespect for the process. We have seen what has happened. We know about the nine point plan. The nine point plan was flawed so tragically in its development in behind the scenes meetings, which were never talked about in the previous speech. The municipality, which represents the citizens and groups, has rejected the plan and has hired a lawyer to stop it. That is a crisis. The municipality which holds the border crossings has hired one of the premier environmental lawyers in Canada to stop the plan. It is not healthy.

When can we sit down with the leadership? When will the government show initiative and go to the doorsteps of residents and the elected officials at the local level, being the municipality and the mayor, and help us--

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise again to speak about an important issue that has been part of my life in my constituency since I was on Windsor city council and now here as the member of Parliament representing Windsor West.

For several years I have been raising the issue of the Windsor border crossing and the lack of infrastructure investment, which has caused serious economic and health degradation to our community. Not only that, it has threatened southern Ontario and even the greater Ontario economy through the lack of investment.

In fact my first question in the House of Commons highlighted the inaction of the government and forced the Minister of Transport at that time to acknowledge that we had to speed up the process for a binational planning process to provide for a future means to get across the border.

The government then set about a 60 day committee that held secret meetings with selected groups. It was only after further pressure that it opened up some of those meetings to the public. It was being done behind closed doors. We forced it open after a big community struggle.

My question on May 5 specifically related to the fact that the federal government was constantly floating ideas to the public and not surprisingly, citizens became more suspicious and the well was poisoned by the policy of the Liberal government. It was simply cowardice behaviour by the government, which cannot be accepted by citizens nor the country.

My original question was for the Prime Minister as we needed leadership. The Windsor-Detroit crossing handles approximately 30% of Canadian trade between the United States and Canada alone. However it was the Minister of Transport who decided to respond to it, not the Minister of Industry. I believe he was absent at that time.

In his response he stated, “Certainly nothing will be done that does not seem to receive favour with the local residents”. Then within days the federal and provincial governments released what they called the nine point plan. The city residents looked at the plan and they liked it so much that the city council rejected it and hired David Estrin, one of Canada's premier environmental lawyers, to fight the plan. That is how much citizens accepted it.

Subsequently, the Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eves, has stated now that the plan will not be forced upon the community. He was quoted by the Windsor Star as saying, “Obviously we're not going to impose a solution. It would be foolish, ourselves and the feds, to spend $300 million worth of improvements if the city doesn't want them”.

Ironically most of the $300 million is slated to go to the private sector proponents for the border crossing locking out even the only public crossing, being the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel plaza, which is being recommended in the plan. What is happening is we have private dedicated roads for private companies to make their profits at the expense of citizens and their environmental conditions.

My question is simple. Given the weight of evidence, will the government back off and meet with local municipal leaders? Will the Ministers of Industry or Transport or the Prime Minister meet with their provincial colleagues, the city council and mayor to resolve this issue?

We have been desperately requesting leadership from the first day: no more backroom deals, no more sending flunkies down. We need the actual leaders to come to the community and work together. Too much is at stake. It is not just the health and the vibrancy of the community I represent. It is all of Ontario and Canada. We cannot keep the status quo. Will the government commit to that?

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from the industry committee on a very good speech. He is often very articulate, passionate and well researched. In fact, this is the most relaxed I have seen him, so he must have had a good holiday.

I have two questions. I understand that this is a good bill for workers and their families, but other employers in Ontario have come to me asking for the same type of standards or practices that could be enforced when they want to do the right thing for workers by investing in health and safety. They see their competitors who undermine that by taking shortcuts and not having any enforcement, and are able to get a competitive advantage.

I wonder whether members are hearing the same type of comments in Quebec because it is something I hear. It is not just about the workers. It is about employers who want to do the right thing and their business plans are undermined by those who want to take shortcuts.

My second question is in relation to fines. Currently, the government has a practice of fines on environmental matters which are allowed as a business expense and companies are able to recover a good portion of those fines through tax deductions.

Does the member think that is a good situation or a bad situation? Personally, I do not think that is right. I think there are ethical issues and the practice must be changed. I would hate to see this type of situation develop where a fine can be tax deductible. Does the hon. member agree or disagree with that?

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to follow up with the concern that this bill will die a third death, will not get passed, and we will have thousands of Canadians who will not get due process in a very just way.

One of the concerns was that the incoming Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, has set an example where he has decided to fly his ships and operate his business with different flags that have different labour practices and employment wages. It sets an example and I would ask for a comment on that, whether or not that is something that will be part of this mix, and will it ensure the proper political support?

We hear a lot of discussion about other issues but nothing about this one and that gives me great concern.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add to this debate. I believe this is important legislation that needs to be pressed forward.

In the Windsor area, and in Chatham in particular, in this last year we have seen a difficult situation. Navistar International trucks actually had a strike. They brought in strikebreakers and a company from the United States for security. Approximately two miles away from the actual site location where the strike was happening, a worker, Mr. Milner, was run over by someone from the American security company. It has certainly had a big impact on his life and his family, as well as his future in terms of earnings, and it had a big impact on our community in terms of rallying against this type of practice and also in terms of corporate responsibility.

I would like to ask my colleague, as I recognize his long-standing commitment to this issue, what other things could happen over the duration of the next few years if this dies on the Order Paper again, and if we do not take the time and seize this opportunity to put this to bed and make sure we have the protection and the rules in place to have corporate responsibility. I ask him, if that does not happen this time, what is the potential for other things out there across the country?

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my last petition is to enact legislation that will provide legal recognition and protection of Canadian children from fertilization to their birth. There are approximately 300 names on that petition.

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition for same sex marriage, that marriage be restricted to being between one man and one woman. There are 27 signatures from my constituency on this petition.

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present deals with the issue of marijuana. I have approximately 70 signatures from my constituency for the legalization of marijuana.

[Petitions, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today and present a petition on behalf of the residents of Windsor West with specific reference to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the treatment of British products that are imported. They have been detained in Toronto because they do not have both official languages on the label although they are determined a specialty good.

There are actually approximately 1,000 people who petition that those goods be let into British stores in Canada and customers who want those goods.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, herein lies the interesting part of today's debate. It is the fact that the former finance minister has talked about a similar plan, either stealing it or at least borrowing it, and it does not deal with the sustainability element because there are ebbs and flows and a number of different things. The heart of the matter does at least try to acknowledge the fact that there is efficient infrastructure. People cannot get away from that.

In the last budget we have an amount that works out to be about $50,000 per municipality. What can a municipality do for $50,000? Is that sufficient or should more money be put in? When will that happen?

The current finance minister is at least now saying that it is a down payment, a very small down payment, probably about a 5% down payment on a home. The FCM has declared that it needs $57 billion in a deficit. I think under the current budget for the 10 years, it would take until the year 2193 to actually achieve that target.

When will the municipalities receive the proper financial support? It is hard to criticize when at the same time the tools are in front of the government and the member for LaSalle—Émard for 10 years never did give the financial support. When municipalities will receive their fair deal?