Joe Comartin

[Nuclear Waste, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the department, which studied this plan, showed that 108,000 shipments of radioactive waste will be made to that facility. It has proposed that there will be at least 50 to 300 accidents. This will have a direct effect on the drinking water of 30 million people in the Great Lakes area.

Will the Prime Minister ask the U.S. president to cease this plan, express our opposition and tell us what steps he will take to protect this country?

[Nuclear Waste, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bush government is pushing ahead with plans for the shipping of nuclear waste for disposal at its Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada.

As part of this ill-conceived plan, it intends, within the next decade, to ship thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste by barge on Lake Michigan. This will put communities, like mine in Windsor, and tens of millions of people in the Great Lakes basin at risk.

Have any consultations gone on between this government and the U.S. with regard to this ill-advised plan?

[Pensions, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the former deputy prime minister and the former secretary of state for international financial institutions assured the House on a number of occasions that action would be taken to address the concerns of thousands of Canadians faced with unfair taxes on their U.S. social security benefits yet there is no sign of action.

Recently, when the finance minister was in Windsor, he refused to meet with them. In fact he snuck in through the back door and through the kitchen to avoid them.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Since the minister is ducking this issue, will the Prime Minister tell us when these pensioners will have their concerns addressed?

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will address this in two ways and perhaps answer one of the Alliance questions of wanting to hear some specific proposals. One proposal would be to use the surplus in the EI fund. The government could be doing some things with the EI fund in terms of timesharing or extending benefits. If the plant in Boisbriand goes down, those workers will need that kind of assistance, as will my constituents in Windsor if the large van plant goes down.

There are precedents for this. We just dealt with it this past fall after the September 11 crisis in the aerospace industry, specifically around airport and airline workers. A significant arrangement was made at that time with timesharing going on within that industry. We have given a specific proposal but the government has to come to the table.

I want to be very critical of the government because it does not see the crisis.

I want to make another point around the whole issue of subsidies. If the government wants to do something then it should get back to the bargaining table with regard to NAFTA and the regulations under the WTO. It must begin talking about the reality of industry being subsidized by low wage states and low wage countries. That is a very clear subsidy.

The workers in my area and the workers at Boisbriand, with benefits and the rest of it, are being paid anywhere from $25 to $30 an hour. What are they competing against? What is Mexico in particular paying its workers? It is paying $2 to $4 an hour. Think of that magnitude of cost. That is a subsidy because of regulations in Mexico.

We have a similar type of provision, larger dollars, but a similar provision in the so-called right to work states. What are they being paid? It is anywhere from 25% to 50% of what a worker in my constituency is being paid. Another specific proposal is to go back to the table and tell the NAFTA people that those subsidies are no longer acceptable. The government should start talking in those types of terms.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

My friend from Winnipeg Centre asks where. That is a good question. It is not in Canada. The company did not even consider Canada. It went to Alabama because the state of Alabama, in a variety of ways, gave it subsidies amounting to $375 million Canadian. According to the Alliance, that is letting the marketplace function.

Let me give another example that is closer to my home in Windsor. This one drives me crazy. It is the production of a new vehicle that is being considered at the present time by DaimlerChrysler. Rumours have been floating around, and some were in the papers last week, which turned out to be false actually, that Windsor was perhaps being considered. The rumours are false because the state of Florida, which has almost no significant production, either in parts or an assembly plant, is throwing subsidy figures out to DaimlerChrysler in the amount of $400 million to put the plant there. That is what we are competing against. That is the reality of the marketplace as we know it now. It is not a standoff issue or a let it go by itself. It is states in the U.S. putting up those types of dollars. That is $400 million Canadian for that plant. Does anyone know how much it will cost in capital dollars to establish the plant? It will cost $500 million Canadian. That is what it would cost if we put it into Windsor. Florida will contribute 80% of that in various subsidies.

We have this image that the trade agreements and the WTO will protect us from that kind of activity by government. It is a joke. The trade agreements, NAFTA , FTA, WTO, that structure that we built, allow corporations to take those kinds of subsidies. We in our naivete and I will even say stupidity have allowed that to go on without even trying to get into the ballpark. We are not there.

We hear things from the Alliance, which the government accepts, that we should stay out of it and let the marketplace control it, but that is the marketplace, which is governments in other jurisdictions subsidizing assembly plants and auto parts plants in their jurisdiction. However what we hear from that party and from the government is that they cannot do that. There is no state intervention allowed at all.

I want to go back again to my own community. We have a DaimlerChrysler plant in my community which has built large vans for over 20 years. The market has shifted and there is not enough demand for those vehicles any more. At one time the plant employed almost 3,000 highly paid, highly productive workers but it is now in serious trouble and will be closing at the end of this year.

The government must begin to develop, as has been recommended in a number of ways by the auto workers. We have been hearing some suggestions from the the auto companies which I do not accept. If the government does not move, that plant will go down and at least two others in Canada are at serious risk.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the issue today.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst.

I actually had the opportunity a few years ago to go through the GM plant at Boisbriand. The thing that stood out was the size of the plant. It was huge. It had many more workers at one time than it has now because production was higher. I was told, although I only saw part of it while I was there, that the plant was in the incremental stages of closing down. It had this huge space but no workers and no production. It was absolutely bare space and in most cases was cordoned off.

The plant is a microcosm image of the auto production that is going on in Canada at the present time and has been going on in a declining way for at least a decade.

The government has been sitting back and accepting some realities in its mind only. It has been unwilling to recognize what is happening to the auto industry in Canada. It is in absolute denial.

Before the previous minister of industry resigned, he met and the current Minister of Industry has met with both the industry and the Canadian Auto Workers.

What we have been hearing is much of what we heard from the Alliance and that is that there are not really any problems, that it is just the adjustment within the marketplace and that we should let the markets control everything.

The government has the figures in its department and it is ignoring them. I will give a figure that was thrown out in the course of one of the meetings. We had at one time production in the country of two vehicles for every one that was sold in the country. That department and those ministers believe that is still the case. The reality is that this year we will be down to 1.6 vehicles produced in this country for every one sold. At the rate we are going, within two years we will be at 1.4. By the end of the decade, we will be below one produced for one sold. That is the reality with which we are dealing.

The GM plant in Boisbriand is just a reflection of the gradual decline. We stick our heads in the sand and do not pay any attention to it because we believe the auto industry is still healthy and vibrant in Canada. The government is dead wrong.

The auto industry in the country will soon be dead. I say that advisedly. If we look at what is happening with production in the southern U.S. and in Mexico, they are at this point our major competitors for production and jobs, the high paid jobs to which the Alliance members referred. They are on an exactly opposite growth pattern to what is going on in Canada. As we decline, the production and jobs will go to the southern U.S. and Mexico. Mexico will pass us in terms of production within the next four to five years as patterns go now.

Our industry is in serious trouble. I want to use an example and address it to the Alliance members as they talk about lowering taxes, letting the marketplace decide and not letting the government intervene. The Alliance says that is absolutely the last thing we should do.

I want to give a case study of the Hyundai plant that was built in Bromont, Quebec. It opened and then closed very early on. Hyundai is now coming back into North America.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to present a petition from the constituents of my riding in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex asking the federal government to be of assistance in establishing a regional public transit system. I estimate there are several hundred if not a thousand signatures on the petition.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, given the waffling by the government on its commitment to ratify Kyoto and given that the Liberal chair of the Senate environment committee has raised concerns about the motives of Liberal leadership candidates being influenced by donations from anti-Kyoto industry lobbyists, will the government commit to ratify Kyoto and reassure Canadians that ministers of the government will not be bought off by industry backers to scuttle Kyoto?

[Percy Demers, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a great humanitarian and healer. Dr. Percy Demers was an extraordinary and committed physician, a specialist in cardiac and internal medicine.

The devoted husband and father of seven has been described by all who were fortunate enough to have known him as an exceptional doctor, human being and father. I extend my deepest condolences and those of my entire constituency to his wife, Patricia, and his family.

The even greater tragedy of this loss is that Dr. Demers and his family were victims of our health care system, the very system that he had given so much of his life to serve and sustain. Just hours before the tragic slaying, Dr. Demers' son, now charged with his death, was turned away from the emergency room while accompanied by Dr. Demers. Why? Because no emergency psychiatric care was available for him. Had he received the timely medical attention he so desperately needed, this tragedy may well have been avoided.

Our overburdened medical system has failed the Demers family and the people of our community. Let this be a--

[Code of Ethics for Ministers Act, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for all the work he has done on this bill.

I could not help but think, as I was preparing some notes on the bill, that there should be some criteria for any conflict of interest and a code of conduct. On my own I made up those that I thought should be in the bill, and the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes had covered all of them and a number more.

When I thought about how I would address these issues, one has to put the proposed bill in a historical context. The history of some of the abuses that went on in the government that was in power from 1984 to 1993 to a great extent resulted in the election of the current administration in 1993. Those abuses led to a great feeling of distrust of politicians generally and certainly of a number of cabinet ministers more specifically. That distrust has not waned in the country as a result of the promises that were made by this administration when it was outside of government and which showed up quite forcefully in its first red book. One of those promises has not been met.

The red book was very clear about what the Liberals would do to deal with some of the ethical considerations that had arisen in the prior administration, the one from 1984 to 1993. They breached that trust and broke the promises they made to the Canadian electorate. One can stand in the House, as we have heard tonight from the speaker for the government, and say that they got re-elected. That is not a satisfactory answer.

Did the level of trust in our politicians go up since 1993? It is obvious from the size of the votes we now get, the decreasing number of people who vote and the general cynicism. As the member for Elk Island said in his joke, that level of cynicism has not gone down. If anything, under this administration, it has increased.

When we look at what is contained in the proposed bill, it cries out for support from both sides of the House. It is obvious we will not get it from the government side. It speaks in a number of ways to the point about rehabilitating our reputations as politicians in this country. It goes very directly to that in a number of ways. I want to address some of those specifically.

It sets out very clear guidelines of the conduct that we expect from our ministers, our members of cabinet. It addresses very specifically what they have to do about divesting themselves of certain assets that will put them in a conflict position. It sets out very clearly other members of their family, their family relations and how they have to deal with those. It sets out a code of conduct, and government members in particular should be looking at this part of it, as to what is permissible and what is prohibited conduct vis-à-vis constituents, other members of this country or anybody else and what the minister is allowed to do and what the minister is prohibited from doing. If that conduct had been in legislation, perhaps we would never have had the Grand-Mère affair.

The bill sets out very clearly what has to be disclosed by the minister. It establishes an ethics counsellor who will be appointed independently and it makes it very clear that the ethics counsellor will be independent and will report to parliament not to cabinet nor the Prime Minister.

This was some very good work on the part of the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes. His bill sets out very clearly the role that the counsellor should play. The counsellor would have the right to consult with individual cabinet ministers and direct them in their course of conduct. It would allow the counsellor to investigate and conduct enquiries. All these points are covered in detail so there is no question as to the role of the ethics counsellor and how extensive it is.

Bill C-388 would allow the counsellor to make rulings to a cabinet minister on what is prohibited conduct and what is permissible conduct. For example, if a cabinet minister has some question as to whether he or she can sit on a board or be on a committee of a non-profit nature, a charitable group of some kind, the counsellor can make a ruling as to whether it is prohibited or permissible.

The bill provides some guidelines but also provides in a very concrete fashion some ability for the counsellor to be a support for the cabinet member who is uncertain as to what is inappropriate course of conduct.

The bill also deals with the question of gifts and the provision of hospitality for cabinet ministers, such what is permitted and what is prohibited, and it allows the counsellor to rule on them.

A major point that has always bothered me is the role that a cabinet minister can play once he or she leaves cabinet. This bothers me perhaps because I live in Windsor and I have been influenced in many ways by the American experience in politics. Over the years I have seen a number of abuses in this specific area. Cabinet ministers, both at the state and federal level in the U.S., move, in my opinion, at least historically although it has tightened up somewhat, much too easily between their former cabinet positions to the private sector where they are very clearly in conflict. This does not leave a good appearance for the general electorate.

If the bill were ever to become law there must be meaningful and effective penalties for offences. Bill C-388, after all the work the member has done, does address that issue.

I want to praise the member for Verchères--Les Patriotes for the work he has done on the bill. It seems to me that his bill is comprehensive and it covers all the points we have dealt with in terms of abuse over the last two administrations and it does it in a very effective way.