House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cloning.

Topics

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to elaborate on a question that I asked in the House of Commons with regard to Kyoto and the auto industry. In particular I want to note the question with regard to the auto industry continuing to lose jobs and not having the support from the government in terms of a specific plan to deal with the auto industry. We are losing plant opportunities.

The minister's response was very deficient and that goes back to several other platforms. More important, work still has not come forward. We originally met in June for the new auto strategy. We are still waiting. The minister even noted in his response to me that they would look at a 10 year time frame when rolling out a program.

If we look back in the last 10 years, we have lost every greenfield opportunity. With regard to the auto industry itself, the United States and Mexico have gone into a system where they offer incentives and packages, and are stealing Canadian jobs. They are taking opportunities away from us. It has gone even from the creation of brand new facilities and plants to also refurbishing existing plants. That is very concerning. This is something we addressed under NAFTA, at least our party did, as a vulnerable spot. It allows for this subsidization and the stealing of jobs. It certainly is something that will affect Canada because one in seven jobs in Canada, one in six in Ontario, relate to the auto industry.

The Kyoto protocol is an excellent opportunity to create new sustainable environmentally friendly vehicles and, more important, address issues of Kyoto and have an auto strategy that rolls out new employment. The CAW as well as municipalities have even noted that. The CAW as well has talked about initiatives with auto recycling that go hand and hand with regard to a new strategy and a new deal.

Today the minister was pressed again about his stance. The fact is we are still waiting for a plan. We have nothing. In Windsor we have an actual plant that can be constructed and created. The Province of Ontario announced an initiative yesterday for a plant that would improve conditions, yet the minister still does not have a plan. As well, last summer we lost a bid for a sprinter plant because the government had no plan, and it still does not.

I would like to see something in writing from the government on how it will deal with it. If we do not use the new emissions, especially the changes that are happening with the price of gasoline and the degradation caused by some of the vehicles, as a time, or place or moment to create the assembly plants, we will lose out on an opportunity and we continually will see our jobs go south.

I want to know why the government has taken a full year. Why is the government sticking to a trade deal that is allowing the situation? Very specifically, what is it going to do for my constituency to protect the auto jobs in Windsor as well as in Ontario and in the rest of Canada before it is too late? Why is Kyoto not used as an opportunity to shift the resources to better planning and future, especially because the traditions of the country are so much developed on the auto industry?

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

York South—Weston Ontario

Liberal

Alan Tonks LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the member's question in a broader context and hopefully my colleague will also apply in a more specific context.

The original question was what was happening with respect to the action plan as it related to Kyoto and whether Kyoto had been ratified and what progress had been accomplished.

I want to say that there really are two larger questions that should be addressed. First, what is the Government of Canada doing to build on its actions to address climate change? Second, what is the Government of Canada doing to help Canada meet its Kyoto protocol commitments? Those commitments also obviously are tremendously important as they relate to the automobile sector.

Still, and just for the record, let me state quite clearly that the Government of Canada formally ratified the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on December 17, 2002.

Canada has a proud tradition of working with other nations toward common goals and we are committed to leadership on these international challenges. By ratifying Kyoto, we are part of the international effort to address an issue that knows no boundaries and affects us all.

Let me turn to the important issues of what happens next under the Climate Change Plan for Canada.

The plan maps out short term actions and a longer term perspective on how Canadians can meet our climate change objectives. It offers a national goal, that Canadians be the most sophisticated and efficient consumers and producers of energy in the world.

In relation to the automotive sector, it has been obvious that the innovation agenda and the take up that is coming from Canadians automobile producers is that they feel comfortable with the approach that the Canadian government has taken with respect to developing cleaner technologies and more efficient technologies in the automotive sector.

It recognizes that as individual Canadians we also can cut greenhouse gas emissions by a tonne a year from the more than five tonnes for which each of us is responsible.

The climate change plan recognizes that we can get results in transportation and through improved energy efficiency in our housing, commercial and institutional buildings. It moves us forward in a co-operative manner with large industrial emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce those emissions.

However, as the member is aware, the automotive sector was not considered one of the large emission emitters. Much to the chagrin of others who criticized the position of the government, the automotive sector was challenged to produce more efficient engines and concentrate on the tailpipe emissions through more effective use of the newer innovative approaches to engine construction.

Finally, the protocol builds and the plan builds on our work to date for international emissions reductions. We can take great pride in the fact that the automobile sector is compliant and is a strong supporter with respect to the Kyoto protocol and moving ahead with the implementation plan that the government has put forward.

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to point out one thing that is important. The smokestack emissions from the plants was something different and was something on which the emissions were changed. We are still at the tailpipe, and it is still a major contributor to greenhouse gases in emissions and also pollution.

I want to point out that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry have not worked together. Look at the Natural Resources Canada web page. A number of different vehicles are identified as being the highest fuel efficiency in 2003.

I will read the vehicle name and where it is assembled: Insight, Japan; New Beetle, Mexico; Cooper, England; Sentra, Mexico; Celica, Japan; Prius, Japan; Corolla Matrix, Japan, coming to Canada soon; Vibe, California; Impala, Canada; Jetta, Germany; Focus Wagon, U.S. and Mexico; Ranger, U.S.; B2300, U.S.; Escape, U.S.; Tribute, U.S.; the Ventura, Montana, Silhouette, all vans, U.S.; Dodge Caravan, U.S. and my home town of Windsor, Ontario.

Out of 19 vehicles that the government promotes as the highest efficiency ones for consumers to buy, only three are produced in Canada. Why would the government not use part of the $1.7 billion to entice the plants that create the real jobs for Canadians and spur economic development by ensuring those vehicles are produced in our country? Why would the government not create Canadian jobs? Why would the government not encourage Canadians to buy vehicles that were produced in our communities, instead of encouraging them to buy vehicles produced overseas?

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the commitment that the member is making to the automobile industry. I am sure that the implementation plan, in association and partnership through Industry Canada, will incubate the kinds of technologies that will make Canadian automobile producers more productive and more energy efficient.

We live in a free society where people exercise their rights to purchase the automobile that will make the largest impact on the legacy of clean air that we all believe in.

I would say that the Canadian automobile industry is making great progress. There is no question that we have a longer way to go but let us talk positive, and that is not the way the member is speaking. Let us work with the automobile industry to make sure--

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, my question for the Minister of Industry was along the lines of why so much investing was going into the United States and Mexico and why out of the last 19 assembly plants that were built in North America only one had come to Canada.

I do not want to give the minister a lot of credit but I want to read his response to the investment climate. He said:

Canada has the most attractive investment climate in the world. Given our economic circumstances, lowering taxes, stable and low interest rates, low inflation, productive workforce, it is a great place to invest.

I will give him some credit because there is some value to that. However we still only have one of the assembly plants. In the last 12 months we have been on the verge of losing three assembly plants, one in my hometown of Windsor, one in Oakville and one in Sainte-Thérèse.

There is an opportunity for us to save the plant in Windsor, which is to replace it with a new, modern assembly plant, and there is an opportunity to save the production in the plant in Oakville, but the government has to move.

I have a report that was prepared by the industry department. It is called U.S. State Programs for New Investment. It has about 20 pages. It was prepared during the early part of December 2002. At the back of the report is a chart showing the percentage of investments in the plant, both in brownfield and greenfield plants, greenfield being new production and brownfield being existing production with expansion going on.

If we go down the chart we see that it has a list of all of the new plants that I mentioned, plus a number of plants that were being expanded or added on to.

What we see in this is that in spite of that investment climate that the minister spoke about, the reality is that we are being more than matched and, in fact, out-classed by the U.S. and Mexico.

We see that one plant, a brownfield site actually in Alabama, received a 66% investment from state and local governments. We are not even in the ball park.

We lost a production line for Windsor this past summer, DaimlerChrysler. It went down to Georgia and Georgia invested 43% in that plant. It did not matter that we had medicare in this country, that the health costs for labour were lower here and that our dollar was lower. That is something this department has to learn.

We have to get on to this or we are going to lose those two plants, the one in Windsor and the one in Oakville.

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Beauharnois—Salaberry Québec

Liberal

Serge Marcil LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, there has just been some confusion concerning the question from my colleague from Windsor West which concretely addressed the auto industry.

I shall, however, return to the question from by colleague from Windsor—St. Clair. Much has been accomplished through the Department of Industry as far as the auto industry is concerned. This is a sector that has experienced some hard times. He was referring to his own area, but I can also speak of ours in Quebec, where the GM plant has been shut down.

There is fierce competition in the international sector, however, but we have taken certain steps. We have, for instance, created a Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, bringing together all industry stakeholders. We are totally convinced that, collectively and cooperatively, we will find ways to ensure that support for auto initiatives is linked with the government's priorities of innovation, skills development and infrastructure.

The Government of Canada remains committed to improving the investment climate for all sectors of Canada. We will continue to work with CAPC on automotive specific issues to ensure the industry remains viable and prospers. We continue our efforts to develop a national automotive strategy and will make an announcement in due course.

There has been much discussion recently on what the various governments ought to be doing to attract new investment to the automotive sector in Canada. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this today.

First, let me be clear that we too want to see as much new automotive investment come to Canada as possible. This is one of the main reasons why the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council was created, to develop shared industry-government strategies to help ensure the long-term growth and prosperity of Canada's automotive sector. We are working through CAPC with the assemblers, parts manufacturers, labour and the provinces to develop a cooperative approach to addressing industry issues.

The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair has suggested that Canada should be matching the incentives offered by certain American States to attract new greenfield automotive investments. it is much too easy to say that Canada has lost automotive plants to competing jurisdictions, due to the absence of direct government assistance. Rather, we need to look at a whole range of factors which enter into such investment decisions, whether they be economic, public policy, or other factors. All levels of government are important players, and we are working in many areas at the federal level, such as infrastructure and innovation programs.

Canada's auto sector is very strong, internationally competitive, and highly productive. More than $5 billion has been invested in the auto sector in the past five years. Every one of our assemblers has current reinvestment plans. Over the past decade, average annual growth in Canada's auto sector was 7%, compared to 3% for the economy as a whole. During this same period, light vehicle production in Canada increased by 570,000 units. This is the equivalent of two or three typical assembly plants. I think this is impressive, given that while Canada accounts for only 8% of North American vehicle sales, our share of total North American production has consistently been about 16% in this time period.

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, the only reason those committee meetings are being held is that the CAW, that national union, and the municipalities where some of these plants are located put extensive long term pressure on the department, the minister and his predecessor to finally get them to move. In fact, hardly anything has come out of them, because again, the department does not realize what is going on in the auto industry.

Let me just give the House one example. Up to two years ago we used to build two cars for every one that Canadians bought in this country. The ratio right now is somewhere around 1:5. If we lose those two assembly plants, the one in Oakville and the one in Windsor, we will fall down to a ratio of 1:1. At the rate we are going, we will fall below 1:1 in the next three to five years. That is the history of the government.

The government put us in this position. It signed us into those trade deals. It let the auto pact go. If we had not signed on to the free trade agreement--

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Serge Marcil Liberal Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Madam Speaker, I am convinced the member for Windsor—St. Clair will agree that public policy making should be based on facts, on a solid indepth analysis.

In the auto sector partnership council, we continuously look at the overall competitiveness of Canadian jurisdictions as compared to that of other jurisdictions in North America with regard to attracting investments in the auto sector.

Our analysis of the situation and the council's valued insights will enlighten the auto sector's decision-making process, which will also help us focus our collective efforts on the growth of this key sector. The government is committed to acting as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations made by the auto sector partnership council.

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)