Serge Marcil

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it has even been reported in the Financial Post that the automobile industry is migrating to the south, including to Mexico.

Even though the automobile industry has experienced impressive growth over the last ten years, a recent study by Charles Rivers and Associates, the cost of which was shared by Industry Canada and the government of Ontario, concluded that the expansion into Mexico did not occur at Canada's expense. Both countries have a lot to offer to world manufacturers and will both continue to benefit from new investments.

In the United States, there is a war going on between nearly every state, every city and every municipality to attract that industry.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2002, the member for Palliser put a question to the Minister of Industry regarding what the government planned on doing to give a boost the Canadian auto industry.

Recently, we have seen and heard bad news accompanied by comments regarding the future of the auto industry in Canada, and I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this.

First, I would like to dispel the myth that the auto pact had a negative impact on the Canadian auto industry and that the industry is in decline, as the member for Palliser inferred. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Canadian auto industry is in very good shape, it is competitive internationally and is very productive for reasons that have nothing to do with the auto pact. For a long time now, the industry has surpassed many of the production requirements in the auto pact. So in reality, the World Trade Organization's decision has not had a significant impact. Canada has now established a level playing field for all automobile manufacturers. The 6.1% tariff on all vehicles produced outside of North America encourages them to set up shop and manufacture in Canada.

The most recent data for the auto industry show that, between April 2001 and April 2002, Canadian production of cars and trucks increased by 15%. According to industry analysts, last year, over 256,000 vehicles were made in Canada. This increase in production shows that the vehicle market in Canada and in the United States is faring better than anticipated. Let us not forget that automobile production and sales reached an all-time high in 1999 and 2000.

However, Canada, like other countries, felt the impact of the recent North American economic downturn, of the restructuring that the industry had to go through to adjust to changing consumer demand, of the internal problems experienced by some companies, and of the overcapacity that exists in North America.

But let us be clear about one thing: the Canadian industry remains sound and competitive. Canada continues to be a great place to make cars and trucks, as evidenced by the following examples: Honda selected its Alliston plant, in Ontario, to build the new Pilot sports utility vehicle that will be sold across North America; General Motors is creating 1,000 new jobs at its Oshawa plant to produce the Chevy Impala; Daimler Chrysler recently announced that it would invest $460 million to prepare its Windsor plant for Chrysler's new Pacifica model; Ford and Toyota also announced investments of several millions dollars in the coming years.

The auto industry is investing in Canada because our economic foundations are sound, our manpower is highly qualified while its cost remains competitive, and the business climate is excellent, given our low inflation rate, low interest rates and competitive tax system. Canada remains a place where manufacturing costs are low, which is a major advantage from a productivity point of view.

We realize that Canada cannot rely solely on its past successes and take this vital industry for granted. Our government is working hard to ensure that auto makers will continue to invest and develop in Canada.

[Fondation Paul Gérin-Lajoie, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to highlight the anniversary of the founding of the Fondation Paul Gérin-Lajoie, an organization that, for 25 years now, has contributed to the basic education of children in the poorest countries in addition to raising awareness of international realities among primary school pupils in Canada.

Yesterday in Montreal, a conference was held on the right to education and globalization, and on the challenges and choices with respect to literacy.

A delegation of 50 stakeholders in education and international development, together with Paul Gérin-Lajoie, the president of the foundation, will submit today to the Government of Canada a brief that summarizes the work of the conference.

The Fondation Paul Gérin-Lajoie is currently operating in Senegal, Mali, Niger, Haiti and Canada, where everyone is familiar with the foundation's popular spelling bee.

I wish to congratulate the founder and president, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, and all of the foundation's staff.

[Health Care Spending, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact very sensitive to the arguments put forward by my colleague. I agree that there should be a debate on this topic.

When we speak of patents, we are speaking of patents on drugs, on biotechnology research. It is still for the common good. There are people who invest in research and development, still for the common good.

But when it comes to the human genome, serious philosophical questions arise, as my colleague pointed out. We are therefore going to let the committee do its work and then the government can take another look at this.

[Health Care Spending, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government would like to reiterate that, to be patented in Canada, a gene, like any other invention, must be new, non obvious and useful, in accordance with the terms provided for in the act.

Thus, genes are only patented in Canada if they are identified, isolated, purified and have a known usefulness. Genes as they exist in nature cannot be patented under the Copyright Act. For example, a gene within its natural habitat, such as the human body, cannot be patented.

In the last twenty years, since the process of gene isolation and purification has become technologically possible in Canada, patents have been delivered for inventions involving plant, animal and human genes. The same is true in other major jurisdictions such as the United States, Europe, Japan and Australia. As far as we know, none of these countries are considering a change to their patent legislation to ban human gene patenting.

A patent on a gene only gives its owner the right to prevent other people from producing, selling or using his or her invention for a twenty year period after the filing of the patent application.

A patent on a human gene does not give its owner any property rights on the person from whom the gene was derived, or any right on a person who later receives a treatment with the patented gene or a product derived from this gene.

A patent does not allow for the marketing of an invention. Additional research and innovation on a given gene can in fact be promoted by the patent process because of the requirement for the patent application and the invention to which it pertains to be publicly disclosed within 18 months of the application being filed.

There have been numerous instances where the isolation of human genes has had a positive impact on health. Cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and the early onset of Alzheimer's disease are all examples where genetic research could have a positive impact on the health of many Canadians.

Progress in genetic screening will ensure that Canadians at risk of contracting these diseases can be diagnosed earlier. In the future, this could give them the opportunity to start treatment earlier, which, at the end of the day, would improve their quality of life.

We are just beginning to realize the potential of this type of research to advance our knowledge of the human genome. Progress in genetics is fueled by progress in biotechnology. However, progress in biotechnology requires a considerable amount of research and development.

Patents are very important for the high-growth biotechnology industry in Canada. They provide companies with the economic incentive they need to invest in the long and costly research and development process, which is often necessary to produce and market medical products.

Canada's patent regime looks to balance the need for effective patent protection of biotechnological inventions with the need for increased access to information and increased use of these inventions.

At the same time, we value the disclosure of new innovative technologies. Patent protection allows us to balance these needs by encouraging the disclosure of innovative research while giving patentees an exclusive right in order to protect their investment in a particular invention.

[Youth in the Workplace, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Châteauguay chamber of commerce and industry for the press conference it held on Monday, April 22, at which I announced the launch of the Youth Internship Canada project in Châteauguay. Under the direction of Isabelle Lareault, from the local Châteauguay employment centre, 15 young people, aged 16 to 30, will undertake a 16 to 30 week paid internship in the workplace.

In addition to taking part in preparatory workshops for four weeks, they will benefit from a structured program that will allow them to gain the skills that today's employers want, thereby helping them enter the workforce.

Human Resources Development Canada contributed $101,149 to this project. Thanks to the Youth Employment Strategy, the Government of Canada is pursuing its efforts and fulfilling its commitment to help the youth of Châteauguay participate fully in today's workforce.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Of course, if you would only listen, maybe you would understand something.

Of course, it takes more that assembling cars to say that there is an auto industry in a country or a region, as I said this morning. The Premier of Quebec said so also many times when he spoke about the importance of repositioning Quebec's auto industry in the auto parts sector. Many announcements concerning investments were made, and we will develop, in due time, one of the most promising sectors in Quebec.

It is said that Quebec is the fourth largest producer of aluminum in the world, and the second largest producer of magnesium, after China. We have an exceptional advantage over other countries.

To ensure continuity and conformity to the Kyoto accord--this needs to be said--auto makers will put greater emphasis on on building lighter cars. They will kae greater use of lighter metals, such as aluminum and magnesium.

In the case of Quebec, as far as we are concerned, there has been from the start very close co-operation between the two levels of government on this issue. There have been many efforts made and many actions taken. Even today, no solution has been found which would allow the plant to remain open. We have no guarantee that it will remain open. It seems that GM, as my colleague from the opposition said earlier, is restructuring its operations on the international market. As a matter of fact, GM reported large profits for the first quarter. The company is investing a lot outside of North America: in Portugal, in Spain and all over the world. The reason for this is that we are living in a global market, and we are the ones who are paying the price.

While we have some difficulties, because since GM has closed its plant in Ontario it wants to do the same in Quebec, we have a significant advantage in the auto parts sector. I believe it is one of the solutions that has also been put forward by the committee, which includes a Canadian government representative, as well as a Quebec government representative.

So there is auto parts manufacturing. We must use our magnesium and aluminum sector, do the processing here and manufacture parts. We should not think that, tomorrow morning, everything will be over and that a grim future awaits Quebec.

On the contrary, I think we should look ahead. We must continue to find solutions and try to develop the parts sector, which is linked to the auto industry, and focus on our great production of magnesium and aluminum. The jobs we are temporarily losing could then be regained. They would be high quality jobs, which would allow our young people to move ahead.

I always come back to the initial motion, which blames the government of Canada for not having taken action on this issue. Excuse me, but people should at least tell the truth, namely that the Government of Canada was the first to take action on this issue. We developed partnerships with the Government of Quebec as well as with unions on this issue and we are continuing with our work.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier today, the auto industry, in Quebec, should have a great future.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when we faced the PACCAR problem, both governments worked hand in hand. We managed to revive the plant with the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité, even though the company had reported profits in its financial statements.

We must be careful. Are governments only there to provide money? In this case, this is not the problem. It is not a problem of money, but of repositioning and restructuring of the auto industry around the world. The Government of Canada is willing to co-operate with the Quebec government on this issue.

When we are being asked what we will do concretely, we do what is being asked of us and we do it well.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Yes, you will see. Even the sceptics will be proven wrong, as the saying goes.

We must not put constraints on the retransformation, as it were, of the auto industry in Quebec, by positioning it in a new market niche, whether that niche involves the production of parts from magnesium—of which we are one of the world's largest producers—or from aluminum.

Let us say that 85% of our exports and our production in Quebec, is with the Americans. Even if assembly plants are located elsewhere, in Mexico, the United States or Canada, if we can succeed in developing a niche in this field, it will obviously be an industry of the future, a structured industry. Then we can go on to phase II, transforming our aluminum or magnesium production.

I support the Minister of Industry's offer to go back to Detroit to meet with stakeholders. The message from the Minister of Industry earlier shows that we are working as closely with the Government of Quebec and the committee in question as we are with workers, unions, the mayor of the municipality and residents of the area. There is an exceptional partnership. As positions are developed, we will be there. We will be there for the implementation of these solutions or proposals.

If the game plan involves organizing other meetings with GM's directors in Detroit, we will obviously take part. In conclusion, we are not on the outside. We are playing a part, as a government, just like the Government of Quebec, and we are prepared to work with the Government of Quebec as it looks for ways to breathe new life into the auto industry.

This is why I must vote against this motion calling on the House to condemn the Government of Canada for its failure to take action on this issue. I do not think this is the right approach. They want to make this a political debate, and this is the place to do so.

However, the Government of Canada, through the Department of Industry and Economic Development Canada, is taking an active role in this issue and we are going to work to develop forward-looking solutions for the area and for the auto industry.