Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Had Mr. McGuinty been patient, I'm actually about to wrap up my comments.
As I was saying, I know that the opposition wants to ignore the testimony before this committee, Mr. Chair, in its attempt to push through this bad bill, this deeply flawed bill and all its provisions, including clause 10. This is what Mr. Thomas d'Aquino--I hope I don't massacre his name--president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said on Wednesday, February 6, 2008. Mr. Chair, we were talking about the importance of making investments in technology that will not only benefit our environment but will move our jobs forward in this country. That is not the type of unjust transition where you just callously and cold-heartedly kick workers out of their jobs into an uncertain future. That's what the opposition is all about, Mr. Chair. That is what they're here for. I'm here to stand up.
The reason I'm opposing this particular clause and the bill, more broadly speaking, Mr. Chair, is because it's bad. It's absolutely bad for workers, and I'm not ashamed to say that. I'm not ashamed to sit here at committee and make my case about why this is bad. I'm not ashamed at all, and I will use my full privileges as a member of Parliament--they're the privileges of every member of Parliament--to come here and stand up for their constituents, make their views known, and mount a very vigorous defence of their welfare.
Mr. Chair, I worked for six and a half years with these families. I know a lot of them by name. I know their children, Mr. Chair. These are very important people. I'm talking about clause 10 here, with this unjust transition they want. They just want to toss them out of work. I worked with these people. I know what it's like in this industry. I know how tough it is, looking to the future.
That's why our plan is the right one. We're not only going to try to move forward our environmental goals, which are to have a cleaner environment, we're going to move these families forward. We're not just going to kick them out and leave them to the wolves, as the opposition wants to do, Mr. Chair.
Back to the point, here's the testimony of Mr. d'Aquino, talking about the need for technological investments, on February 6, 2008. This is on page 2. Here's what he says. This, of course, is their submission. They agree with some of the points we're talking about here. He talks about their proposal. He says, “Another key element of our proposal is to recognize the absolutely fundamental role of technology”. This isn't peripheral to the discussion here, Mr. Chair. This isn't peripheral for Canadians who are watching. This is absolutely the crux and the heart of the issue here.
It's not kick them out and maybe have some income replacement or maybe train them or who knows what. No, this is about making the critical investments now. I was talking about the accelerated capital cost writeoffs being very significant at this particular juncture. They were structured the way they were by this government in declining fashion in years four and five, precisely to ensure that the technology investments are made today. That is vital. Recognize the absolutely fundamental role of technology. That's the quote from Mr. d'Aquino.
He goes on to say, “There is simply no way to make meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without massive investments in new technologies. Business leaders in the council see this as a tremendous opportunity”.
We agree. That's why we have the accelerated capital cost allowance writeoffs for these industries, and we've made them more generous, too, in terms of the amount that can be written off.
He says:
Business leaders in the council see this as a tremendous opportunity, since Canada has the natural resources and the technical, financial, and skills capability to be a leader in next-generation technologies such as clean coal, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, hydro, wind, biofuels, and other alternative energies.
I'd go on and add to that list the types of automotive components and parts in vehicles that can address the need for significant and deep reductions in greenhouse gases on the transportation side of the equation, not just on the industry side. Our regulations address that particular issue.
Mr. d'Aquino goes on, talking about his proposals and where we have some common ground. This government does, anyway; the opposition doesn't. He says:
A third element of our paper recognizes the importance of targets as a spur to environmental progress. We support the ultimate goal of achieving a substantial, absolute reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases, both in Canada and globally. At the same time, it is important that any target applied to Canadian industry recognize competitive realities and be set within an overall policy framework that allows profitable firms to increase their investment in new technologies.
Of course, clause 10 speaks about targets and their effects.
This is how we're going to move forward, Mr. Chair. It's how the auto industry is going to move forward. The opposition may not want the auto industry to move forward. They have the rhetoric, but when it comes time to where the actual policies get put into place and the dollars get put behind them in budgets, what do they do? They either sit on their hands if they're not allowed to vote in the Liberal Party, or the few that are allowed vote against these measures. Or the Bloc--they don't even wait to see what's in budgets, they just go ahead saying they are against it and forget it, especially if it's the auto industry. I don't know how many times I've sat in this committee, Mr. Chair, and listened to the Bloc Québécois kick the auto industry in the shins at every opportunity. They don't care. They used to build the Camaro in their province, Mr. Chair; they had an investment at one time, and they've lost it . Now they just don't seem to care any more: they'll kick the shins of the auto industry. I've heard it time and time again.
But we're looking at measures--
