Debates of March 31st, 2003

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to mention yet again, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, that making the gun registry retroactive was no problem at all for the government. It did not bother those members that they blew away $1 billion on it. That side of the House is quite happy to vote the gun registry even more money, and the darn thing is not even working. This has given the privacy commissioner great concern. This may be open to charter challenges.

It does not bother the Liberals when they have one of their philosophical issues to force it through. It does not matter when they have social engineering on their agenda. The government will do anything to get its social engineering through the system. I was in this place when the government pushed through its affirmative action bill. That type of legislation is being struck down in the United States now. Another case is being dealt with tomorrow, dealing with the University of Michigan. The Liberals have no problem doing all sorts of outrageous stuff like that. When it comes to common sense, they do not care.

The member said that the government could not do anything because it had a meeting with provincial and territorial governments and there was consensus that this had to be made charter proof. The word consensus implies that there was some disagreement as to whether it was necessary to make this into such a mediocre bill. We should err on the side of the kids. We should have tried harder.

The member did not say exactly which provinces or territories took what side in the debate. That would be an interesting figure to have, even if it had been just one or two of the provinces or the territories that felt some retroactivity could have been put into this. However we do not know that because we did not get enough information during the time that the question was posed. Even if the number was one, two or zero, it would have been worth trying.

I already gave an example in my speech of a way this could be done by using the notwithstanding clause with the permission of the Canadian people. I recognize that to use the notwithstanding clause is a tremendously serious issue. When using such a clause, a government has to be very careful and ensure that it is not trampling on the rights of minorities or disadvantaged groups. This has to be done with great deliberation and care. This would be an ideal situation to test a procedure using the permission of the Canadian public.

If there were even the slightest chance that we could have done something with the bill to make it more effective, then we should have tried. Any one of us who has ever dealt with lawyers knows that for every lawyer who tells us something can be done, there is another lawyer who is quite happy to go to court to argue that it cannot be done.

Let us play the game. We should have at least tried to make it happen and then waited to see if it could happen.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the time for government orders expires, I would like to ask the Chair if he could assure the House that the reprint of Bill C-13, if it is already printed, reflecting the changes made in the bill for report stage motions which were passed, be made available in the Chamber tomorrow so members can have it for the commencement of debate on Bill C-13.

[The Deputy Speaker]

For the information of the House, no reprint is necessary. It can only be done by unanimous consent.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to once again call upon the government to create an auto policy to deal with the ongoing issue of losing auto jobs to Mexico, the United States and other parts of the world.

I asked a question on December 11 which highlighted the fact that Economic Development Canada, a crown corporation, provided a loan guarantee to General Motors without any conditions on it. What it effectively did was it led General Motors to outsource part of that automotive work by the CAW members to Bombardier, which then outsourced down to Mexico, eventually putting up to 800 workers in London, Ontario, out of work. That is a shameful practice. It is certainly not the type of policy we want. We are creating a policy for workers in Mexico but not for Canada.

I want to touch on another part of the question. I asked about getting something concrete in place so we could compete and ensure that we had those plants for the future, especially now that we were looking at new technologies and opportunities to reduce emissions and make Kyoto targets. Tailpipe emissions is where the improvements will be made. However right now that is not happening. Those plants are being lost.

As good example, a Sprinter plant was lost last summer. This plant was to go to Windsor, Ontario. It would involve $1.2 billion in investment and 3,000 jobs. Windsor offered them “one of the best sites available”. It was lost because the Ontario and federal governments balked at providing infrastructure and other training costs. The key obstacle was also training flexibility.

One of the arguments that the government and the Minister of Industry relied upon at the time was not actually correct. I will read from an article. It states:

[The Minister of Industry] said he “was involved in the process” to bring the Sprinter to Windsor, but that the deal fell apart because the van would not have met free trade rules requiring that most of a vehicle's content come from Canada, the United States or Mexico.

The reason was not the failure of governments to come to the table.

That is not accurate. I had the parliamentary library do some research. What happened under that suggestion was we could not do it because of the content laws of production under the North American Free Trade Agreement. However there is a clause in the agreement that when a brand new plant comes to a community, it allows five years to reduce that content. They did not exercise that option.

This plant comes from Europe. The plant has now moved into the southern U.S. It will not do just on time delivery on ships, barges and whatnot to get them across the Atlantic Ocean. Those plants will eventually be built in those communities, and we have lost that.

The Oakville plant, a Ford flexible plant, has 1,500 jobs that could be lost. The Holy Grail in the auto industry is up for grabs right now. In Windsor 3,000 jobs are up for another billion dollar plant from DaimlerChrysler. Navistar in Chatham is losing its last jobs because it is moving to Mexico.

After all this time, why does the government still not have a clear auto policy?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, there has been much said recently about what the various levels of government should be doing to attract new investments to the Canadian automobile sector.

Last year we created the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council in order to find ways of strengthening the Canadian auto sector. It met for the first time on September 4, 2002 and again in December 2003. The next meeting is scheduled for May 30, 2003.

Through this collaborative effort, we are seeking ways to bring auto sector initiatives in line with the government's priorities on innovation, skill enhancement and infrastructure.

The Government of Canada remains determined to create a climate that is more conducive to investment in all Canadian sectors. We will continue , in conjunction with the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, to address the issues affecting the auto sector with a view to maintaining its viability and prosperity. We will continue to work to create a national auto policy.

First, I must stress the point that I too wish to see Canada attract as much new investment in the auto sector as possible. That is the main reason that the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council was created, in order to enable the industry and the government to work together on joint strategies to ensure the growth and long term prosperity of the Canadian auto sector.

On the council we work in conjunction with auto manufacturers, parts makers, unions and the provinces in order to create a cooperative approach to the difficulties being encountered by the industry.

We have heard it said that Canada ought to offer the same incentives as some of the American states in order to attract new investments in the auto sector. It is too easy to say that Canada has lost auto plants to the competition because there is no direct government assistance.

What we need to do instead is to address the whole range of factors involved in investment decisions, whether these be in the area of economics, public policy or some other area.

All levels of government are important stakeholders in this, and we are working in a number of sectors at the federal level, particularly in connection with programs relating to infrastructure and innovation.

The Canadian auto sector is very strong. It is competitive internationally and productivity is very good. The auto sector has received over $5 billion in investments in the past five years. All automobile manufacturers have reinvestment plans.

Over the past ten years, average annual growth in the Canadian auto sector has been 7%, compared to just 3% for the rest of the economy. Over the same period, the production of light duty vehicles in Canada has increased by 570,000 units. This figure represents two or three typical assembly plants. I think this is impressive, given that Canada only sells 8% of the vehicles in North America, and that our share of North American production remains around 16% for this period.

Figures on vehicles produced over the past ten years lead me to conclude that Canada's policy of focusing on the fundamental economic issues in order to create an environment that fosters new investment and growth has worked well for the auto sector. The government's objective has been to ensure that the overall business climate attracts investment in all sectors. We have reduced the debt, interest rates and inflation rates, balanced the budget, encouraged innovation, funded new infrastructure and introduced initiatives to promote trade.

New measures announced in the 2003 budget will also benefit the auto sector directly: eliminating the federal capital tax, as the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council had called for; $2 billion over five years to implement the Climate Change Plan for Canada; support for the 30 point Canada-U.S. action plan—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it still does not answer the question. Why do Canadians not have a clear concrete policy in front of them? We have been asking for that. The Canadian Automotive Partnership Council was formed. It has been meeting but has not produced anything tangible for the public to digest.

More important, it does not address the fact that Canadians right now are producing vehicles less than the ratio they were before and compared to what they have been buying. The ratio now is somewhere around 1:5. If we lose the assembly plants we have in Windsor and Oakville, it will go to 1:2 and by the next year it could even go to 1:1.

The reality is the Auto Pact policy is what has created the past success of our industry. An example is the DaimlerChrysler Pillette Road, which was under the Auto Pact in the 1970s. The DCX minivan plant was in co-operation with the government at the time for Chrysler's restructuring. We also have Bramalea as a result of the FIRA rules. We also had the Ford and St. Thomas plant. Those were also--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I regret to interrupt but the times are structured quite clearly, four minutes and one minute each. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the hon. member for Windsor West would agree that public policy should be based on facts and on a solid, in-depth analysis.

In the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, we are constantly examining the general competitiveness of Canadian jurisdictions in comparison to other North American jurisdictions, in terms of attracting investment to the automotive sector. Our analysis of the situation and the valuable insights of the CAPC will enable us to shed more light on the decision-making process in the automotive industry, which will also help us direct our common efforts to the growth of this key sector.

The government intends to act as rapidly as possible in following up on the recommendations of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:39 p.m.)