Debates of June 2nd, 2008

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the adjournment proceedings to take up a question that I asked of the then minister of foreign affairs. The golden boy that he was was asked a simple question about whether there was any contact between ministers or government representatives and Mr. Mulroney that may have been organized or facilitated by Mr. Mulroney. We found out that Mr. Mulroney met in private with the former minister of industry, now the former minister of foreign affairs.

We asked at that time whether that would be part of the public inquiry. The answer, simply put, by the former minister was that we are trying to make up stories and there were never any meetings and that scandals were being made out of thin air.

Now the fish has been hooked and there is an actual scandal involving that minister and it is time to follow up on the question: Did Mr. Mulroney meet with the former minister? It is time to come clean about that meeting. Why this question is more pertinent now than when it was asked and not answered is that the credibility of the two participants in the meeting is highly an issue now.

There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney was less than truthful when he gave evidence about what he did with the money that he received. There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney was less than truthful about the total sum of money he received. There is no doubt now that Mr. Mulroney told his closest highly paid professional spin doctors something different from what he eventually told the public. There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney told Norman Spector, his chief of staff, that Bear Head in Cape Breton was dead, yet he let one of his closest friends, Fred Doucet, the lobbyist, bill the entire year's worth of lobbying activities in pursuing Bear Head. Mr. Mulroney has a serious credibility issue. In a court of law and in this House the credibility of the party should always be an issue.

Then we move to the minister, the other party in this meeting that took place in Montreal regarding, I would expect, the interests of Quebecor. The upcoming issues with respect to wireless telecom and deregulation in general might have been very much of interest to Quebecor. I cannot fault Mr. Mulroney and his employers wanting to know about that. I can fault, however, the then minister of industry for meeting with such a high level representative of such a high stakes player in the private sector with respect to telecom.

The former minister says that nothing ever happened, that it was a scandal made out of thin air, but he has credibility issues too. That former minister kept on insisting that he did not know of any potential security breach until media interest arose and the story was sparked. He stated that he thought there was nothing wrong with the private affairs that he was conducting as they were.

We all know that a former famous Liberal prime minister said that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. We also know now, which may be the Prime Minister's contribution to that legacy in rule, that the papers of state have no business in the bedrooms of former ministers' girlfriends.

What is really at issue and what I would like to have an answer on is what happened at that meeting? Why would the government accept at face value the word of the two participants whose credibility is seriously at issue?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Mr. Mulroney knows the hon. member for Beauce. The member for Beauce was crystal clear. Any contact with Mr. Mulroney in the time period in question would have been of a social nature.

Once again, the opposition is desperate to create a story where there is none.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, just to assuage my imagination and the imagination of the Canadian people and hundreds of writers who are on this story, perhaps the government could table documents with respect to the meeting, the calendar of the former minister, what was intended to be discussed, whether Quebecor figured in any of the briefings to the minister at the time with respect to the important issues in play. It would be very important for the Canadian people to know whether the minister knew anything of Mr. Mulroney's business when he agreed to meet with him socially, in private, in a Montreal restaurant.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member does have a wonderful imagination because the member for Beauce was very clear. Any contact with Mr. Mulroney at the time period would have been social. Once again, this is a smear campaign.

I would like to quote what his colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, said about Mr. Mulroney.

In the June 8, 2000, Hansard, he said:

Canadians need bold, visionary, courageous leadership similar to the leadership of the previous government under the Progressive Conservatives and the leadership of Brian Mulroney.

In the December 10, 2002, Hansard, he said:

The member should not be criticizing those policies but should be waking up every morning and thanking God that there was a Progressive Conservative government that had the vision, foresight and wisdom to do that which his government would never have had the ability to do.

In The Record, December 5, 1998, he said, “It demonstrates globally he is the most respected PM we've [ever] had in...30 years”.

In the May 30, 2002, Hansard, he said:

Mr. Mulroney's speech provides valuable lessons to the Liberal government in managing international relationships as well as in leadership, integrity and courage.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in difficult times in a number of sectors including the automotive sector. I would like to about what the current government is planning to do, given these challenges.

All of us should be concerned about the economic challenges facing the country as it adjusts to the rapid and unexpected rise of the Canadian dollar. Because of high commodity prices and a falling U.S. dollar, we have seen a historic rise in the value of our currency. This challenge combined with higher energy prices, the United States struggling with the subprime mortgage crisis, and increased competition from emerging economies has created a perfect storm that is hammering our export sectors. Manufacturing, forestry, tourism and other vital industries are struggling, and again I would like to stress, our automotive sector.

We have a government that pretends there are no problems in the current economy. We have the current finance minister who only a couple of weeks ago said that the Canadian economy is growing in every sector, only to discover that in fact in the first quarter of this year, although the American economy grew, the Canadian economy shrank.

It is not the government's role to run business; we acknowledge that. That is the job of business. But the government does have a role in creating an environment where businesses can prosper and where businesses themselves can be encouraged to invest in the infrastructure, the equipment, the new and green technologies that can help them make cars that are more competitive and more in demand.

The government's answer is, “We do not think there is a problem. The Canadian economy is growing. Ontario”-- which is in fact significantly reliant on the automotive sector--“is the last place to invest”. The current finance minister and indeed other ministers have criticized Ontario on a number of fronts. The finance minister has criticized Ontario for not lowering corporate taxes, which already are lower than the current federal corporate tax rate. Overall there is a general environment of criticism, of throwing stones. There is a complete lack of cooperation with provincial and municipal governments and indeed with any of the other stakeholders. The Conservative government has done nothing other than pretend that the problem does not exist.

The Liberal proposal, on the other hand, which we refer to as the advanced manufacturing prosperity fund, is a billion dollars that would support major investments in manufacturing and in R and D facilities that would serve as an anchor for clusters of economic activity. In order to receive AMP fund investment, facilities would have to satisfy three criteria. They would have to leverage significant private investment and in so doing create jobs. They would have to be in anchor facilities that would attract significant secondary industries, supplier services and other support businesses. They must help position Canada as a leader in the manufacture of greener technologies and products. The AMP fund is designed indeed to help Canada become a champion of the green industrial revolution. All of our manufacturing sectors would benefit from this. But again, no.

The government certainly had shown a surplus. Before the budget was proposed we as Liberals had asked that at least $7 billion of the $10 billion allocated to debt be put into infrastructure. That was not done. I would like to ask the government--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member that there is a perfect storm, the perfect storm created by her Liberal Party's inaction.

Since we have been in office, this Conservative government has been committed to the automotive sector. We have fostered growth, innovation and competitiveness and created jobs for Canadians.

Unlike the Liberals, who turned their back on the auto industry and oversaw the largest layoffs in Canadian history, this Conservative government is making Canada more competitive.

The auto industry is Canada's largest manufacturing sector and a key driver of innovation. The federal government respects and appreciates the significant contribution that the industry continues to make to employment and economic growth here in Canada.

We can be extremely proud of our industry and the recognition it has received through quality and productivity awards.

We are also aware of the challenges facing the Canadian automotive industry in light of increased global competition, the appreciation of the Canadian dollar and rapidly evolving technologies. The industry faces accelerating demands to implement the latest design and engineering technology and to bring new products to market. However, changing technologies are also providing us with opportunities to be world leaders in our areas of strength.

The federal government's strategic economic plan, Advantage Canada, creates that positive environment by lowering taxes, by cutting red tape, by investing in critical infrastructure and by creating the best educated, most skilled and most flexible labour force in the world. We have been in power only two years but we have and will cut taxes by nearly $200 billion over this and the next five years, including over $1 billion in tax relief for the auto sector.

We have provided $33 billion in funding toward long term infrastructure projects. The Windsor-Detroit gateway is absolutely critical to a viable automotive sector in Canada and it was ignored by the previous Liberal government. Our government is delivering on that front. We are building an infrastructure advantage by removing barriers to the cross-border flow of vehicles and automotive parts.

This government is also committed to improving our environment while at the same time ensuring our policies do not negatively impact competitiveness. The Minister of Transport recently announced fuel consumption regulations will be benchmarked against a stringent, dominant North American standard taking into account the integrated nature of the North American automotive industry.

On safety regulations, we have been working closely with industry setting out a mutually agreed upon plan of action toward greater regulatory compatibility within North America. Just recently, a first, we announced the harmonization of Canadian bumper standards. This initiative alone will save manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars and it is something the Liberals did not get done.

Additionally, the government's new science and technology strategy sets out a policy framework that has received wide acclaim, both in Canada and internationally.

We have committed new resources and redirected existing resources to create a coordinated automotive R and D plan with industry and key players. We believe that R and D is critical now more than ever, pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge. It is the lifeblood of innovation and the key to success in a knowledge economy.

Budget 2008 also committed $250 million to the automotive innovation fund that will lever private sector R and D and innovation, with particular emphasis on strategic, large scale projects to develop innovative and more fuel efficient vehicles. This is an initiative the Liberals have refused to support. Shame on them.

Unlike the Liberals, who want to bring forth a carbon tax that would cause more job cuts, more uncompetitive environment and challenges to working Canadians, this Conservative government is making our industry more competitive today.

The days of Liberal inaction and rhetoric are over. This government is committed to working with industry to implement policies that support a competitive and innovative Canadian auto industry.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member opposite can possibly say everything that he has been saying with a straight face in the face of hundreds of thousands of jobs having been lost in the manufacturing sector and a shrinking Canadian economy.

We are hearing all of the rhetoric about what has been proposed and what has been planned but I would suggest that there are a lot of people in the automotive sector who would like to actually know where the cheques are and where the action really is.

I will go back to the question of infrastructure. We have heard a great deal of talk and much ballyhoo about an investment of $33 million but very little of that is new money. Almost all of it is a continuation of much needed Liberal programs. The majority of the rest is a continuation of originally announced Liberal initiatives. Only $1.3 billion of all of the announcement can even remotely be categorized as new money, and that is spread over seven years. This is simply not enough.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member has not done her homework. If she had done her homework she would know that in 2004, CAPC, the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, sent out a scathing report against the Liberal inaction on the automotive sector. It asked for five things and the Liberals delivered absolutely zero on those five. In just two years we have addressed all five things that it asked for.

After years of Liberal neglect, the member is maybe ignorant about her level of her hypocrisy. Unlike the Liberals “head in the sand” approach that saw record job layoffs throughout central Canada, this Conservative government acknowledges the sectoral restructuring.

The Conservative auto plan has four pillars. If she had paid attention in the House she would know that. We have a strategic economic plan that has lowered taxes, cut red tape for the first time, invested in critical infrastructure and supported Canada's skilled labour force.

Budget 2008, which she did not support, committed $250 million to an automotive innovation fund. What she just asked for we have done. This fund would lever private sector funding for green vehicle production. It also committed further funding to support--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

A 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 7:25 p.m.)