Brian Masse

[Transport, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what I have learned in my time here is that when we raise a Prime Minister's promise he loses his tongue and has no voice. With that in mind, let me read a response that he gave to the Windsor Star in the election campaign. He said that “it's a question of...determining how the city wants to see us do it. This is not going to be imposed, that's an absolute guarantee”.

This is not going to be imposed. We are still waiting for him to unlock his mental gridlock. We want to see the trucks removed from our streets and the economy functioning. More important, we want this Prime Minister to actually keep a promise this time.

[Transport, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's dithering on the Kyoto plan is matched only by his dithering on the Canada-U.S. border and the Windsor gateway, where the Schwartz report, a unanimous recommendation by the city and the county to have a resolution for the gridlock in our community, to end the emissions and the pollution of poisons and to move traffic, is still sitting because the Prime Minister has his own mental gridlock.

I would ask the Prime Minister to quit his idling and keep his promise that he made to the citizens of Windsor and Essex County.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an important question that was left out of the debate to this point in time. Absolutely, we would support that. It is critical. We have seen success stories in many provinces with adaptation. It is an important incentive element that should be used to encourage people to move in those directions. There are particular needs with vehicle use that should be addressed in the north.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that, but the fact is that we want to have more examples of cleaner technologies, higher fuel efficiency and newer plants. We are not getting those right now. There are very few examples.

The government is going from crisis to crisis and negotiating in backroom deals for auto investments. It is not out there with a public policy that shows Canadians that we are going to have an investment, a strategy based on certain principles, and that we are actually going to procure that for our country.

The government is going behind the scenes, the most recent being the GM Beacon project. Who knows what is happening with that right now? I think it is good because we have not had a call lately but who knows? Why is there not an auto policy so all Canadians can understand how their tax paying money is being spent?

We are not picking on this industry. We are trying to be part of ensuring that we are going to be the top of the line in this world and climb back up the ladder on which we have fallen down.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was listening when I talked about our auto workers in this country and that included all of them. The reference to the Toyota Prius was the fact that it is Canadian technology that is being exported. That is the problem. It is not being built in your constituency. It is being built somewhere else. I congratulate the work that is being done in your constituency--

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak about this issue. This motion is very important.

To continue with the thoughts related to the fact that there are negotiations going on right now, I think it would be a position of strength for the negotiation team to have Parliament and the House actually interested in their industry, interested in the future of it, and want to play a role in ensuring that it would be successful not only for our country but also for exports across the world. That is the important aspect that has not been raised.

NDP members have been characterized as attacking the industry. It is far from it. We are talking about the future of the industry. The future is going to be like engine plants in my riding, such as Ford. It has no replacement right now. It will be replaced with another one that has standards or emissions that are in the current format of today. The future would be a hybrid in that plant. The future is ensuring that those workers are going to have employment.

We are losing jobs because we are not manufacturing some of the newer technologies that are attracting the eye of the world, other states and other consumers. We are losing that opportunity now. That is what is really important. There is a critical timeframe for this industry. It is changing and government has a role. This is a sad excuse on behalf of the Liberal Party. It is trying to wiggle out again on a national auto policy. That is what this is really about, to wiggle out of a responsibility.

Let us look at the CAPC recommendations that have been made, the Canadian auto parts strategy that was created over two years ago. I have not contacted it to see if it supports this motion or not. If we look at what it has come up with and how it relates to this motion with regard to emission standards and creating an environment not only where vehicles emit less and we have less pollution, cleaner air and on top of that jobs, its recommendations match up quite nicely.

There are five main recommendations and I would like to talk a bit about them. One of them is large scale investment incentives which states:

Ensure Canada’s competitiveness in attracting automotive investment by improving the focus, flexibility and accessibility of government incentives which are now essential to win large-scale automotive investments or re-investments. These incentives can be linked to innovation, technology implementation, skills enhancement and sustainability.

That fits with this motion. It is sad that Canadians right now have to import the Prius, with the Canadian technology in terms of the hybrid engine, as opposed to having it manufactured and assembled by Canadians. What if that hybrid was in the Ford plant that everyone is going to watch in my community potentially go down if we do not procure a new product real soon?

We have the University of Windsor with Auto21, the Ford Centre for Excellence at St. Clair College, and we have training and development programs that do not only just talk about the new fuel efficiency and standards. I give credit to the government for funding these initiatives and starting more as needed. These are important first steps. They are also opportunities for new employment for students as well as the assemblers, who could very much use re-investment. That was the number one point it had.

The second one was infrastructure. I have spoken many times in the House of Commons about the Windsor-Detroit border crossing and infrastructure. Ontario is being punished and hammered, as well as the rest of this country, by the government's refusal to implement the recommendations of the Schwartz report unanimously passed by the city of Windsor and the county council to get gridlock off of our streets, Despite the Prime Minister's promises, which he makes a lot of everywhere else, he has yet to deliver.

The solutions are there to unplug the gridlock, but the government has yet to act on it. Despite this report being ready for weeks, despite crying foul for a long time and asking when the report was going to come forward, the government has not acted on it yet. There has not even been a political statement about the report from the Prime Minister, who said in our community that he would support a local solution. That is lack of leadership.

The third recommendation made by CAPC states:

--auto-focused innovation incentives such as early commercialization tax credits, consumer supports to encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicle technologies and more effective supports for manufacturing process innovation.

Once again, that is all in line with reducing emissions. I am not surprised that the industry is a little bit timid on this and saying that it is not sure whether it can go to mandatory from voluntary in the time frame. It does not have the government backstopping it. This is what this is about. It is about the government trying to weasel out of an auto policy.

If the industry had the confidence that the government had an auto policy, then it could say that the political will of the people of Canada wants to have reduced emissions and wants to have auto jobs. Then there is a role for our government to participate in the renewal of the industry that would benefit our citizens in terms of employment and also cleaner air. The public support out there is unanimous for that.

That is why there is support for the Kyoto agreement among the public. The public knows that the status quo and the system that we have in place right now is a recipe for disaster, not only as we lag behind in terms of environmental issues that we pay for personally and collectively in our communities, but also by the lost opportunities in jobs as other nations surpass us time after time on newer technologies for manufacturing and development. We cannot bring that time back.

Those markets become saturated and those opportunities are lost. The innovation is a constant catch-up game from our side and that gives other nations too much of an advantage, especially when this government has no interest in dealing with other issues around fair trade. The government is not concerned with perhaps the deplorable practices that other countries have with regard to the disposal of materials after manufacturing and production. We have higher standards over here. That is not something other countries are concerned about. It gives them a cheaper ability to manufacture goods. They are not concerned with that. Thus we are falling behind.

The fourth recommendation deals with regulatory harmonization. This is interesting, it states:

Take action to coordinate and streamline regulations (including those pertaining to vehicle safety, certification and emissions) between Canada and the United States, and within Canada, in recognition of the integrated nature of the North American industry and the need to coordinate automotive-related investment marketing by Canadianjurisdictions.

We know California and a series of other states are moving to high emissions standards. Canada is losing those markets. Are we going to see them regress? Will we see other states regress? The answer is no. Standards will increase more and more. Our production has to meet those standards if we are to continue to export to those markets. Our auto workers are the most productive and have the best quality in the world.

Canadian auto workers can face the challenge of ensuring that the newer technologies get into the vehicles and are a quality product that will meet the demands of the markets they need to penetrate. I am confident in their skills and abilities if we provide them with the tools. The industry is changing. The world is changing. Let us be in the front of it, not in the back seat.

There was a fifth element on human resources. It states:

--review existing training programs and opportunities; address the impact of demographic trends on the skilled trades workforce; strengthen apprenticeship programs; and attract more young people to careers in the automotive industry

Here is a great opportunity for employment for young people. If we can get some of the newer vehicles out there, then the newer technologies will require people in service garages across this nation. There will be new standards, new skills and new opportunities for employment that we did not have before.

Let us give those young people those opportunities. Let us ensure that they are at the forefront of servicing these new vehicles, as well as the vehicles that are coming into Canada. The government has no auto policy and wants to give away our technology as it has done in other sectors, as opposed to having the manufacturing done in Canada.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is almost insulting to hear the parliamentary secretary say that this House has no role to discuss one of the most important industries in Canadian history and also the future prosperity of this country.

The citizens of this country are sick and tired of waiting for backroom Liberal deals to try to address crises in this country. It is reprehensible that this chamber should not have a voice and an opportunity in a democracy to openly discuss this.

I have a question for the member opposite who sits with me on the industry committee. I understand, and I am sure everyone understands, his concern about the job factor. I come from an area that represents many auto workers. The CAW supports movement toward mandatory standards. I think it is an unfair criticism to our motion that we actually are calling for that movement and creating some flexibility for negotiations as part of it. This is a motion, not legislation. The member for Oshawa does not seem to understand what is happening here. I would like the member to comment on that in terms of why can we not have flexibility to do that.

Point No. 4 in the CAPC report No. 4, Regulatory Harmonization, states:

Take action to coordinate and streamline regulations (including those pertaining to vehicle safety, certification and emissions) between Canada and the United States, and within Canada, in recognition of the integrated nature of the North American industry and the need to coordinate automotive-related investment marketing by Canadianjurisdictions

I would like to know if the member supports the CAPC recommendation.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate this historic bill in the House of Commons, my province of Ontario is preparing legislation because same sex marriage is happening already in Ontario. In fact, the Ontario Conservatives do not want that to become a wedge issue and are consenting to move it quickly through the chamber.

If this is already granted in the province of Ontario because some religious denominations have already chosen this as part of their faith service, how would he feel about having to strip that right away from that province?

[Patent Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Yukon who, when I arrived in 2002, was raising very serious questions about how to deal with this issue.

In the United States, for example, this is amazing. George Bush is a progressive in this field because only one automatic stay of injunction is allowed in the U.S., so the Americans have addressed this. We know the influence of the industry in the United States, but at the same time, there was enough recognition of the problem and this leaves Canada alone in the world with such a regime.

[Patent Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the early working provisions allow generic drugs to be manufactured and tested and put on the market after the 20 year period. I have not put that in the bill because I wanted to sharpen the debate on this issue. I am certainly open to amendments if that is the balance that is required. If my bill receives support and gets to committee, I would encourage that.

It is important that the bill get to committee. If it does not, we are telling the government that it is okay for this to be done through regulations and that parliamentarians have no business whatsoever in the debate on this issue. This is the opportunity. One member of the Bloc Québécois has a bill which addresses part of these issues too. We are open to amendments. Early working provisions could be part of them.

Some of the issues also relate to additional costs. We are certainly open to discussing that issue as well.