Bryon Wilfert

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question which was originally directed to the Minister of Health. I congratulate the member on raising these issues. I know it is important to him and obviously important to others, including myself in this House.

Clearly, many departments are involved in this dealing with stakeholders and particularly the ministry of health. As the hon. member knows, extensive detail on the activity which he raises has been a priority.

Health Canada is engaged in a careful assessment and analysis of the options to address possible risk to the drug supply, particularly the issue of prices. As the minister has made clear, the issue will soon be discussed in cabinet. I give that assurance to the member. We continue to monitor the situation south of the border. As the member knows, there has been increased demand by Americans.

Current levels of cross-border drug sales are a small fraction of the total U.S. market. There are millions of Americans who have no health coverage at all, no adequate health insurance at all. Clearly, cross-border drug sales from Canada are not a sustainable solution to the potential needs of those people.

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us cut through the political rhetoric. On the issue of ITER, I want to point out to the member that all members on this side of the House worked very hard on that. In fact, $100 million was put up by the government. The problem was that the private sector, which was supposed to be involved heavily in this, came back and needed another $3 billion. Even though we had the ideal site et cetera, that was an issue.

The member wants to know about the auto sector. I made it very clear that we are prepared to work with the member for Oshawa. The member for Oshawa is engaged in the polemics. He is not engaging in the real issue of the day. His party continues to run away from its obligations to deal with the real issues concerning climate change. California and other jurisdictions in the United States are moving ahead--

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's original question was directed to the Minister of Industry.

I want to point out to the member that the government takes the issue of automotive jobs very seriously. In fact in 2002 we created the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, CAPC, to identify ways in which the Government of Canada and the private sector could work collaboratively to strengthen this particular sector.

CAPC recently released a report called, “A Call for Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy” which outlines a vision for making Canada the location of choice for automotive manufacturing in North America.

I can assure the House that the government is listening. The CAPC report will be an important contribution to a new national automotive strategy. We know that this is the best country when it comes to investing in automotive jobs. When Lexus was built for the first time outside of Japan, Cambridge, Ontario was picked because of the quality of the workmanship and the quality of workers.

The member talked about Kyoto. There is no question that we take our responsibilities regarding climate change very seriously. That is why we are working collaboratively with the automotive sector. It is important that we come up with a voluntary agreement.

It is important that economic competitiveness and the environment can and will work closely together. We announced a $100 million contribution to Ford's Oakville facilities, an important new research and engineering undertaking. This is tied to a commitment by Ford to proceed with a $1 billion investment which will introduce new manufacturing processes to secure the future of the site and related employment for years to come.

Clearly we are listening to the automotive sector and are working collaboratively. That is why these kinds of investments are being made by the government and by the auto sector.

The member for Oshawa said that the government is not listening to the sector at all. Clearly in budget 2004 the government committed to develop a new strategic automotive framework. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House in our automotive caucus have been working very collaboratively with the ministers affected.

The June 2004 announcement of $500 million to support major automotive projects and the explicit reference to the auto sector in the Speech from the Throne reaffirm this policy commitment.

I appreciate the hon. member's representations from his constituency. I know that those jobs in Oshawa are important. I want the member to be assured that we are not going to do anything that will affect any jobs in his constituency or anywhere else.

We want to emphasize that the support for auto initiatives will be linked to our overall national priorities, such as innovation, skills development, infrastructure and of course, the environment.

Ford, as I said, will invest heavily in innovation, training and new environmental technologies as part of its Oakville initiative. These are all very important. They are important for Canada. They are important for workers. They are important for society at large.

Ford recognizes the advances in technology, such as fuel cells and hybrid vehicles, in improving fuel efficiency and the environmental performance of its vehicles. We welcome that.

Rather than carrying a big stick, we are working collaboratively. Eventually if a voluntary agreement cannot be entered into, obviously we would have to look at other approaches, but I am confident that we will reach an agreement on a voluntary basis.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the auto sector has been a leader and continues to lead. I would point out that we are interested in reducing emissions, not just to 2010 but beyond. The Minister of the Environment has committed to that. The Minister of the Environment is working with the auto sector and with my colleagues on this side of the House, and again, please stay tuned.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the auto sector to achieve a voluntary agreement. Clearly, if one is not reached, we will have to regulate, but the discussions are ongoing and I would ask the member to stay tuned.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is the government that is working with the auto sector. Clearly, we believe it is very important to our economy. That member would rather see failure than opportunity. We believe it is important for Canadians. We are working very cooperatively with the auto sector.

I would suggest that members on this side, particularly my colleagues from ridings where the auto sector exists, have done a lot more to advance this file than anyone on that side.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, nothing could be further from the truth. I am not sure if that party can spell the word Kyoto but the reality is that we are prepared to have a strong economy and that means in the auto sector as well.

Negotiations have been going on and, obviously, are still going on but I would say that they are very productive.

We know, particularly on this side of the House, how important the automobile industry is and how important the environment is to Canadians.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has made it very clear that economic competitiveness and the environment are not mutually exclusive. He has indicated very strongly that we can have a strong economy building on jobs in a green economy.

Chicken Little is alive and well and sitting across the way. He would suggest that somehow the sky is falling. The sky is not falling. An opportunity is at hand and we would hope that party along with others will work with us in improving our environment.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the member's new-found interest in Kyoto.

The member talked about hot air. The minister has made it very clear we will not buy hot air from Russia, and we will not buy hot air from that party either.

The bottom line is that the minister will release a very robust plan. I suggest that the member bide his time, because after the budget, he will see how we are building on the work we have already done on Kyoto to save our economy, the environment and health.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, on the specific case the member asked about, my understanding is that Canadians overwhelmingly rallied in defence of the retention of the medal. The government signalled through this act and made sure that there was a delay process so that it would not be able to leave. We were told by the public, particularly by fundraisers, that they wanted to proceed with their efforts in terms of raising money and that government funds were not needed. Therefore the government was obviously prepared to let those go forward.

We have to work with all partners and clearly, the government through this act is the lead partner. There is no question in my mind that we have to ensure by whatever means that we keep them here.

I take very seriously the comments of the member and I hope the member takes very seriously my comments.