Colin Carrie

[Transport, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Oshawa has been without its harbour for two years. I can tell from the minister's answer that he has a bad case of the dithering disease.

Oshawa's harbour problem is a real environmental problem requiring real solutions. Belleville recently received $10 million for environmental cleanup.

I will ask my question again. When will Oshawa get a decision on its harbour?

[Transport, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the transport minister's proximity to the Prime Minister has resulted in the minister catching a contagious condition, the dithering disease.

The Oshawa harbour requires environmental remediation. Last fall the minister told me that he would have an answer on the harbour soon. In December he told me that he would make a decision by Christmas. Last month he told me that he would get back to me within days.

Why has the minister not come clean with his decision on the Oshawa harbour?

[Solar Vehicle Team, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the sun quite literally shone down on Oshawa.

Today I rise to pay tribute to the president, founders and sponsors of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology's first ever solar vehicle team.

Led by Mr. Samveg Saxena, its student president and founder, the team launched its program in Oshawa yesterday morning, a first of its kind in Durham region. In only two years these students have recruited a design team and begun raising money to cover the project cost, some $200,000.

The team hopes to build a race ready car by 2006 which will compete at major solar events around the world. This program will educate students and Canadians on renewable energy and environmental sustainability. This is a fine example of how industry and academia can accomplish great things by working together.

I am honoured to add my personal support to Samveg's team and ask all members to join me in recognizing the spirit and enthusiasm of UOIT's first solar vehicle team.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members for their remarks in the House this evening.

Since the first reading in November 2004, I have received an overwhelming amount of support in my riding of Oshawa and from across the country, including thousands of petitions, letters and e-mails. As many know, Bill C-420 was first introduced in the 37th session of Parliament by the member for Nanaimo--Alberni. During that session, Bill C-420 had the support of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who demanded greater freedom in their choice of complementary treatments, dietary supplements, herbs and other natural health products. The only thing that has changed today is the dramatic increase in support.

With health care being one of the biggest concerns for Canadians, we have to stop dithering and take action. The government has spent the last decade talking about endorsing better wellness and prevention. The time for talk is over. Bill C-420 is a significant move toward promoting healthier and safer choices for Canadians.

This bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to include herbs, dietary supplements and other natural health products under the definition of food as opposed to drugs, and repealing subsections 3(1) and 3(2) in schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act.

To date, questions have been raised about the actual effects this bill would have on consumer safety and protection. Bill C-420 would simply recategorize natural health products so that they fall under a food-style directorate rather than under a drug-style directorate while continuing to ensure effective manufacturing processes and inspections. We would recommend establishing a team of experts to review and provide a quality assessment of health claims, ensuring that such claims have scientific validity, such as a long history of traditional use without evidence of harm, some scientific merit or established scientific benefit.

It is generally acknowledged that natural health products are low risk, low cost and offer significant benefits to a wide range of costly health problems. Risk must always be addressed in terms of other risks. Even over the counter drugs could be potentially fatal if taken incorrectly, or sometimes even correctly. For example, such things as cough syrup, Aspirin and Tylenol are responsible for deaths in Canada every year. Even common foods such as peanut butter can cause a great deal of harm. Allergies to peanuts result in approximately 5 to 10 deaths in Canada each year. By comparison, since 1960 not one death in Canada has been attributed to a natural health product.

We must keep all these issues in the correct perspective. As my colleague stated in a news release, “In a day of skyrocketing health costs, all avenues of promoting healthier Canadians need to be explored”. By regulating dietary supplements, herbs and natural health products under Health Canada's food directorate, the government would ensure that these products are free of the limitations they face under the current drug directorate.

I would also like to draw attention to the 1998 report “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”, which included a recommendation to review schedule A and subsections 3(1) and 3(2). Former minister of health Allan Rock and the natural health products directorate also echoed this recommendation in 1999, stating that subsections 3(1) and (2) in schedule A of the act are no longer relevant and do not serve a purpose that cannot otherwise be accomplished through other sections of the legislation or regulations.

In closing, I would like to bring up some personal cases about health supplements. In my career as a chiropractor, I saw many people who took drugs for years that caused serious harms to their own bodies. I recall H.B., a wonderful senior suffering from fibromyalgia and arthritis. She took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for so long she developed a serious allergy to the medication which caused severe allergic reactions. There was P.M., a patient with a similar reaction. His last reaction sent him to the hospital. Thank goodness for natural alternatives to these potentially dangerous drugs.

Bill C-420 will put health freedom back into the hands of individual Canadians. It will help provide a more holistic approach and encourage Canadians to take a more responsible and active role in their own health care.

We need to free up our overburdened resources and enhance the availability of potentially curative resources already in the community. I encourage all my colleagues to support Bill C-420 and help move dietary supplements in the right direction, the direction that Canadians want.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, right now there are voluntary things put in place by the auto industry. As a matter of fact, the auto industry has been quite successful in decreasing emissions. For example, since 1990 Honda has decreased its emissions by 35%. What we have going on with the voluntary emissions decrease is working the way it is supposed to.

What I would like to talk about for a couple of minutes, though, is the economic impact and the devastating effect the motion would have if it were to pass. Auto workers in Canada pay over $2 billion in taxes. The GST and PST collected from automobiles total over $7 billion. To put such legislation into effect would be devastating to the economy and devastating to my community. We cannot support this reckless legislation.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for his question.

We have a problem with pollution and global warming. If this motion is passed, it will not be a solution. It will have a negative impact not only on Oshawa, but on the entire country.

We in the Conservative Party want to use common sense in reaching our greenhouse gas targets. What the NDP is promoting is something that would be reckless and irresponsible. It is the same with the government. It is not releasing any cost or impact studies of the effects this would have on the industry. As the member for Oshawa I feel it is reckless to bet the entire industry on legislation that is unproven in regard to what the results would be.

Regarding the comments by the member from Quebec, GM and Hyundai used to build cars there, and we had better believe that if they still built cars there he would be fighting for this issue too.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party believes in cleaning up the environment. We believe in clean air and clean water, and we believe that this should be a priority for government. We also believe that we can do this without decimating our key industries and without implementing unrealistic legislation, placing our key industries at an economic disadvantage internationally. Therefore, I rise today in opposition of this NDP motion.

As the representative for Oshawa, I cannot believe that the opposition party would put forth such an irresponsible, short-sighted proposition. If this motion were to pass, it would have a devastating effect on Canada's auto industry. Canada's Kyoto protocol-defined reduction is very aggressive and not possible to achieve.

Oshawa is famous for producing the best quality automobiles in North America. A big part of the reason we produce such excellent quality vehicles is due to the quality people who put together these cars. Oshawa's auto workers are dedicated professionals whose eye for detail has contributed to a prosperous auto industry in Canada. Today I rise in defence of auto worker jobs and union jobs. The truth is that numerous auto jobs in my constituency will be put in jeopardy if this motion passes requiring mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency.

The NDP has put forth a motion that does not address the realities of the auto industry and the economic implications of the proposed legislation. This motion proves that the protection and the retention of auto jobs in Canada and the global competitiveness of the auto industry are clearly not a priority of the NDP.

In Canada we build mid to large size vehicles, minivans, cars and trucks. If this motion goes through, it will mean that virtually every car, truck and minivan built in Canada could not be sold here. As chair of the Conservative auto caucus, I had the opportunity to visit each of Canada's five vehicle manufacturers. They were unanimous in what they told me. They told me that legislating a mandatory reduction in fuel consumption of 25% by 2010 would have a devastating effect on the auto industry. As one auto exec bluntly told me, “If we cannot sell the cars here, why would we build them here?”

What the NDP is trying to do is akin to legislating the garment industry into making size two dresses only and demanding that everyone fit into them. That should fix the problem.

If the NDP motion is put through it would greatly restrict Canadian consumer choice. It would mean that Canadians could only drive subcompact cars, such as the Chevy Aveo and the Toyota Echo. What would my constituents who are in the trades drive? I actually have a friend who is 6'3”. His wife is 6'1”. He has two rather tall kids. On the weekend he drives to the cottage with his family, his gear, the dog and sometimes grandma. Which car does my NDP colleague want him to drive, the Aveo or the Echo?

Madam Speaker, I want to let you know that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Edmonton--Leduc.

It is essential that we improve emissions standards, but that we do so in a manner that strengthens not weakens the auto industry. The NDP motion calls for legislation that will undermine the economic and competitive position of the Canadian auto industry. As the representative for Oshawa, I refuse to let auto workers in my constituency be unduly affected by legislation that disproportionately penalizes the auto sector. Look at the time and resources it has taken to elicit a voluntary commitment from one industry to deliver less than 1.8% of the national greenhouse gas reduction obligations that Canada accepted in ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

The fact is that mandatory improvements for the auto industry under Kyoto are unrealistic. The plan calls for a reduction in emissions by 5.2 million tonnes by 2010. A 25% fuel reduction approach is touted as a means to achieve that goal. The lead time for design change in automotive manufacturing is roughly four years. Product plans are already underway for vehicles that will be manufactured by the end of 2010. Product development takes time: time to plan, engineer, design and manufacture. Efficiency improvements are typically implemented as new vehicle programs are initiated and are not suited to mid-product cycle.

The NDP is looking to legislate mandatory improvements when it clearly does not understand the challenges the automotive industry faces today, such as unfair competition from offshore manufacturers and challenges identified in the CAPC report.

Mandatory improvements are unlikely to take into account important variables like differences among the many vehicles various companies produce. Regulation and legislation insensitive to the industry could lead to disproportionate effects on the sector, with devastating effects on workers, plants and dealerships.

The reality is that the Canadian auto industry represents 9% of an integrated North American market. If the NDP members had bothered to check, they would have realized that the United States, Canada's largest trading partner, has not signed on to the Kyoto accord. Canada deals with a 90% auto export rate to the U.S. Attempts to make substantial engineering changes solely for the Canadian market would result in excessive costs, restricted consumer choice and a competitive disadvantage.

It is also a reality that the NDP motion calls for mandatory emission standards when there is no agreed upon cost analysis for the new technology. Independent research by Sierra Research Associates estimates costs based on North America wide application of technologies at as much as $2,600 for cars and over $4,600 for trucks and says that the lead time for compliance with a 25% requirement by the end of 2010 is not sufficient. If the 25% is required on a Canada only basis, the cost would be much higher.

The auto industry has committed to drive greenhouse gas reductions through new technologies, publicly partner with the government in the fight for climate change and support automotive R and D in Canada.

In order to reach those goals, the auto industry is prepared to partner with the government to continue to aggressively pursue the introduction of cost effective, energy efficient technologies and alternate fuel offerings that use lower carbon fuels, and it is committed to a joint government-industry committee to measure progress toward its 5.2 million tonne goal. The industry also has agreed to a joint reporting committee with the government to monitor annual progress.

The industry's voluntary integrated agreement addresses the reality of the continental industry. It combines new vehicle technologies that save fuel with the broader availability of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesels and provides communication support to help consumers adapt driving behaviours and enable them to afford more efficient vehicles in Canada.

The NDP has argued that we should adopt California standards. If the NDP would bother to step outside today and get some fresh air instead of the hot air they are promoting today, they might realize we are not like California.

First, Canada is colder than California. Driving in colder climates consumes more gasoline.

Second, California does not have an industry to speak of. It has one plant. It has little to risk. Canada has a dozen plants and much to risk by adopting unrealistic legislation.

Third, according to the CAW, Canada employs over 150,000 people directly in auto assembly and parts, with a spinoff of seven jobs for every one; this means that for every assembly job seven other jobs are created. Over 500,000 Canadians owe their jobs directly to the auto industry. Is it sensible to risk these jobs for little actual improvement to global greenhouse gas reduction?

Finally, CAW findings show that the Canadian auto industry generated a positive trade balance for Canada of $20 billion in 2001. This trade balance is fragile and depends on the free flow of goods across the Canada-U.S. border.

The NDP has not presented any economic impact studies indicating the cost to industry and costs in jobs in making such drastic legislation.

Canada alone is responsible for only 2% of global greenhouse gases. It is irresponsible to bet our entire auto industry in order to fulfill an ideological mandate. To legislate mandatory emissions standards at this time would be careless.

The Conservative Party is committed to cleaning up the environment while acknowledging the realities of the auto industry and what is attainable within it.

The industry itself is also deeply committed to producing cleaner cars. In fact, the industry has already reduced smog emissions by 99.6% since 1970 through sophisticated emission control technology.

My colleague needs to come clean and admit that not only is this motion irresponsible at this time, but it puts the well-being of the Canadian auto industry and its workers dead last on the list of national priorities for the NDP.

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up CAPC and one of the major recommendations was to address disharmonization across the border. Kyoto does just that.

Adopting the Kyoto protocol will spell disaster for Canada's auto industry. Even the government's own forecasting shows that adopting Kyoto would result in 80,000 automotive jobs being at risk. The truth is that the government seems to do a lot of talking but it is clearly not interested in listening.

The Liberal government threatens to drive away our auto industry if it does not commit to effective policy that will ensure stability and competitiveness of the auto industry in the face of a growing number of challenges.

As the member said, the government is not going to do anything. That is what I am concerned about. I do not want the Beacon project to meet the same fate as the ITER project. We lost ITER because Durham Liberal MPs could not get the job done and I refuse to watch the same thing happen again.

The government needs to jump on board and be up front with the people of Oshawa. Will it commit to the Beacon project and assure us that it will not--

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address something of great importance to the people of Canada. I want to talk about jobs, particularly jobs close to the heart of my constituents in Oshawa, automotive jobs.

In November last year I rose in the House to address the issue of jobs and the government's insistence on pushing forward with its implementation of the Kyoto accord. I am pleased to tell the House that since I last spoke about this issue, I along with members and senators of the Conservative auto caucus had the opportunity to travel across southern Ontario and visit all the Canadian automobile manufacturers.

Our findings confirm my concerns about the government's inaction on such an important file. I heard about the government's unrealistic proposal, legislation to decrease fuel consumption of automobiles by 25% by 2010. This arbitrarily chosen number will cause undue hardship on the automotive industry and lose automotive jobs.

In Ontario we build mid and large size vehicles, mini-vans, cars and trucks. Under the proposed legislation, virtually every car built in Canada could not be sold here. What does this mean for automotive jobs in Ontario? As one auto executive bluntly told me, “Why would we build cars in Canada if we cannot sell them here”?

The government is oblivious to the reality that these demands on the auto industry will have devastating effects on Ontario's auto based communities. One of the side effects of the legislation would be that Canadians would only be able to buy subcompact cars such as the Pontiac Wave or the Toyota Echo.

I have a friend and this friend just happens to be six foot three. His wife is six foot one. They have two kids who are also quite large. On the weekend he drives to the cottage with his family, his coolers, gear, the dog and occasionally grandma. Which car does the minister want him to take on his weekend trips to the cottage? The Wave or the Echo?

Another one of my questions is, where are the government's economic impact studies that provide numbers on how many automotive jobs will be lost because of the government's implementation of the Kyoto accord? My concern is of special importance at this time.

General Motors has recently announced its intention to invest $2.5 billion through its Beacon project, a project that would ensure retention of automotive jobs and would invest in research and development. Infrastructure would be put in place to ensure that the Ontario automotive industry has a prosperous future. It seems everyone but the federal government is on board. The local community is on board. The industry is on board. Our local university is on board. Even the Liberals' provincial cousins are on board.

The time has come for a solid commitment to this project. It is déjà vu for the people of Oshawa. Only a few years ago, we lost out on the ITER project, a project that would have brought international recognition and an estimated $10 billion benefit to our region. Oshawa lost the ITER project for only one reason. The federal government dithered for too long. The ITER proposal died because the government would not act.

As Oshawa's representative, I cannot and will not let history repeat itself. Oshawa's auto workers are the best in the world and we will not accept more inaction from the Liberal government. We are losing auto jobs as a result. The Beacon project deserves the support of the government. It is time to stop dithering, reverse the climate of uncertainty and inaction.

The minister thinks it is hogwash that Kyoto could affect 80,000 jobs. Well, the government was quick to have our very own Canadian flag made in China. How long will it be before our automobiles are made in China?

The Canadian International AutoShow begins in Toronto later this week. There is no better time to announce support of the Beacon project. I would like to know if my hon. colleague will take a moment tonight and assure the House and the people of Oshawa and Ontario that their jobs and their future are a priority for the government?

[The Environment, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is the government that does not understand. It is like telling Canadian dressmakers to just make small sizes, force the public to fit into them and that should fix the problem.

While the government dithers over an automotive policy, Ontario auto jobs, factories and initiatives like GM's Beacon project hang in the balance. When will the government admit its Kyoto plan will kill thousands of auto jobs in Ontario?