James Rajotte

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. friend from the industry committee. I know he is a very diligent, hardworking, serious member. I do want to ask him a few specific questions.

He talked about tax cuts. Would the hon. member be in favour of an increase in the basic exemption to allow for tax cuts for lower income Canadians in particular?

The second thing I would like to know is whether he is in favour of increasing the RRSP limit to allow Canadians to better provide for their retirement.

The member is on the industry committee. Yesterday at the industry committee the members of the Mining Association of Canada presented to us. They asked us to eliminate capital taxes in the upcoming federal budget in order to stimulate investment as a way for them to deal with the post-ratification Kyoto environment.

I would like to know if he would agree with those three recommendations.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I simply must take the opportunity to ask my hon. brother a question. I say my brother because it is Christmastime and we are getting in a much better mood.

I have been asked many times since I was elected how the weather is in Cape Breton. I keep wondering why people ask me this since I am from Edmonton. I think it is because I look very similar to the member from Cape Breton, so we have come to know each other as brothers and friends.

I appreciated the member's comments particularly with regard to sport. I know he has been very active in hockey. I want to ask him about the ParticipACTION program in which I participated. I thought it was a very good program in schools. I want to know whether he thinks that should be reinstated.

The second issue I want to ask him about concerns the mining sector, which I know is very important historically to Cape Breton.

Yesterday at the industry committee we had members of the Mining Association of Canada address the whole issue of the implementation of the Kyoto accord. They were very concerned about the ratification and the need for having a detailed implementation plan. They did not think the targets were achievable, but given that, they were trying to do what they could to work with Parliament to see what they could achieve.

The association put forward some very specific recommendations for the government to act on which would help its members deal with the emissions targets that are being imposed upon them. One of the things it recommended was the elimination of capital taxes. This was recommended in the November 2001 prebudget report. The government and the opposition agreed that capital taxes should be eliminated.

I want to ask the hon. member first about the ParticipACTION program and second, whether he believes that capital taxes should be eliminated in the upcoming budget.

[Kyoto Accord, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, they intend to have conversations with them. How reassuring is that?

It is not only the automakers who are worried about Kyoto. The president of Decoma International, a major auto parts manufacturer, has stated that Kyoto would be “one more thing that could potentially prevent car companies from investing in Canada, which will drive parts manufacturing out of Canada. The government's lack of key details on how to meet Kyoto commitments will scare away investment in Canada's auto industry.The government owes it to Canadians to define much more clearly how they plan to implement this”.

When will the government listen to serious industries like that company and finally produce a detailed implementation plan?

[Kyoto Accord, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the auto industry accounts for one in seven jobs in Canada. In Ontario alone these jobs pumped $7.5 billion into the economy last year. Over 90% of GM's Canadian built cars and trucks are shipped to the United States.

The president of GM Canada stated recently that Canada's signing of the Kyoto accord would lead to different vehicle standards with our largest trading partner and that it would make Canadian auto manufacturers uncompetitive. These were his own words.

What precise steps is the government taking to ensure that the auto industry in Ontario will not be devastated by the signing, ratification and implementation of the Kyoto accord?

[Question No. 38, December 9th, 2002]

For each year from 1993 to 2001, what was the total amount billed to the government and its agencies by: ( a ) Ipsos-Reid and its affiliates; and ( b ) the law firm, Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales?

Return tabled.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada recently released a report on the devastating effect Kyoto will have on certain sectors. The government tried to back away from this report when it saw the disturbing results.

The report indicated that Canadians can expect the following economic impacts over the long term: a 13% reduction in the agriculture industry; a 37% reduction in the iron industry; a 45% reduction in the coal industry; a 34% reduction in the petroleum industry; a 32% reduction in the electricity industry; and a 25% reduction in the chemical industry. The list goes on and on.

These are not our numbers. It is an Industry Canada report saying this. Canadians want to know this information, but are being denied this information by the government, which is hiding any information that contradicts what it is stating.

Could the minister explain, in the government's blind rush toward ratification, what steps it will take to implement Kyoto without harming these industries to ensure that these industries are not devastated by the minister's foolhardy plan?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the next two years Ontario faces the possible closure of four major auto assembly and component plants. Last week the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association of Canada released its blueprint for Canadian automotive prosperity. It said:

It is not rational to ratify the Kyoto Protocol Accord if the result is simply to ensure that more automotive assembly and parts plants will be built in the United States and Mexico rather than Canada.

Could the Minister of Industry explain why the government is willing to jeopardize investments in an industry that is so essential to the life of Ontario and Canada?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, industries from across Canada have serious reservations about the Kyoto accord. Oil and gas industry in Atlantic Canada is concerned that the accord will choke off much needed investment. Approximately 100,000 jobs in the automotive, steel and mining industries in 20 Ontario ridings will be adversely affected by the accord.

Could the Minister of Industry explain why he has failed to address any of the concerns of these industries and why he has failed to voice any of their concerns?

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, official Ottawa was all abuzz this week about the new suggestion from the member for LaSalle—Émard that the federal government should sell its share of Petro-Canada to help pay for climate change technology.

That is an interesting suggestion but it sounds familiar. It sounds familiar because this is actually not a new suggestion. In fact, the finance committee and the Canadian Alliance recommended selling those shares in the 2001 prebudget report to the then finance minister. Unfortunately, the finance minister at that time ignored the good advice in his next budget.

Who was the finance minister who ignored this advice? It was the very same member for LaSalle—Émard who now suddenly endorses this idea and expects Canadians to accept this as his new brilliant proposal.

This is one more example of this prime minister wannabe just flipping his position to suit the latest fad. The former finance minister has done so many flips and flops that it makes one wonder whether he is truly seeking to become prime minister or if he is instead practising for his new career as a performer with Cirque de Soleil.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in my hon. colleague's speech she went back on what she said earlier. She said earlier, “My view is very clear. One cannot make an informed decision on the ratification of Kyoto until you see the plan, until you know what the components of the plan are, how they will impact on the different provinces, industrial sectors and consumers, and who will be paying what”.

She stated that publicly and she knows that this plan fulfills none of the conditions that she outlined for her own support of the ratification of this accord.

Furthermore, she knows that in the energy sector in her own province projects are being scaled back, particularly in the oil sands, because of the investment chill caused by a lack of a plan by the federal government.

How could she support a Prime Minister who did not have the decency to inform her before he went to Johannesburg and announced his support and his intention to ratify this before the end of the year? How could she say this is working together with the people of the province of Alberta when in fact the Minister of the Environment has gone out of his way to alienate the provincial government and the people of Alberta?