Mike Lake

[Automotive Industry, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that everything in this budget was focused on helping those workers, helping their families, helping Canadians keep jobs.

I want to quote the NDP member for Hamilton Mountain, who on January 29, in this House, said, “Every single important piece that people in the community were looking for is mentioned.” She said that of the budget.

I want to ask the hon. member why his party would vote against a budget that contained “every single important piece that people in the community were looking for”.

[Automotive Industry, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, of course, our Minister of Industry and our Prime Minister have been showing tremendous leadership on this file right from the start.

It was recognized in a comment made by industry expert Dennis Desrosiers the other day, when he said:

[The finance minister and the industry minister] have been brilliant in how they've handled this going way back...They came out weeks ahead of the American government...They really deserve a lot of credit.

I am sure that in the follow-up question the hon. member will be giving them some credit.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that $2 billion will go a long way.

Something we heard time and time again at round tables was the importance of investing in university infrastructure. I heard it myself when I was talking to stakeholders across the country during budget consultations,

If we are going to get the payback from the substantial investments we are making in science and technology, we need to make sure that those researchers are working in absolutely the best environments possible to get the most out of the investment we have made in their skills and training. I think that is the ultimate importance of this $2 billion investment.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously facing a global crisis, one that has been caused by a financial meltdown in the United States and around the world. As we move forward, two things are extremely important. Obviously we need to maintain the track we were on, the track that put Canada in a very strong position relative to other countries. In fact, Canada is the only country in the G8 that continued to run a surplus for the last three years, while the other countries all ran deficits.

It is important to note that as we move forward in areas like forestry and industry, we must keep our eye on the long-term focus and at the same time step up with programs that are going to increase the productivity of Canadian workers, whether in forestry, industry or other areas, so that when we come out at the end of this, Canada is going to be even stronger. We are going to come out sooner and stronger than other countries in terms of our ability to compete in all these sectors.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises some important issues. It is interesting that in the House over the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of rhetoric, a lot of interesting so-called information from members of all parties, and numbers that bring into question the question of cuts, for example, to science funding.

The reality is that in terms of our science funding, we have invested $5.1 billion. We have invested more money in every successive budget in terms of science and technology infrastructure. More money is going into science and technology infrastructure than ever before in our country's history, with $205 million going to granting councils, for example, to provide stable, predictable long-term funding, something that was very important to them and that they asked for time and time again. I just cannot reinforce enough how important science and technology is to this government.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. There can be no doubt that this government takes funding for research and development very seriously.

Indeed, budget 2009 provides for $5.1 billion in additional funding for science and technology, which represents one of the single largest federal budget investments in S and T to date. This massive investment builds on the more than $2.2 billion our government has pledged for new S and T funding in the previous three budgets.

In my remarks, I want to focus on one key component of this budget 2009 S and T funding: the $2 billion set aside to enhance university and college infrastructure. Through Canada's economic action plan, our government is taking immediate action to improve infrastructure. In fact, we are launching one of the largest infrastructure building projects in our country's history.

Part of that undertaking is Canada's new knowledge infrastructure program. This program will provide up to $2 billion over two years to support deferred maintenance, repair and expansion projects at our universities and colleges.

There are two key reasons for focusing on infrastructure. The first is to provide a short-term boost to economic growth. In the face of the first global recession in 60 years, organizations such as the G20, the G7 and the International Monetary Fund have called for coordinated economic stimulus in all industrialized nations. In both Canada and the United States, investments in infrastructure have been identified as a key component of our efforts to stimulate economic activity and job creation.

Most importantly, Canadian first ministers agreed in January on the need for coordinated infrastructure spending by all levels of government. Accelerating repairs, maintenance and construction at universities and colleges will therefore provide substantial stimulus in communities across Canada. When chosen carefully, infrastructure projects create new good jobs in construction, engineering, science and technology, and manufacturing.

The second reason for focusing on university and college infrastructure is that it is essential to position Canada for long-term growth. In our extensive consultations with Canadians prior to budget 2009, we heard from individual universities and colleges and from national organizations such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

They all told us that a major portion of their campus infrastructure is at or near the end of its normal life cycle. Quite simply, it does not meet the needs of today's students and researchers. Addressing the rapidly deteriorating state of their infrastructure was, therefore, their number one budget priority.

We listened and responded, establishing the $2 billion knowledge infrastructure program. Not only will this program provide a short-term boost to the economy, but it will also help position Canada for future success by enhancing the research capacity of our universities and colleges. This will help them attract students and provide a better educational experience for tomorrow's highly skilled workers.

Given the current economic situation, we must act quickly. For this reason, the Minister of Industry will be launching the program today in Halifax. To ensure that the money flows quickly, we will of course be working closely with provinces and territories.

In fact, last week the Minister of Industry and the Minister of State (Science and Technology) wrote to their provincial and territorial colleagues, asking them to identify priority projects on which work could begin immediately. To break ground on these projects quickly, we are taking action now to reduce red tape and needless duplication.

Through this program, federal funding will provide up to 50% of the total eligible costs of a project. The remaining funding can come from the universities or colleges themselves, provincial or territorial governments, the charitable sector or the private sector.

We will be assessing projects against two key factors. The first factor is project readiness, meaning how quickly the proposed project can move forward to provide economic stimulus on a timely basis. The second factor, of course, is project merit. For both universities and colleges, project merit will include the extent to which the project generates immediate economic benefits and supports job creation.

The university component will give preference to projects that improve the quality of research and development at the institution. The college component will support projects that strengthen their ability to deliver advanced knowledge and skills training to students.

A broad range of projects can be supported through this program. For universities, eligible projects could include renewing and/or upgrading research labs, expanding buildings to meet R and D program needs, upgrading electrical and mechanical systems in buildings that house labs and expanding R and D space for technology transfer offices, business incubators and other facilities supporting university business collaboration.

For colleges, eligible projects aimed at improving the quality of teaching and training facilities could include classroom renovations, building expansions to meet teaching and training needs, enhanced information technology services and the renewal or expansion of office and meeting space for students.

I should also note that the knowledge infrastructure program will have an important positive impact on the environment. Eligible projects will include those that help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and improve waste management at universities and colleges across Canada.

In closing, let me emphasize that our government understands its support for S and T today will reap benefits well into the future. It is the reason that 2007 the Prime Minister launched Canada's science and technology strategy, our plan to provide scientists with greater freedom to conduct research and to leverage the ability of entrepreneurs to innovate. It is also why we have increased funding for S and T in every single budget, including the considerable investments in budget 2009.

This initiative to enhance university and college infrastructure is the next substantive investment in the Government of Canada's multi-year S and T strategy, mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage. It will provide a significant short-term economic stimulus in communities across the country and it will enable our institutions to attract, train and retain the highly skilled workers of tomorrow. It will put many Canadians to work and it will address the critical need to revitalize our university and college infrastructure. The knowledge infrastructure program will create jobs for people now, while helping to secure the country's long-term prosperity.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the hon. member referred to cuts to the granting councils. A few seconds ago she also talked about playing political games.

I am curious. The hon. member surely knows that the government invested $205 million in the granting councils in order to provide them and researchers with stable, predictable, long term funding, $205 million more increased funding. The hon. member must know that.

She also must know that in budget 2009 there is an additional $87.5 million to the granting councils to expand the Canada graduate scholarships program, and $200 million at the NRC to expand IRAP.

I am wondering if the hon. member could just explain why she feels that she needs to basically make up numbers that are not true and present them to the House instead of telling the full story.

[March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to start by commenting that the member just answered the Conservative member's question with a little bit of rhetoric. He did not mention the fact that he voted against the $12 billion for the secured credit facility that is needed so desperately right now for dealers, but I will not mention that to start.

Instead I will say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this important issue. The issue is a complex one. At hand is automotive repair and service. It involves a fair and competitive marketplace and the legitimate proprietary concerns of manufacturers, as well as the interests of consumers.

This bill attempts to legislate access to information for the repair and services of vehicles to independent automotive aftermarket on the same basis as franchised auto dealers. Essentially this would require the vehicle manufacturers to make information and tools for the repair of the vehicles they build available to vehicle owners and independent repair facilities.

Independent aftermarket service providers are asking for the same access to information, training, software and tools as provided to dealerships. As we know, new vehicles are increasingly equipped with computer control systems and onboard diagnostics, making software as or more important than parts in vehicle repairs.

These independent service providers claim that manufacturers provide more information to their dealerships, which they say threatens the long term competitiveness of the independents. On the other hand, many car makers believe they already share the necessary information and that legislating beyond this affects their dealer networks.

Dealers also have concerns about this issue. They believe that this information sharing will cut into revenues. In fact the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, which represents some 3,500 dealers in Canada, opposes legislating on this issue.

In the middle, of course, are vehicle owners. Consumers want choice. They want competitive pricing, but they also want assurances that the work being done on their vehicles is done right.

According to data shared by automotive consultant Dennis DesRosiers, the average age of vehicles on the road in 2007 was 8.2 years. It is estimated that over the course of a vehicle's life it will accumulate about $14,000 in aftermarket repairs and service. That is a lot of repairs, service and revenue.

Of the 18 million vehicles on Canadian roads today, 59% are equipped with onboard computerized diagnostic systems. This percentage naturally is expected to increase as older vehicles are relegated to the auto graveyard. While new car owners tend to remain affiliated to their dealership, especially during the life of the warranty, this affiliation tends to weaken as time passes, and especially with second and third owners of a vehicle. Owners of older vehicles generally like to find the cheapest cost in repairing their vehicles.

This is what we are faced with. On the one hand, independent aftermarket service providers are demanding access to critical information and access to tools and training. Car makers believe they are already providing necessary information. Consumers want the choice and the best price, as well as the comfort of knowing that those servicing or repairing their vehicle have the best knowledge and tools at their disposal.

The automotive repair and services sector covers non-warranty automotive repair and service. It includes autobody and collision service. This work is performed at over 30,000 establishments located at either new car dealerships, independent garages, specialty shops, such as those dealing with transmissions, mufflers, glass, et cetera, and branded retail outlets like Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart. The total employment in this sector was about 220,000 in 2004, with more than half in the independent and specialty shop sector. This represents a sizable group and substantial employment.

The government is certainly very much aware of the aftermarket industry concerns and is engaged with stakeholders on the issue in an effort to ensure an efficient and competitive marketplace while protecting consumer interests.

According to a February 2006 study by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants for the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, of the 25 assemblers and importers operating in the Canadian market, 10 at that time permitted varying levels of access to this information from within Canada.

Car makers have made their own decisions about how they share their technical information. Selected special tools, including diagnostic scan tools, are also available for purchase by independent repair facilities from either the original manufacturers or from third party manufacturers or distributors of aftermarket tools to service most brands and models of vehicles that are beyond their warranty period.

However, there is no doubt the technology that goes into today's automobiles has become increasingly more sophisticated. There are highly specialized and specific tools that require technical training and diagnostic information, as well as the proprietary software from manufacturers, which their dealers are privy to.

These specialized resources do not come free or cheap. Dealerships make significant investments in necessary modern facilities, staff, specialized tools and training. Independents, who service a wide variety of vehicles, have not made the same level of investment, so there is a question of fairness when it comes to commitment and investment.

There are also a number of other issues with legislating that the information, tools and training be provided widely. These issues include safety and security concerns ranging from anti-theft access key codes getting into the wrong hands to the possibility of knock-off parts being manufactured and sold, especially safety equipment like airbags and brake parts.

Today consumers do have a choice, and mechanisms out there provide for a competitive marketplace. Could it be better? Absolutely. That is why the government is reviewing options that will take into consideration small business and consumer interests, as well as environmental interests and the legitimate proprietary rights of manufacturers.

Once such option is the voluntary approach. This approach would be industry-led and industry-based. It is an approach that is consistent with the National Automotive Trades Association, NATA, an association of provincial and local associations representing the automotive aftermarket and repair sector in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.

What the voluntary approach would do, other than keep government out of telling businesses how to run their business, would be to harmonize our approach with the approach taken in the United States. Mr. Speaker, as you know, our automotive industry is highly integrated with that in the U.S. This integration encourages standards, regulations and processes across Canada and the U.S. to be as consistent and complementary as possible.

NATA cites the U.S. National Automotive Service Task Force voluntary agreement as an example of how such a system can work effectively while safeguarding the concerns of assemblers. All automotive manufacturers voluntarily agree to provide all non-emissions-related repair information and diagnostic tools to any independent repair shop through an online portal with a non-profit volunteer task force created as the oversight body.

The bottom line is that we must ensure that consumers are protected, while allowing a free and competitive marketplace to operate.

Competition is about consumers. When competition is present, consumers have choices. In the end, the issues that we will have to address are whether the instruments used in this bill are the appropriate ones and whether legislation is the best way to approach the issue. The provisions in the bill related to the Competition Act may not be necessary and may create negative, unintended consequences. The changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act may fall outside the scope of this act.

As we all know, the auto industry overall is in the midst of an economic crisis, with some manufacturers fighting for their very survival. Auto dealerships are having trouble moving the inventories they have. While this industry treads water, trying to keep its head above the water, this bill, as well-intentioned as it may be, proposes to hit them with a binding regulatory burden.

The government continues to review options and to engage with stakeholders on this important issue. We need to look at the best possible solution for consumers while ensuring a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace.

[University Research, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I answered almost this exact same question last week. Our government has increased funding for scholarships at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council by 50%, $75 million.

During the budget consultations, stakeholders said that they wanted more scholarships, and we delivered more scholarships. One of the areas that they mentioned was underrepresented was in the area scholarships for business students, and we have done that.

Canada graduate scholarships will continue to fund social science and humanities studies and will also support business and finance research.

[Automotive Industry, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we heard several things that were important during the committee yesterday. One of the quotes that came out of that committee was from the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, which said:

...we've been impressed with the fact that finance is absolutely seized with trying to get this program rolling as fast as possible...they seem seized in a very real way, more than I've ever seen before out of finance officials, to try to get this BDC secured credit facility out in the marketplace.