House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 59% of the vote.
Aerospace Industry February 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the Bloc Québécois' sudden interest in the economic spin-offs from our military procurement.
I am surprised because in the Bloc Québécois election platform, there is no mention of investing in our armed forces. With the Bloc Québécois there is no army in Canada, no military procurement and therefore no economic spin-off for Quebec. That is where the Bloc Québécois stands.
Competition Act February 27th, 2007
moved that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to address Bill C-41. This bill amends the Competition Act regarding the application of provisions dealing primarily with the telecommunications sector. This amendment—the bill only has two clauses—will allow the Competition Tribunal to impose administrative monetary penalties if telecommunications service providers abuse their dominant position.
Bill C-41 will therefore be a powerful deterrent against the anti-competitive behaviour that some players in the industry may display.
The government wants to ensure that consumers and businesses in Canada fully benefit from the deregulation of telecommunications and the creation of competitive markets right here in Canada. To that end, it is essential to provide a credible recourse to punish and deter anti-competitive behaviour which could—and I emphasize the word could—surface during the transition from a regulated to a non-regulated environment.
This is basically the purpose of Bill C-41: to ensure that users of telecommunications services in Canada get the benefits of a competitive market.
In order to properly address this issue, it is important to consider the proposed change in a broader, more global context. The telecommunications sector is experiencing a rapid evolution because of the emergence of new technologies. Telecommunications markets are very competitive and are important to a strong economy.
As we know, competition forces businesses to become more efficient, to invest more in new technologies, to offer new products and to provide services that benefit all consumers.
We are living in a new era of communications shaped by constantly evolving technologies, such as the Internet and the wireless technology. These new telecommunications technologies determine the way we, in Canada, work and live.
Every day, businesses come up with new products and innovative services. In March 2006, the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel acknowledged, in its report, the costs generated by useless and ineffective regulations in these sectors. As I just mentioned, the panel provided us with a copy of its report in March 2006. It urged the government to regulate only if necessary. It also recommended that appropriate measures be provided to deal with anti-competitive behaviour. The panel expressly recommended using fines to ensure that telecommunications companies comply with the Competition Act.
More recently, the Minister of Finance published a document titled "Advantage Canada—Building a Strong Economy for Canadians".
In this document, the government commits itself to taking additional measures to ensure that Canadians will continue to benefit from competition in the telecommunications sector as well as in all other sectors in Canada.
In the document, we stress the importance of making the Competition Act as modern as possible.
In its report, the task force also reminded us rightly that some measures to regulate telecommunications in Canada date back to the beginning of the last century. Moreover, the report says that even though Canada remains a leader in telecommunications, other countries are catching up and are even starting to get ahead of us.
Canada's new government is determined to take measures to reverse this trend. Our goal is to create a new regulatory framework that will be modern and flexible and will allow consumers to take advantage of new technologies as well as competition.
For example, Canada's new government tabled in the House a set of proposed policy directions to the CRTC, directing it to rely as much as possible on market forces. As well, on November 15, I announced the decision to change the way the CRTC regulates voice over Internet protocol services, known as VoIP.
Canada's new government has instructed the CRTC to begin deregulating access-independent VoIP services. There are few obstacles to entry into this market and there is no reason to retain regulation in this area.
In the end, I proposed a variance to the CRTC decision regarding local forbearance which outlined the criteria for determining when to refrain from regulating local services.
The government proposed replacing the CRTC criteria for market share with a criterion that would emphasize the presence of a competitive infrastructure in a given geographic area.
We are doing this to ensure that Canadian consumers have the widest possible choices, the best services and the most competitive rates in the telecommunications sector. We wish to resort to regulation only when problems cannot be resolved by market forces. Competition is the main means of ensuring economic efficiency and promoting innovation and growth of productivity, as well as improving our quality of life.
I come from an area and a country where entrepreneurship is flourishing. The people of Beauce recognize the importance of individual freedom, autonomy and responsibility. Beauce businesspeople also understand, as do entrepreneurs throughout Canada, that individual freedom and competition are vital values in a democratic country and that all forms of regulation can thwart the innovation of which people are so proud.
Implementing this legislation is important. We believe that it is also important that steps be taken to deter behaviour that stifles competition and to educate citizens about this act. The Competition Bureau—
Intellectual Property February 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We are concerned about what my colleague has just said.
I am waiting for detailed recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in order to continue our study of all the recommendations.
Foreign Aid February 20th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the bill was drafted under the former government.
The bill deserves our attention and more than deserves the support of this House, perhaps once some amendments have been made to it.
That is why we will go before the committee and before Canadians: to get ideas on how to improve this bill so that it benefits all of Canada and the entire international community.
Foreign Aid February 20th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 2006, the government issued a consultation paper, which we made public, on the issue my hon. colleague just raised. All the opinions we received from various parties were posted on the Internet a week ago. We plan to issue a report on the consultations here in the House as soon as possible.
It is important to note that no country has asked for access to low-cost medication under Canada's existing law.
Automobile Industry February 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that the decision Chrysler made yesterday to reduce its workforce here in Canada and in Ontario is part of a global restructuring. The decision had nothing to do with the policies of this government. To the contrary, this government’s policies have resulted in more jobs being created in Canada since we came to power, companies being more confident, taxes going down and a favourable investment climate prevailing. Just last month, 89,000 jobs were created.
Automobile Industry February 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the automobile industry in Ontario is actually doing fairly well. The companies are able to compete on the international scene.
It is important not to forget that there was a net creation of 80,000 jobs here in Canada last month. Why? Because we tabled and passed a budget last year that was very competitive and helps our companies compete internationally.
Automobile Industry February 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member was, but I will not say anything. I do not know where the hon. member was when we deposited our budget last year, but this government reduced 29 corporate taxes to make Canada more attractive to businesses. This was in our last budget. We put forward Advantage Canada also. We have a vision. We want this country to be strong and to be competitive and it will be.
Automobile Industry February 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we are doing very well in Canada in terms of attracting new mandates for the 12 auto plants in Ontario. That is a fact.
The facts are that the new Camaro will be built in Oshawa. The Challenger is going to be built in Brampton. The Fairlane will be built in Oakville. There is a new Toyota plant being built in Woodstock.
The hon. member should look at the facts and stop saying that the automobile industry in Canada is dying.
Automobile Industry February 15th, 2007
Speaking of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, let me quote for the House something said by a member opposite in the Ottawa Citizen:
I believe we need to replace failed regional economic development programs and corporate welfare with dramatic corporate-tax reductions, because the market can pick winners and losers better than bureaucrats.
Who said that? It was not Adam Smith who said that. It was the hon. member for Kings—Hants.