House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 65% of the vote.
Petitions April 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which has been signed by 154 people living in the riding of Peace River.
The petitioners call upon parliament to demand the immediate resignation of the Minister of Human Resources Development, and for the auditor general to conduct a full and independent inquiry into HRDC's management and accounting practices.
Cinar April 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this government loves a botched investigation. If it cannot do it itself, it messes up someone else's.
The RCMP is trying to get to the bottom of whether Montreal's animation company CINAR is guilty of tax fraud, but the government is refusing to co-operate. It is refusing to provide the RCMP with copies of CINAR's tax credit application forms. These documents are obviously central to the investigation.
Why is the government not co-operating with the RCMP investigation into this matter?
Competition Act April 5th, 2000
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this is report stage of this bill. My understanding is that the Bloc amendment would not address the issues that the member for Sarnia—Lambton just alluded to, that these are federally regulated industries which are involved and therefore it is necessary to provide protection, even in Quebec, to have this bill apply in the way in which it was intended.
It is our position that in principle we agree with the philosophy involved here, which is to put the onus on companies, the providers of services, to obtain the consent before offering a service or starting to bill for that service. That is a reasonable proposal to use and therefore we are supportive of that concept.
We understand that there may be some problems with it and I will talk about that in a moment, but currently the negative option procedure as we know it puts the onus on consumers to advise suppliers of a service, for example a television company offering a cable service, that they do not want that service, otherwise it would continue and the consumer would continue to be billed.
In principle I think it should be the other way around. I know that is the intent of this bill. This would apply to federally regulated industries and therefore banks and telecommunications companies would be involved. We know that there may be some consequences in requiring these institutions to obtain that consent.
I do not think that it would be a serious matter. There are new methods, including electronic options through the Internet and various other ways available to those companies to obtain consent, but in the event that it is too onerous on these companies and provides too much of a problem, the member who proposed this private member's bill has built into it a section which says that if that were to be the case, for example if a bank were not able to do this without incurring a tremendous amount of debt to provide that service, there is a provision to exempt those particular areas out of the bill.
The minister involved in that particular category, who might be, for example, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Canadian Heritage in regard to telecommunications, will be given the power to exempt those companies in the event that it is too onerous on them.
The bill is in proper balance. What it means is that the minister involved would have to justify before the Parliament of Canada why that exemption is being given. I think that is a good check and balance which will be used very rarely. It seems to me that the onus will then be on the company to try to obtain this consent. That is a very good provision in the bill.
The negative option part of it would be reversed and it would be up to the companies to obtain the consent necessary before they expanded packages and provided that service.
Why would the Bloc be opposed to this and why would any consumers in Quebec be opposed to the idea? I have difficulty understanding that, although I understand the member saying that it is provided right now. I have the counterbalance from the member for Sarnia—Lambton who says that is not the case.
In case the member for Sarnia—Lambton is right, I think this should apply to Quebec. If it is already covered in its legislation, what is the argument involved?
Although it is a free vote on a private member's bill, I am supportive of this as the critic for industry. It seems to me it is a good bill and should be considered. I will be voting against the amendment put forward by the Bloc at report stage.
Competition Act April 5th, 2000
No, Madam Speaker.
Competition Act April 5th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be speaking for seven minutes in the hope that there will be a few minutes left at the end for my colleague from Surrey Central, who has a keen interest in this area and I know would like to have the opportunity to speak.
This is report stage of the private member's bill, Bill C-276—
Shipbuilding Act, 1999 March 28th, 2000
I hear a magpie from the other end of the House. I assume he will have his chance to talk sooner or later.
My point is that Canada has to set the proper environment through tough trade negotiations to set some of these matters straight, and then we could have a strong industry.
Shipbuilding Act, 1999 March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am not unsympathetic to the private member's bill put forward by my colleague, because I understand his concern. Canada was once a great shipbuilding nation and there are niche markets in which we could probably still operate, given the opportunity.
Unfortunately, there is a severe overcapacity in the shipbuilding industry worldwide. The origins of that overcapacity in shipbuilding relate directly to heavily subsidized operations in other countries. Indeed, protected markets and subsidies are major obstacles facing Canadian shipbuilders. Nonetheless, we do not help matters by slapping a 25% duty on non-NAFTA imports ourselves. I think that sets the wrong tone.
The world is fraught with overcapacity and trade distorting subsidies, and the future is not bright for these industries.
The Canadian government could help. It could do something about this. For example, we could take on the U.S. in trade negotiations and try to strike down the Jones Act, which is hurting Canadian shipbuilders to a great degree.
We could do other things. We could try to get relief by having worldwide subsidies reduced through trade negotiations at the WTO.
We could do something at home. We could reduce taxes, not only to the shipbuilding industry, but to all industries in Canada. That would be a big help. We could move to a different tax regime in which we would have accelerated capital cost write-offs. Those are things which we could do something about in our own backyard.
The Canadian Alliance believes that there needs to be a healthy shipbuilding industry as well. Certainly there are things like ferries and tugs and special niche markets in which Canada could operate, given a level playing field. Unfortunately, we do not have that level playing field, just like we do not have it in agriculture. Other countries are subsidizing their shipbuilding industries. Canada should not be the boy scouts in this kind of situation. We should not stand by when our industries are being severely affected. The agriculture and shipbuilding industries are severely disadvantaged. We have to take a much stronger stance at trade talks and we have to protect our vital interests.
Having said that, I believe that our shipbuilding industry, along with other industries, has to operate within the confines of a market economy. Once we are able to achieve those negotiations, if we are able to achieve them, then the industry should be able to stand on its own two feet and not receive subsidized loans from the federal government. That is our position. We should have a strong shipbuilding industry, but we have to put the proper environment in place.
Human Resources Development March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, what is extraordinary is that the Prime Minister's riding seems to be a bottomless pit for money. Every time we turn around we uncover another file that the Prime Minister has interfered with. Audit after audit complains about too much flexibility and too many broken rules.
Is it not true that this flexibility is deliberately designed to allow these kinds of Shawinigan shenanigans?
Human Resources Development March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the PMO was directly involved with the HRDC minister's office to ensure that the TJF subsidy for the brewery got approved at $15,000 per job. This is precisely the sort of interference that HRDC officials have been complaining about in their radio ads. Moreover, after the interest free loans from Canada Economic Development were included, the cost per job shot up to $20,600, exactly the type of problem that CED audits warned about.
If these types of programs are so legitimate in their own right, why do they require so much political interference?
Economic Development Agency March 27th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister is monitoring but he has not read any of the audits. What kind of monitoring is that?
What is clear is that the sloppy management style of the Liberal government does not stop at HRDC. It is across all government departments. Despite two years for Industry Canada to clean up this mess, a follow-up audit in 1999 said that it still lacked compliance. Why is that? Will the minister tell us how many more audits exist within his department that deal with mismanagement in grants and contributions?