Guy Caron

[The Environment, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the parliamentary secretary brought up industry, because it is not just the national round table that is calling on the government to take action on climate change; industry is echoing that call.

Three corporations have just withdrawn from a carbon capture and storage project that was receiving significant funding from this government. They say that this project is meaningless without stricter greenhouse gas emissions standards and more regulation from Ottawa.

Why is this government going through the back door and using the budget bill to cut environmental regulations?

[The Environment, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy unveiled a report showing that Canadian companies are simply not prepared to deal with climate change.

The report is abundantly clear: the Conservatives' inaction on climate change is putting our economy at risk.

That explains why the Conservatives added a proposal to abolish the national round table to their omnibus budget bill. They simply do not like to hear the truth.

Why are the Conservatives trying to hide the facts by shooting the messenger?

[Service Canada, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Rimouski are going through a period of tremendous uncertainty. The employment insurance processing centre in Rimouski is being relocated to Thetford Mines, which could jeopardize 37 jobs.

Consider the facts. Before 2009, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced that EI processing services would be consolidated. In 2009, a decision was made in Quebec: 25 centres would be reduced to six, and there would be one in Rimouski. In August 2011, a press release indicated that the EI processing centre would no longer be in Rimouski, but rather in Thetford Mines, in the riding of the Minister of Industry and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

What has happened since? We learned a little later, from the local newspaper, that the member for Mégantic—L'Érable said that he had lobbied the minister and that the centre in Thetford Mines would be a good centre.

This is a brazen example of patronage, unworthy of a government that claims to represent all Canadians.

[Service Canada, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but smile because the answer the parliamentary secretary just gave me is light years away from the question that I asked.

The question is simple. I am not questioning what the government did. The government has already made its decision. It made cuts and consolidations. That is not the question.

The question is about closing the employment insurance processing centre in Rimouski, which is going to be moved to Thetford Mines without a proper process. This is a completely arbitrary decision. I am not asking the parliamentary secretary what the government wants to do in terms of budget cuts and consolidations. We know that is happening.

What I want to know is how she can justify moving an employment insurance processing centre and 37 jobs in my riding to the riding of the Minister of Industry, who boasted that he lobbied to have the centre moved. How can she do this with a straight face when there was no competitive process and the decision was made completely arbitrarily?

I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer this question directly.

[Service Canada, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here in the House to come revisit a question I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on February 6. I will be coming back to this question frequently over the next few weeks during our adjournment proceedings, because my question deserves an answer. Yet I have received none from either the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development or the Minister of Industry on the situation regarding the consolidation of EI processing sites, and particularly the relocation of the EI processing centre from Rimouski to Thetford Mines.

I will begin by giving a brief history. The consolidation itself was announced five years ago. So, people have known for five years that there would be some kind of consolidation of EI processing services across the country. It was not necessarily a very wise decision, but that is what the government decided. That is the direction it has chosen to take.

In 2009, we found documents, including internal memos, that showed that the decision regarding Quebec had already been made. Only 6 out of 25 EI processing centres would remain, including the EI processing centre in Rimouski.

That decision was confirmed by a number of other documents. The matter was settled. However, in August 2011, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development mentioned in a press release that there would indeed be a consolidation and that the number of employment insurance processing centres would be reduced to six. We already knew that, but of the six remaining centres, Rimouski was out and Thetford Mines was in. This is particularly troubling because Thetford Mines happens to be in the riding of the Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

A few days later, in the local papers in the riding of the Minister of Industry and hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the minister himself made a statement indicating that this was very good news for his riding and his municipality. According to the minister, this good news came as a result of his presentations to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the fact that the centre was located in a nice building with qualified people. I do not doubt that, but the decision had already been made in 2009 and had been announced many times.

We have a situation here where we have a Minister of Industry and a Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development who, without any process, any opening, or opportunity for anyone to be able to intervene in the matter, decided behind closed doors to change the location of an employment insurance processing centre. And we have a minister who brags about his role in the transaction.

As the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I too could have made presentations to the minister if the process had been open, if there had been a fair process for such a transfer, but there was not.

What we have here is an arbitrary, unilateral decision by the minister, with a suggestion by the Minister of Industry, to change the location of the employment insurance processing centre and ask the 37 people who work there to move to Thetford Mines.

There are people who left Saguenay, Rivière-du-Loup and other parts of Quebec to go and work in the employment insurance processing centre in Rimouski because they were told that it was going to remain there. They have thus already had to move once to go to Rimouski. They were happy in the riding, in Rimouski, which is a very beautiful city. Now, they are being asked to move to Thetford Mines. Why? It is just because the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Minister of Industry decided that is how it should be.

On February 6, in the House, I asked how the process was done, why the decision was actually made and why the government, which is currently so set on trying to reduce spending—as we saw in budget 2012—was going to now close the employment insurance processing centre in Rimouski. The closure of this centre will result in the loss of 37 jobs for the region and the government will have to pay, among other costs, over $1.2 million in rent for a building in the riding that it will no longer be using. All this at a time when there are major delays in the processing of employment insurance claims.

I would therefore like an answer. Why did the minister make this decision without a competitive process behind closed doors?

[Ethics, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has already been found guilty of conflict of interest once and he is currently the subject of two other investigations.

In the most recent case, having to do with the hunting camp, the minister tried to get out of it by saying that he brought his own sleeping bag, but it was clear to the commissioner that in this whole hunting camp story, the colour of the sleeping bag was not important. The thing that counts is that there is an apparent conflict of interest in this situation and that this particular commissioner is investigating the minister again.

Is there anyone in this government who still believes in accountability and who will show this unrepentant individual the door?

[Ethics, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on another matter, I am starting to get concerned about the ethics commissioner's health. The minister of conflict of interest is giving her so much work to do that she is at risk of burnout.

First there was the Rahim Jaffer favouritism affair, strike one; then there was the matter of transferring the employment insurance processing centre from Rimouski to Thetford Mines, strike two; and now there is the investigation into the minister's hunting trips, strike three. If this were a baseball game, the minister would have struck out.

A few weeks ago, the commissioner said herself that she did not remember ever having to conduct so many investigations involving a single individual.

Will the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable accept the fact that he has made too many serious mistakes to keep his position?

[Research and Development, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the grocery list the parliamentary secretary just read to me. I have two questions for her, because what she said does not at all answer my questions, which were reiterations of a question I have asked in the past, and still did not get an answer. My two questions are very simple.

First of all, she said that $1.1 billion was allocated to directly support research and development for industry. Why did she fail to mention that this budget also eliminated $1.5 billion in tax credits in order to allow the $1.1 billion in question? This means a net loss of $400 million.

Second, once again, how can she justify the fact that this government is distancing itself from pure research and justify this budget's lack of policies in that area? How can she explain the fact that direct subsidies are being given to businesses for applied research? Just how harmful will this be to Canada's research and development sector?

[Research and Development, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in February, I asked a question about the closure of AstraZeneca in Montreal, which has resulted in the loss of 136 jobs. The closure is a symptom of problems in Montreal's research and development sector.

Since 2010, Montreal has lost approximately 1,000 research and development jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. Jobs have been lost and companies have closed their research and development centres: Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, MDS, Teva, Terra Technology.

Montreal is currently facing a serious problem with respect to research and development in the pharmaceutical industry despite having developed leading-edge expertise in the field.

My question was for the Minister of Industry because the closure reflected a failure of leadership on the part of the Conservative government with respect to R&D and innovation. Since then, the government has tabled the 2012 budget.

Budget 2012 did not meet our expectations for a new direction from the government, nor did it answer this question. It refers to changes that were supposedly inspired by the Jenkins report.

There are two problems with the government's decision, which will not address situations like the one in Montreal.

The first problem is the fact that the government will use other means to fund research and development. Instead of offering tax credits, the government will provide direct subsidies to businesses or the industry. The problem is that we do not know what the criteria will be. We can hardly wait to see what the criteria will be because this could, perhaps, lead to favouritism and politically-motivated decisions rather than decisions based on economic considerations that could help the industry rather than the political party currently in power.

Second, we are concerned about another aspect of the budget, the government's dwindling interest in pure research. There is pure research and applied research. Pure research is vital. It is perhaps less marketable to begin with, but it is necessary for the full development of applied research in this country.

In terms of research and development, the 2012 budget does not support pure research. This is generally carried out by Canadian universities, which will be weakened by the new strategy the Conservative government has announced in the 2012 budget.

As I was saying, the closures in Montreal were at the heart of the question I asked in February, which the Conservative government has not answered. Unfortunately, Montreal is currently paying the price for those decisions.

I would like the Conservative government, the Minister of Industry or his representative to provide a clearer answer in terms of the direction the government wants to take with regard to research and development in order to promote harmonious and competitive development not only in Montreal, but in most Canadian cities. In the case of the Island of Montreal, I am talking specifically about research and development in the pharmaceutical industry.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 23rd, 2012]

With regard to the plan to modernize Canada’s Employment Insurance program and the 2011 decision to consolidate Employment Insurance processing centres: (a) what were the selection criteria for determining where the six processing centres in Quebec would be located as part of the call for tenders; (b) which criteria resulted in Thetford Mines being chosen over Rimouski for the location of a processing centre; (c) in terms of the selection criteria, what were the results for each location that submitted its candidacy; (d) what is the estimated or anticipated itemized cost of moving the processing centre from Rimouski to Thetford Mines; (e) what are the estimated or anticipated itemized cost savings, on an annual basis, of moving the processing centre from Rimouski to Thetford Mines; and (f) when was the final decision made to move the processing centre to Thetford Mines?