Guy Caron

[Telecommunications, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we like the goals, but we are skeptical about the results that will be achieved. In this case, there is much to be skeptical about.

The government has made all kinds of statements, but it has provided no proof that these measures will reduce costs for consumers, particularly rural consumers. The exclusion of one company because of requirements to deploy to rural areas will effectively eliminate competition and end up reducing consumer choice.

Yesterday, the minister stated in committee that he did not know how he intended to spend the proceeds of the auction.

Will he promise the House that he will use a portion of the funds to guarantee equal access for Canadians in rural areas?

[Telecommunications, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, telecommunications infrastructure is critical to our modern economy. Without access to the Internet, people cannot do business. That is why consumers and the industry have both asked the government to help improve coverage in rural regions.

The minister's plan is based on the assumption that a business may be able to purchase two spectrum blocks. What if that does not happen? There is no plan. Why is the minister playing games with rural Canadians' access to the digital economy?

[Telecommunications, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I also said that I would reserve judgment until I see the details. The minister will hear from me this afternoon.

The Minister of Industry is trying to please everybody and, ultimately, is pleasing virtually nobody.

The decision to place a cap on the auction rather than opting for the concept of set-aside will hamper the proper development of next-generation cellular technology, LTE.

With LTE technology, companies will be offering the equivalent of a Ferrari to consumers, but the motor that the government will provide will be that of a conventional car. The upshot of this is that the Canadian cellular network is going to stagnate. WIND Mobile has already announced its decision to boycott this auction.

Will the minister review his plan, so that new entrants can provide genuine competition?

[Telecommunications, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government announced its intentions with regard to foreign ownership in the telecommunications sector and the upcoming auction of wireless spectrum.

Clearly, this announcement was designed to try to please everyone, yet, in the end, almost no one is satisfied.

By lifting foreign ownership restrictions completely for companies with a less than 10% market share, the government is on the verge of creating a two-tiered industry, which could cause serious problems in the future.

The Minister of Industry needs to go back to the drawing board. Does he even see the distortions he risks creating in the industry in the future if he goes ahead with this measure?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why we have the Investment Canada Act. According to Greg Pearlman of BMO Capital Markets, Viterra is a very unique asset with lots of elements that are not replicable. I think this is what is commonly known as a strategic asset.

Will the government commit to respecting clear criteria when determining what is a net benefit and what is a strategic asset and to conducting a quantitative analysis based on those criteria?

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague opposite raised the issue of information, because lack of information was one of the major contributing factors to the problem we are dealing with now. I asked a question earlier, and I would like to ask it again because I have not really received an answer yet.

My colleague said that the voluntary reporting system for potential shortages works really well. The United States is bringing in a mandatory system. Companies will have to disclose when they expect a shortage of certain drugs. Congress is even talking about imposing fines of up to $1.8 million if companies do not announce a potential shortage at least six months in advance.

I would like to know how the member can justify a voluntary system that lets companies choose whether or not to announce a shortage, compared to a mandatory system that makes them responsible for advance notification and holds them accountable.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary spoke about the reporting system. She made a comparison with the United States. In our opinion, the main problem is that manufacturers were not required to report the impending shortage. As early as 2010, they knew that shortages of some drugs were approaching. In her speech, the parliamentary secretary boasted about the voluntary reporting system. To be honest, there is not much difference between a voluntary reporting system and no system at all. If, for one reason or another, the companies do not announce that there will be a shortage of certain drugs, there is no way we would get this information.

In the United States, a significant shortage led President Obama to issue an order for mandatory reporting of upcoming shortages. The United States Congress is thinking of requiring six months' advance notice of shortages, and any company failing to comply could be fined up to $1.8 million.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell us how a voluntary reporting system could have prevented this, when manufacturers already knew that a drug shortage was coming? A mandatory reporting system would have allowed our health care providers to better prepare.

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister of Immigration, we disagree on two definitions. The first has to do with democracy. To sum up what he said about democracy: Canadians go to the polls every four years to give a mandate to one party and that party can do whatever it wants.

I disagree. Democracy is what we do here. We each represent a constituency in Canada. I represent the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who have given me a mandate, as a member of Parliament, to speak to bills introduced by the government. I want to do that, but the fact that the government systematically moves time allocation motions, even before the debate even begins in many cases, prevents us from fulfilling that role.

That leads me to the second definition that the minister and I disagree on: filibuster. How can the minister say that the opposition parties are going to filibuster before the debate has even started? What the minister is saying, in fact, is that a filibuster means hearing anything he does not want to hear or that he disagrees with.

In a debate as crucial as the one on Bill C-31 and on a number of others we have had before, why does the government impose time allocation even before the debate begins in earnest, assuming that there might be a filibuster later?

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like the minister, the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to confuse the issue. I am not talking about what happened in 2007. I am talking about what happened last year.

This is what happened. The Minister of Industry boasted to a local newspaper that he lobbied to have the centre moved to his riding in a building belonging to his former associate, who is also a Conservative donor who worked on his last election campaign.

I ask again: what happened in the meantime to explain such an about-face? Did the Minister of Industry interfere in the selection process?

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's edition of Le Soleil that in 2009 the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development did not plan to close the employment insurance processing centre in Rimouski. On the contrary, the department had decided to expand the centre. It was the centre in Thetford Mines that was supposed to close. That is what the government was telling employees in Rimouski for four years.

And yet, on August 19, the Conservatives announced the closure of the main processing centre in Rimouski in favour of the secondary centre in Thetford Mines. What happened in the meantime to explain such an about-face?