House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 29% of the vote.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's remarks.
I would like to ask him how this budget will promote employment or the type of industry that will add value to our natural resources. This is a problem. The government wants to take our primary resources and export them. We do a lot of trade with many partners. But how does this budget add value to our natural resources to ensure that we have many high paying jobs?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Once again, my colleague mentioned another issue—the bill is a brick and covers all sorts of things—that the Standing Committee on Industry should have studied.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We work very well together as a strong team committed to carefully studying every file that comes before us.
With respect to the section on changes to the Telecommunications Act, we found that none of the proposed scenarios intended to increase competition so that rural regions can benefit from the high-speed wireless network met the policy objectives.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to respond to the comments made by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The bill certainly does cover a lot of ground. My colleague mentioned just one of the issues that deserves our attention. I would like to reiterate my belief that the Standing Committee on Environment should thoroughly study the section of the bill relating to its mandate, just as everything I talked about should be studied by the Standing Committee on Industry.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, journalists at Le Devoir are calling this bill a “mammoth”. I would go even further and say that it is a horse, it is an airplane, it is a brick. We can call it all sorts of things.
It is illegal for companies or individuals to use computer viruses—so-called Trojan horses—to install software on computers when users want nothing to do with it. This is exactly what the Conservative government has decided to do. It has transformed its budget implementation bill into a Trojan horse and opened up the Canadian telecommunications market to foreign companies while Canadians are worrying about their old age security and their shattered retirement dreams.
Quite frankly, the government has buried enough legislation in Bill C-38 to block a whole server.
Why has the industry minister decided to bury his amendments to the Telecommunications Act in the budget implementation bill rather than sending them to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology?
In March, the government announced rules for an auction that would have a significant impact on this country's digital future and its economy. We had a unique opportunity to promote competition in the wireless telecommunications market and ensure that all Canadians, including those living in remote regions, can participate in the digital economy of the 21st century. The government missed the mark.
Auctions for the radio frequencies used by our old analog televisions will allow the telecommunications companies that buy them to set up next generation wireless networks.
The promise made to the people of LaSalle—Émard and every other Canadian was that they will soon have access to much faster wireless networks. Far too many Canadians who live in remote regions still do not have access to high-speed Internet. For them, we had the opportunity to increase access to broadband Internet and to fully include them in the digital economy. The government had the opportunity to bridge the ever-growing digital gap that is currently dividing Canada in two: on the one hand, urban Canada, which is connected to high-speed wireless networks, and on the other hand, the regions, which are connected, but at speeds that are much slower than those available elsewhere in our country.
The promise was that we could correct the imbalance between urban and rural areas and promote competition in the industry in order to lower costs for consumers. The Government of Canada failed to keep that promise.
The proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act contained in Bill C-38 will allow foreign telecommunications companies to operate in Canada if they have less than a 10% share of the Canadian market. These foreign companies will not be able to increase their share of the Canadian market through acquisitions, that is by purchasing rival companies, something that Canadian companies can do.
We therefore find ourselves in a situation where telecommunications companies in Canada will compete under rules that do not apply equally to everyone. Canadian companies will have one set of rules; foreign companies will have another. Here in Canada, we are used to arguing about hockey or soccer games, where everyone plays by the same rules. However, that is not the approach used by this government. We already knew that.
Many Canadian telecommunications companies have concerns about these developments. Ironically, the company that stood to gain the most from these changes immediately responded that it would boycott the auction.
The government was not transparent with Canadians, who have the same questions we do.
Will the government stand by its decision to open only part of the Canadian market to foreign companies? Are these changes simply the first step in a process that goes much further?
Does the government plan to continue to gradually lift restrictions on foreign companies' participation in the Canadian telecommunications market?
Will this government try to take advantage of the fact that it has created a two-tiered market with different rules for different players in order to completely open the Canadian telecommunications market to foreign competition?
The reality is that we have no way of knowing. Canadian are still waiting for the Minister of Industry to reveal his strategy for the digital economy. An initiative was launched two years ago, almost to the day. Then it was radio silence. The government's approach is hard to follow. It is behaving like a CEO without a business plan. It decides to hire staff without knowing what positions need to be filled. It launches a new product without knowing if it has any clients or if people are even interested in the product.
It is as though the government decided to sell off its most beautiful beachfront property without telling shareholders whether it wants contractors to build condos, houses, apartments, hotels or businesses. CEOs who do not have a business plan do not get very far, as we know.
The fact that the industry minister has decided to push through his amendments to the Telecommunications Act by including them in a budget implementation bill, where they will be all be debated together over a very short period of time and along with a heap of other bills, only adds to the sense that the government is just making things up as it goes along.
Resorting to a catch-all omnibus bill gives the impression that the government is like a tired chess player who is improvising with every move. It is playing a game without having a plan. We feel that the government introduces legislation first and asks questions later.
These amendments to the Telecommunications Act should have gone to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for in-depth study by parliamentarians from the opposition parties. This is a fundamental breach of democracy.
Is the industry minister afraid that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology might discover that the changes to the act will not really promote competition in the Canadian wireless market?
Is the government afraid of hearing experts and even some of its own partners say that the proposed changes will not bridge the ever-widening gap between rural Canada and connected Canada?
Is the government afraid of hearing from wireless network operators that are dissatisfied with the auction rules that have been announced?
The lifting of foreign ownership requirements and the piecemeal approach to regulation the government is offering are not going to solve the problem of the digital economy. What Canada needs is a plan, a digital strategy. Canadians have already been waiting too long. We need a comprehensive approach to ensure competitive prices in the telecommunications industry, an approach that takes into account the needs of telecommunications operators, consumers and urban and rural Canadians. Rather than choosing dialogue and involving opposition parties in the legislation process, the government has chosen to ride the Trojan horse to hide changes to the Telecommunications Act from the scrutiny of Parliament and the industry committee. That is undemocratic and unacceptable.
Once again, I urge the industry minister to send the amendments to the Telecommunications Act for study by the appropriate committee and the opposition parties. We have a unique opportunity to bridge the digital divide and build next generation wireless networks to ensure the sustainability of Canada's digital economy, so that no one is left behind.
Let us not squander this important opportunity. Let us work together.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government member for his very eloquent speech. He is always very passionate and very expressive.
I think he sits on a committee, perhaps even on two committees. As a committee member, what does he think of the fact that this huge document will be studied exclusively by the Standing Committee on Finance, depriving him of his role in conducting an in-depth study of the important portions of this massive document that he mentioned in his speech? What does he think of the fact that it will not be studied by a number of committees and that it will in fact be reserved exclusively for the Standing Committee on Finance?
Statistics Canada May 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not realize that Statistics Canada does not even have enough money to buy newspapers.
The organization's budget has been frozen for three years. Cuts to its operating budget will total $54 million, which led the chief statistician to comment that this will be a year of sacrifices.
The Conservatives like to control the numbers—that was evident in the F-35 file—but they cannot control the results of an objective survey. They want to cut Statistics Canada's budget in order to have more control over the message.
Statistics Canada May 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the industry and communities that rely on the fishery are going to pay the price for the Conservatives' insistence on attacking the Fisheries Act.
There are other cuts and other problems. The decision to cut 8% of Statistics Canada's budget is troubling. In addition to the budget cuts, the organization has to deal with reduced budgets at the other departments that fund its studies. We need statistics in order to help us understand the trends in economic cycles.
How can the government do without such important statistics on the economy?
Air Canada April 24th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, while the Quebec government, Investissement Québec and the QFL Solidarity Fund are working on a recovery plan for Aveos, the Minister of Industry merely says that he sympathizes with the 1,800 workers who were laid off in Montreal. Despite everything, the government is leaving Quebec to fend for itself when it comes to saving assets and jobs.
Why is the government refusing to enforce the Air Canada privatization act? Why not support Quebec's efforts?
Government Appointments April 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, these are not the kinds of appointments that will help the minister of conflict of interest regain his credibility. The individual appointed to the council has contributed thousands of dollars to the election campaigns of the President of the Treasury Board. We would not be surprised to learn that the Minister of Industry went on another hunting trip, this time near the gazebo in Huntsville to discuss the appointment.
Will the minister continue to become embroiled in never-ending scandals or will he do the right thing and resign from cabinet?