House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.
Finance May 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail, a spokesperson for the industry minister said, “he's not concerned about foreign takeovers of leading Canadian companies”. Well, Canadians are concerned. They are concerned about losing corporate emblems like Alcan or even Bell Canada.
Does the minister agree with his friends at the Montreal Economic Institute that Canada should get rid of foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian telco altogether, yes or no?
Business of Supply May 8th, 2007
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member identifies a real flaw in the Competition Act and the reason why we need to act to change it. As a provincial MPP in Ontario, he was part of a party and a government that supported some of the types of measures proposed by the previous Liberal government and in fact largely designed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East. What the member identifies is an incapacity for the Competition Bureau to act under the current Competition Act. In fact, the decriminalization of some of these practices makes it possible for the Competition Bureau to take action.
The member raised some of the issues as well as the questions he is asked by consumers and constituents in the summer. If he wants to be able to answer those questions substantively, he ought to support this kind of motion and these kinds of measures. He would be able to tell constituents that in fact the policies he votes for and supports on the floor of the House of Commons will lead to a Competition Act and a Competition Bureau that--
Business of Supply May 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. I was never a Conservative. I was a Progressive Conservative. I think the hon. member was drawing attention to some of the cleavages between the former Progressive Conservative Party and the current Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party, and I think he was right to do so, but I am glad to have the opportunity to correct the record.
Once again, I draw the member's attention to the changes to the Competition Bureau proposed in the Liberal government's legislation, Bill C-19, in the fall of 2004, which addressed these issues. The Liberal government did act.
The member also mentioned the results of the last election. He said that Canadians voted, and of course we accept the results of the last election, but I hope the member's constituents understand that his NDP helped to defeat a government that introduced national early learning and child care, a policy that ostensibly the NDP members believe in but voted against, thus defeating a government that was implementing it. Beyond that, it was a government that believed in the Kyoto accord and in fact had taken action to move toward respecting the Kyoto commitments. Beyond that, it was moving further. It was defeated by that party to elect the most neo-conservative government in the history of Canada, a government that is opposed not only to Kyoto but to national child care.
In fact, I think the member has to answer to his constituents and to his NDP base across Canada and explain why, on everything from law and order and justice issues to the environment and issues around early learning and child care, he has elected and supported and continues to support a neo-conservative, republicanesque government that is opposed to the basic values of the NDP.
Business of Supply May 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion today.
Our Liberal government supported measures to increase transparency in international and domestic gas pricing and the Liberal Party will support any measure to increase transparency in international and domestic gas pricing.
I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East. I want to commend him for his expertise on this file and his commitment to fairer and more transparent gas pricing and better value for Canadian consumers. He has worked diligently on this for a number of years and I think he would be, within the House of Commons, the leading expert on this file. I think members from all parties listen intently to him when he speaks to this issue and we look forward to hearing from him in a few minutes.
We support any measures that will lead to greater transparency in gas pricing. The motion proposes to strengthen the Competition Act to allow for investigations into gas prices, specifically their relationship to the refining margin and corporate profits.
The fact is that back in October 2004, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-19, which included amendments to the Competition Act. The proposed changes would have strengthened Canada's competition framework to the benefit of both consumers and businesses. The amendments would have benefited consumers by providing authority for the Commissioner of Competition to seek restitution for consumer loss resulting from false or misleading representations. The bill introduced a general administrative monetary penalty provision for abuse of dominance in any industry. It would have removed the airline specific provision from the act to return it to a law of general application, increased the level of administrative monitoring penalties for deceptive marketing practices and, most important, decriminalized the pricing provisions such that the Competition Bureau could act more effectively.
Beyond that, in October 2004 the previous Liberal government went significantly further to ensure better pricing for Canadian consumers. We introduced a plan that would address both short term and long term measures to help Canadians deal with higher energy costs and that would provide direct financial assistance and energy cost benefits to more than three million low income seniors and low income families with children. We introduced the EnerGuide program to help families lower their future household heating costs. Our plan made more and better pricing information available to consumers while taking legislative steps, as I described earlier, to deter anti-competitive practices. The plan fast-tracked money from municipalities for public transit.
The Liberal government took a comprehensive approach to provide timely short term relief but also helped lay out the groundwork for meaningful and long term benefits through greater efficiency and conservation. What we proposed was not only good for the environment in terms of reducing consumption but also good for Canadian consumers by reducing their monthly costs. Our proposals would help make homes and buildings more energy efficient as a key measure for helping Canadians offset higher pricing for energy and to reduce their costs.
Incentives that were provided would have helped Canadians save energy and money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that were contributing and contribute to climate change. They were part of project green, the Government of Canada's action plan to help build a more sustainable environment.
In fact, all the measures we provided, whether it was the energy cost benefit of $565 million to be paid out to 3.1 million low income families and seniors to help them address higher energy costs, or the changes to the Competition Act through Bill C-19, would have made a significant difference in terms of reducing the disproportionate impact of higher energy costs on all things but particularly on low income Canadians.
We invested $800 million over a period of two years in public transit infrastructure. We also provided greater transparency in the pricing and competition oversight model.
In November 2005, Bill C-66, the Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, further strengthened transparency in the energy market with a $15 million investment in the Office of Energy Price Information to monitor energy price fluctuations and to provide clear ongoing information to Canadians. We provided another $13 million to allow the Department of Industry to take further steps to deter anti-competitive practices, including strengthening the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act.
The fact is that what is proposed in this motion by our colleagues in the Bloc was actually done by the previous Liberal government, both in terms of strengthening the Competition Act, and improving the degree to which the government can act to reduce anti-competitive policies, and by helping all Canadian consumers, but particularly low income Canadian consumers, to reduce their energy costs and to deal with higher energy costs and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact, the Liberal government was doing this. The Bloc helped defeat that government. It helped to elect and continues to support a Conservative government that has actually reduced and eliminated most of these programs that were benefiting Canadian consumers, reducing their energy costs and at the same time protecting the environment.
When we were actually strengthening the Competition Act such that the Competition Bureau would have the ability to act when it needed to, the current government, as we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, does not see this as being necessary and believes that the Competition Act and the Competition Bureau are functioning exactly as they ought to. He does not see any need for changes.
We saw the need for changes. In fact, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East helped lead the charge. The member helped us develop and build the case and the policy prescriptives required to strengthen the Competition Act and the ability of the Competition Bureau to act. It was that Liberal member who actually helped our Liberal government develop the policies to make this happen, but it is the Conservative government that refuses to act.
Respectfully I say to my colleagues in the Bloc that I support this motion, but our government had done this. It was the support of the Bloc to defeat that government and to elect and support the Conservative government that actually denied Canadians the opportunity to have more transparent pricing for gasoline for consumers and, at the same time, to have important measures that can reduce consumption and protect the environment.
I think it is important that we work together as parliamentarians, particularly in a day and age when minority parliaments seem to be more the habit than the exception, on areas where there is a common interest and that we do not simply reduce our deliberations to narrow partisanship. When there are policies of each other's that we can support, when we are in government or in opposition, I think we have to take our partisan blinders off from time to time and work together to advance policies.
Once again, I am saying that it was the Liberal government in October of 2004 and through to November of 2005 that had introduced policies which would have accomplished exactly what the Bloc seeks to accomplish in the motion today. We support this motion because we do believe that it is the right direction, but it is important to recognize that we actually had done this as a government in terms of introducing the policies to the House of Commons to move forward with this.
I would hope that when we return to Liberal government the Bloc will support these initiatives as we move forward to build a more competitive, more open, fairer and more transparent regulatory structure around gas pricing, but also to build a cleaner, greener environment by helping Canadians reduce their energy needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.
Telecommunications Industry May 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the minister has cut the community access program, which connected rural and small-town Canada to the world, and now the government's deregulation scheme is raising phone rates in Canada.
Will the minister restore CAP funding? Will he take action to ensure that rural and small-town Canadians do not pay more for their phone services? Will he implement a national broadband strategy or fully explain to the House what exactly he has against Canadians living in rural and small-town Canada?
Telecommunications Industry May 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the industry committee was warned that deregulation would result in higher phone rates for rural and small-town Canadians. The minister disagreed. He said that “deregulation will...benefit...consumers” and “will result in better prices”.
The minister was wrong. Yesterday the CRTC confirmed that deregulation will drive rural phone rates higher. Why should rural and small-town Canadians pay more for their phone services? Why should they pay for the minister's mistake?
The Budget March 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said this about the budget:
We don't see any broad-based tax relief...The government promised that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and...they broke that promise....
When will the government introduce major tax reform to build competitiveness for the next generation instead of tiny tax tinkering designed to buy votes in the next election?
Industry March 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, on February 23 in a speech in New York, the industry minister indicated that he supports loosening foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian telcos.
Will the minister complete his promised thorough review of foreign ownership restrictions before he sells out Canadian telcos to barbarians at the gate?
Will the minister assure Canadians that our foreign ownership policy will be made in Canada by Canadian legislators and not on Wall Street by U.S. investors?
The Budget March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the Prime Minister said that the prime minister has “a moral obligation to keep these promises: no caps, no clawbacks, no limitations, no conditions, no big exceptions in the fine print”.
The Prime Minister will say anything and he will do anything before an election. He will break any promise after that election.
The Atlantic accords were 16 year agreements. Will the government commit to honouring the full 16 year duration of these accords?
The Budget March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the 2005 Atlantic accords were intended to make Nova Scotia and Newfoundland the primary beneficiaries of their offshore resources. They were eight year agreements, renewable for another eight years. The government ripped up these accords with the stroke of a pen in Monday's budget.
Why should any Canadian, why should any Nova Scotian or Newfoundlander, trust the Prime Minister when he can so easily rip up written agreements and break his own promises?