Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his private member's bill, and as well on all the work he has done to develop awareness, which I am sure will leave its mark.
It was hard work, especially since there has been a reform recently—I should say a so-called reform—of the Competition Act, which, in our opinion, weakened the powers and the influence of the commissioner.
Doubtless, arriving afterwards, with a measure that tightens the Competition Act is no easy job, but the member did not falter at the prospect and should be congratulated for it. We know that he fought a hard fight.
That said, our job here as parliamentarians is not to praise worthy intentions, intentions that we share, but rather to see whether this bill responds to the concerns and the problems giving rise to it.
Let me try to explain the bill simply. The member wants all integrated suppliers, that is, all companies producing and selling, to be prevented from selling directly or through an affiliate a product that is above the conditions set. That means that an integrated supplier cannot sell at a cost lower than the cost he charges someone who is not a company, a subsidiary or himself directly.
Originally, it was to prevent the major oil companies from selling gasoline at a price to retailers higher than the price they set for sales to their affiliate vendors or their own selling price. We can understand how unacceptable it is for small scale and larger retailers to be sold gasoline that has been refined—because the oil companies have factories to refine gasoline—at a price higher than the price at which it is sold to affiliates.
That is the problem what is the solution? It should be noted that the right to set prices is not under federal jurisdiction. The competition commissioner, through his representatives, has held that the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to set prices.
At this very moment there is legislation in Quebec aimed at solving the major problem in the petroleum sector which the hon. member wanted to address and there is a parliamentary commission which has been hearing witnesses for some time now. The outcome is still pending.
I recently saw some consumers on television who were concerned about the effects of having a base price to which would be added a specific minimum of operating costs so as to allow the small retailers to survive.
There is a debate between the retailers' right to survive—not just the small ones—and the consumers' right to pay a reasonable price. That debate is going on at this very moment, and I am anxious to see what the outcome will be.
For me, in particular, there is a question of the relationship between this bill and what is going on in Quebec at the present time. There are other questions as well, however. The main one is the extension of this model, which had been designed for the petroleum sector, to all other sectors, because it refers to every vertically integrated supplier. There is no reference to size, to how many billion dollars it has to earn annually, it merely refers to “every vertically integrated supplier who manufactures and sells a product”. It could be a co-operative, manufacturing and selling through affiliates.
A vertically integrated supplier could also be a smaller manufacturing and selling company, which this bill would prevent from selling in its store at lower prices than customers could get elsewhere. This bill would raise its prices simply because the products are available elsewhere.
It might be possible to change these provisions if we looked only at the issue of integrated suppliers. However, these provisions are necessary, because there are other sectors which, at some point, realized that they might be affected and that they should take a look at this issue. A lot more work should have been done, and it might also have been appropriate to find other solutions to settle the issue.
I congratulate the hon. member, because this is a first step. However, as regards the issue that I just mentioned, namely the expression “every vertically integrated supplier”, there is no mention of the size of the business involved. We should look at this aspect.
There is more. A large Quebec or Canadian company that invests because of deregulation, for example in the telecommunications sector, and pours money into research and development, would not benefit from a return on its investment in research and development.
We must question this, particularly since the expression “every vertically integrated supplier” would not apply to an American supplier. A product may come from the United States and be sold here. When it is sold here, it is not deemed to be sold by a vertically integrated supplier. We could therefore have competitive conditions that would adversely affect a vertically integrated Canadian producer. One can think of several sectors.
I am sure this is not what the hon. member had in mind. As the committee kept raising more issues, I became convinced that this bill could not be passed in its current form.
Again, I understand the hon. member's intention, which is primarily to strengthen the Competition Act. For starters, the Standing Committee on Industry, or another one, could have even arranged for the competition commissioner to have a larger operating budget. The commissioner has realized, from the testimony he has read and heard, that many small businesses in Canada and Quebec are worried because they do not think he is doing his job right.
He was so taken aback that he himself said there should be a review. It was this review, suggested by my Reform Party colleague, that members across the way would not go along with. Another way must be found.
In conclusion, I congratulate the member on his work, encourage him to continue, and tell him that the Bloc Quebecois and I will continue to agree with his intentions but, because of the act itself and the legislation that makes it necessary to extend his initial intention to all sectors, the bill cannot, in my opinion, be passed by this parliament.