Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about that. The bill's proponents, which include independent gas stations, independent grocers and the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, cite the following reasons to support Bill C-235: to give the Federal Competition Bureau of Canada the tools to fight predatory pricing; to ensure the continuing existence of small businesses, thus ensuring a competitive marketplace and lowering retail prices; and to follow the example of the United States which has strong predatory pricing laws at the state level.
Witnesses before the industry committee in March and April clearly showed a lack of real hard evidence to support these assertions. Although Bill C-235 proponents have used the fluctuation in retail gas prices to substantiate their causes, the bill would impact negatively on large segments of the Canadian economy.
Organizations that have spoken out against the bill include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Information Technology Association of Canada, Bell Canada, the CRTC, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, IBM Canada Limited, Sun Microsystems and Hewlett- Packard Canada Limited. I note the importance of IBM Canada and Sun Microsystems to the GTA economy. Both companies have their head offices in Markham.
From a nationwide perspective the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which represents 170,000 small, medium and large businesses throughout Canada, noted that the regulatory amendments in Bill C-235 would lead to higher prices for both consumers and businesses in the following industries: computer white goods, for example, refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, dryers, et cetera; electronic appliances, for example, stereo equipment, microwave ovens, video recorders; computer products, including a broad range of accessories; office equipment; telecommunications products; furniture; clothing; grocery wholesaling; meat processing, for example, poultry, pork, beef, fish; transportation; petroleum products; paint, wallpaper and other home improvement products; a broad range of petrochemical products; and a broad range of industrial products.
The bill is not just about gasoline pricing. It is about how our private companies maximize their legitimate marketing channels.
What about the statement that predatory pricing laws in the United States similar to Bill C-235 have kept prices down. Credible studies conclude that legislation in numerous U.S. states has proven to be counterproductive. A study prepared by Terry Calvani, a former commissioner of the United States Trade Commission, concluded that such gasoline pricing laws have increased costs to consumers and appear not to have provided independent dealers either higher profits or greater stability.
Let us never forget that the Competition Act already contains provisions to deal with any competitive conduct as highlighted by Bill C-235.
The predatory pricing and abuse of dominance provisions in sections 50(1)(c) and 79 of the act sufficiently address incidences of true predatory pricing. Furthermore, the conduct proposed by Bill C-235's proposed addition to section 78(1) of the Competition Act is already prohibited under section 61 of the act.
I am not saying that the heartfelt pleas for action the industry committee heard should be dismissed out of hand. There may be a need for amendments to the Competition Act. That is why the industry committee has decided to review the Competition Act to evaluate whether it sufficiently reflects the demands of the current marketplace. If the committee finds there is credible independent evidence that amendments like the ones proposed in Bill C-235 are needed, that is the time we should consider amendments.
At present Bill C-235 is premature. With the negative effects of our economy as a result of Bill C-235 presently appearing to far outweigh any positive effect, we should not rush into passing this law without careful review.
I recognize that my Conservative friends in the Ontario government support Bill C-235. To me this demonstrates one of the clear differences between a Conservative and a Liberal. While Conservatives respect and allow for differences of opinion, Liberals let loose the lash of the government whip to try to keep members singing from the same song sheet.
While I have kind words for my Ontario Conservative friends, I must object for the record to some of the tactics used by Bill C-235 supporters in Ottawa, including some members of the House.
While witnesses supporting Bill C-235 were treated with the utmost respect by members representing all points of view on the bill, witnesses opposing Bill C-235 had their motives questioned, were interrupted and sometimes abused by committee members, and were attacked as being pawns of large oil companies and big corporations. This type of behaviour in promoting a cause smacks of McCarthyism, Canadian style, and does little to enhance either the image of parliament or the concerns which Bill C-235 attempts to address.
To reiterate, the potential economic costs of Bill C-235 are too high to enact new provisions to the Competition Act dealing with topics already covered by existing sections. On behalf of the PC Party of Canada I urge all members to oppose amendments to Bill C-235 at report stage and to oppose the bill at third reading.