Lost his last election, in 2008, with 29% of the vote.
Shipbuilding Industry May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the fact that we do have a shipbuilding policy. As everybody knows, the global capacity is at a very high level. The member opposite knows that Canada is not going to get into a subsidy war and get this government and country in a deficit position as his government did which got us where we were in 1993. We are not going to do that. We are going to keep encouraging countries not to subsidize and to have fair competition around the world.
Shipbuilding May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, may I repeat what I said before for the member. I again emphasize Canada's shipbuilding policies. An accelerated capital cost allowance which many organizations do not have; a 25% duty on most ships imported from non-NAFTA countries; a domestic procurement on a competitive basis for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs. Through the Export Development Corporation changes have been made and we are still looking at changes for the future.
These are the shipbuilding policies of the government. They are there for the benefit of shipbuilders from coast to coast.
Shipbuilding Industry May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the procurement for Canada at all times is in favour of the shipbuilders across Canada. Whether it be national defence, Transport Canada or the coast guard, or any other departments or agencies, we continue to work with the shipbuilding industry. We make sure that any buy or refit of ships is done with the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
Shipbuilding Industry May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that the shipbuilding policy for Canada has been effective in the past.
Members should know that the Export Development Corporation made changes a year ago with the shipbuilding industry. They should also know that the Export Development Corporation is presently looking at a review of projects worth more than $730 million. That is work being done by our trade, by our people, to help the shipbuilding industry.
Shipbuilding Industry May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to discuss this subject with the member many times. I should point out that the government has a shipbuilding policy. We have met with shipbuilders from coast to coast.
Please understand that we have an accelerated capital allowance for shipbuilding, specifically a 25% duty on most ships imported from NAFTA countries.
Both the Department of Foreign Affairs and Industry Canada have been working with shipbuilding to try to get more markets. However, let us understand that shipbuilding across the world has a very high overcapacity, and the member should understand that.
Competition Act May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this question.
The Canadian forces are an important national organization. Canadian forces members do a great deal for their country and they deserve both fair and reasonable compensation and a fair and reasonable standard of living. The quality of life of Canadian forces personnel has therefore been one of the minister's top priorities.
To pay for all of our quality of life initiatives we will spend approximately $538 million per year, $175 million in new money and $363 million from within our existing budget. Our level of spending will allow us to follow through on our commitment to improve the quality of life of Canadian forces members, including measures to improve housing.
We accepted all of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs 89 recommendations. We are already moving on most of them, including spending $40 million this fiscal year alone on immediate action for housing. This $40 million in new funding is in addition to the approximately $83 million the Canadian Forces Housing Agency currently collects in rents and invests back into repairs.
Most of Canada's military housing was built in the 1950s. We started repairs to military married quarters in fiscal year 1996-97. By the end of this fiscal year we anticipate that we will have replaced 5,000 furnaces, reinsulated 4,500 homes and improved drains and sewer systems for 6,000 homes. In addition, 9,000 homes will have received new doors, 6,500 will have received new windows and more than 4,000 will have had new roofs installed. The $40 million in new funding this fiscal year will allow the Canadian forces to accelerate these repairs to military married quarters.
We recognize that additional measures need to be taken with respect to housing. That is why we intend to give the Canadian Forces Housing Agency an expanded mandate to provide housing and housing services on military bases.
The Canadian forces also recognize there is no comprehensive accommodation policy on providing or managing accommodations. That is why we are developing a comprehensive policy this year.
All these measures show the government's firm commitment to improving the quality of life for our Canadian forces members wherever they serve Canada.
Competition Act May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this initiative on the part of the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act.
The bill is a well intentioned attempt to protect Canadian consumers and small businesses from abusive power by large and vertically integrated firms. The bill assumes, though, that the current provisions in the Competition Act are insufficient to deal with the practices.
The report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, chaired by the same hon. member who is sponsoring Bill C-235, included a number of recommendations for further study on these very questions.
Does the oil industry majors exert the degree of power over prices that is commonly suspected? Are the current criminal and civil provisions of the Competition Act adequate to prevent the big companies from eliminating competition from the independents or from disciplining them in order to maintain high prices at the gas pump?
The government is anxious to determine what is happening in the retail gas industry. We have heard independents complaining that the integrated suppliers are intent on driving them out of the market or on using price competition coercively to keep retail prices artificially high. We have heard the distress of independents caught in price wars between the majors. We understand the frustration and anger of people who have invested years, perhaps a lifetime, in a business that becomes an incidental casualty, collateral damage in a price war.
On the other hand, we have heard that the integrated firms value the independent distributors. The independents provide a useful alternative distribution channel for excess production. They provide coverage in markets where lower sales volumes make it less attractive for major firms.
We were also told that price predation is rare or rarely successful because it is seldom that a single firm will have sufficient marketing power to lower prices long enough to drive competitors out of the market, then raise prices and sustain them long enough to recoup the losses while keeping new competitors out.
Because there are conflicting messages the government agrees that there is a need to find out what is really happening in the retail gasoline industry. Acting on the recommendations of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, the Minister of Industry has established a steering committee to oversee a major study of the retail gasoline sector. This steering committee has representations from all sides of the debate.
Co-chaired by Industry Canada and by Natural Resources Canada, it includes representatives from all provinces and territories, the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers' Association, l'Association québécoise des indépendents du pétrole, the Ontario Fuel Dealers Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Retail Gasoline Dealers' Association of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The government supports the objective of ensuring a level playing field for independent gasoline retailers that compete with the retail affiliates of the major oil companies. We trust the study will give us a clear and comprehensive understanding and allow us to legislate intelligently if changes to the law are necessary.
Before leaving the report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, I would note that the government has already responded to a number of other recommendations by ensuring that protection for whistleblowers was incorporated into Bill C-20 which came into force on March 18, 1999.
Those provisions, which were the initiative of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, respond directly to the committee's recommendation for provisions to protect the identity of employees who report anti-competitive offences.
The enforcement of the Competition Act is not solely the responsibility of the bureau. Unless parties are willing to come forward to co-operate with the bureau and provide the information they have relating to possible offences, the bureau will in many cases simply not be in a position to take a case forward. It is to be hoped that the whistleblower protection will serve the purpose of encouraging people with evidence of a possible offence to come forward.
Bill C-235 does not deal just with gasoline retailers. It would apply broadly to any sector of the economy where vertically integrated manufacturers use dual distribution channels. For this and other reasons, when Bill C-235 came before the Standing Committee on Industry, and after considerable deliberations, the committee concluded that it would not support this initiative.
Bill C-235 as originally proposed would make it a criminal offence for manufacturers with retail operations to sell to independent retailers at a price higher than its own retail price less its marketing costs and a reasonable profit. An alternative bill would have made it an offence for manufacturers to sell to independent retailers at a higher price than the price they charge their own affiliates.
As the Minister of Industry noted in a letter to the bill's sponsor on October 19, 1998, the bill would require the government to involve itself in monitoring and evaluating pricing strategies. As we know, when the bill came to the industry committee, the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge offered an amendment to deal with these concerns in part.
If Bill C-235 were to become law in either of the forms in which it has been proposed, it would be illegal for a manufacturer to charge an independent retail price higher than its own retail price. This may look like a reasonable proposition at first, but it has some odd ramifications. Here are some examples.
If an independent customer decided to drop its retail price to stir up a little business and take a shot at a vertically integrated supplier's market share, by law under Bill C-235 the supplier would be prevented from lowering its own retail price to match the independent's price unless it also lowered its wholesale price and in effect subsidized the independent. In fact, suppliers would be unable to lower retail prices to meet any competitor's price unless they also lowered the wholesale price they charge their independent customers and effectively subsidize independents for the duration of the price competition.
Another concern is that Bill C-235 makes no exception for price discounting for legitimate business reasons. Under Bill C-235 a vertically integrated manufacturer selling off discounted goods or deteriorating inventory could be charged with a criminal offence. Moreover, as was pointed out by witnesses before the industry committee, it is not uncommon to introduce new products, particularly in high technology sectors, at below cost prices in order to persuade consumers to switch and to build market share. Under Bill C-235 it could be a crime for vertically integrated firms to engage in such a marketing strategy.
Bill C-235 sets out to protect independent retailers, but there is a potential for it to have disastrous effects on the people it seeks to protect. The broad and sweeping application of Bill C-235 was a consideration that caused the industry committee at the end of the day to vote it down. The primary impetus behind Bill C-235 is the situation of independent gasoline retailers. They build their businesses on the premise that product will be available to them at wholesale prices that give them enough room to pay the bills, pay the staff and make a living.
The Competition Act protects independents from margin squeezing and other abuses by dominant parties where the practice has the purpose of impeding or preventing competition and where the practice results in a substantial lessening of competition.
We have heard from representatives of Canadian businesses across the country. We have heard voices on both sides of the question. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and many others made submissions to the industry committee which members of the opposition have so eloquently spelled out in this debate.
With respect, for the reasons I have outlined, independent business should be concerned with the consequences should this bill become law.
In summary, the government agrees that the concerns of the independent gas retailers deserve further study. We have taken steps to ensure that an open, far reaching and broadly representative investigation occurs.
Because Bill C-235 would prevent businesses from engaging in legitimate price discounting, because Bill C-235 would discourage vertically integrated suppliers, including even the smallest manufacturer-retailer from using dual distribution channels, and because legislation like Bill C-235 has the effect of raising consumer prices, reducing the incentive to innovate and maximize efficiencies, it is for these reasons I urge the House to follow the lead of the Standing Committee on Industry and defeat this motion.
Jim Williams May 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to honour a great Canadian from my riding of St. Catharines, Mr. Jim Williams. Well known for his hard work and dedication, Mr. Williams is the area director for the Niagara region office of Human Resources Development Canada.
Jim Williams was recently honoured with a nomination for a Public Service Outstanding Achievement Award and was invited to Ottawa to meet with Canada's Governor General, His Excellency, the Rt. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. This award recognizes a sustained and exceptional performance of duties and accomplishments by senior public servants and is considered the most prestigious public award.
Mr. Williams' nomination for the Public Service Outstanding Achievement Award is a testament to the leadership role he has taken at Human Resources Development Canada.
For his commitment to public service, for his tireless efforts in the St. Catharines community and for the difference he has made in the lives of so many, we honour and thank Mr. Jim Williams.
Supply May 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the last speaker, who referred continuously to the example of rail cars.
I wonder if the member opposite is suggesting that the same arrangement for leasing rail cars be brought in for ships and that the accelerated rate for shipbuilding be reduced from 33.3% to 10%. Is that what he is suggesting so that leasing could be applied?
Supply May 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the last presentation by the member opposite. I am glad that he brought up the area of the Jones Act, an early 1920's act. I know that he is a small businessman and has experience negotiating.
In order to do away with the Jones Act, there was an opportunity during the trade negotiations, including NAFTA, to hit that straight on. By Canada giving up cards and not getting the Jones Act straightened out, it leaves us no choice but to go into the OECD and WTO negotiations with an item that needs to be discussed and moved forward. The Jones Act should really have been tackled by the previous government when it had the Canadian cards to be able to discuss that item. I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.