Charlie Penson

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, an open and secure border is the number one priority of Canadian industry but the Americans are dragging their feet on allowing preclearance of low risk cargo due to their heightened security concerns.

The finance minister is meeting with his U.S. counterpart today. Could the government assure Canadians that U.S. concerns will be addressed on this issue in order to secure timely access to U.S. markets for Canadian exports?

[Infrastructure Program, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we all remember the complexity of the David Dingwall highway diversion a few years ago on a similar project.

It seems to me the appeal of dangling taxpayers' money in front of constituents is just too much for the Liberal government to pass up. Canadians are tired of seeing their hard-earned tax dollars treated as if they were a Liberal Party political slush fund.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that this $2 billion fund will not be spent on questionable projects, rather than practical infrastructure that is needed in Canada?

[Infrastructure Program, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Liberal government has learned nothing from the HRDC scandal. The Liberals are back to their old tricks.

The government has backtracked on its promise for an independent foundation to distribute the $2 billion in infrastructure funding. Instead the whole process is going to become political with the Deputy Prime Minister and other local MPs of the Liberal Party pulling the purse strings.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how this self-serving decision was made?

[Grants and Contributions, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that all may be, but it is completely irrelevant to the question I put to the minister.

This is not an isolated incident. The Magellan deal was just one of six government loans worth more than $328 million approved during last year's March madness. Yet they have not been announced by the government because TPC has not seen fit to do so. TPC has been criticized nationally and internationally for being secretive and has promised to be more transparent.

I ask the Minister of Industry, why do Canadians have to resort to access to information to find out about a loan ten months after the fact? What is the government trying to hide?

[Grants and Contributions, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last March Magellan Aerospace of Toronto won an $8 million loan from the Technology Partnerships Canada program, but Canadians know nothing about this because the government has not told them yet.

Yesterday a TPC press conference was cancelled because the local Liberal MP backbencher was called back to Ottawa for the vote on closure.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, what is more important to the government, informing Canadians where their tax dollars are going or photo ops for its Liberal MPs?

[National Defence, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister expect the people of Canada to believe his version of events if he will not at least table the chain of events that took place where the Government of Canada is responsible for mission control of JTF2?

[National Defence, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has just told us in this House that the reporting policy related to the JTF2 was followed in this case. It is our understanding the PMO is directly involved in the chain of reporting for JTF2 missions.

In order to assure the House that the policy was followed, as the minister just told us, will the minister table the chain of command and reporting policy for significant incidents regarding JTF2?

[Government Grants, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, how convenient that is.

In January 1997 Mr. Lemire went with the Prime Minister on a team Canada trade mission to Asia. In May 1997 he donated money to the Prime Minister's election campaign. In June 1997, as a result of his team Canada contacts, he applied for a CIDA grant. In September 1997, because of the CIDA grant, he qualified for a low interest EDC loan.

Considering that Mr. Lemire was convicted of both tax evasion and fraud, the public needs to know the answer to the question, did this man also get an EDC loan?

[Government Grants, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on February 13, 1998 Paul Lemire of Shawinigan received a $117,000 CIDA grant. At the time Mr. Lemire was under investigation by Revenue Canada for tax evasion. He was charged a couple of weeks later and was convicted in 1999. He was convicted again just last month, this time for fraud relating to HRDC grants.

How did this Mr. Lemire get a CIDA grant while he was under investigation for tax evasion by Revenue Canada?

[Competition Act, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate today on the final, third reading of Bill C-23, amendments to the Competition Act.

The bill has quite a long history that goes back to two years ago when I was involved in the standing committee on industry, which conducted hearings on the Competition Act. In addition, the Competition Bureau commissioner decided that there should be a parallel hearing and a public policy forum conducted hearings across Canada as well and heard many witnesses.

Out of that process four main elements were brought forward that were identified as needed changes to the Competition Act. They were: co-operation between Canadian and foreign competition authorities; the prohibiting of the deceptive notice of prizes; streamlining of the tribunal process itself; and the broadening of the temporary orders. During the process and the consideration of the bill at committee stage, we added an important fifth category, that is, the right of private access.

I want to talk a little about these amendments that will bring the Competition Act up to speed in terms of globalization and the recognition that Canada has become an international player of some magnitude and therefore needs to have co-operation with international authorities in order to have better competition law. I would note that the OECD and the World Trade Organization have been doing some studies to bring forward international competition agreement in that process as well.

The agreement on the co-operation aspect of Canadian with international authorities really is just a reflection of the nature of business these days. Canada of course is exporting 87% of all of our exports to the United States. That is a significant amount of money and makes up 40% of the GDP of our country. We also export to Japan and Canadians invest in other countries in increasing numbers. In fact, about four years ago there was a sea change in Canadian investment. We now have more direct Canadian investment outside our country than we have direct foreign investment in Canada, so Canadians are looking for a home in which to invest and they need the assurance of good competition law in those other countries.

More and more, business is international in scope and therefore we need co-operation. These amendments concern civil competition matters and essentially mirror the existing arrangements we already have on criminal matters with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. They apply only to the civil part, which will bring it up to speed. The change will assist the Competition Bureau in gathering information to make its decisions affecting competition in Canada. It will ensure that the decisions about domestic competition matters are made in Canada and we support that important aspect of it.

In terms of the prohibiting of the deceptive notices of winning prizes, I am not quite sure if it needs to be in the Competition Act although I know some people are taking advantage of this aspect. If this will help reduce the problems for them I guess we can go along with it, but it really seems to me that people have to take a little more responsibility for their own personal actions. If people are given notice by telephone that they have won a million dollars but in order to qualify they have to send in $5,000 or $10,000 to a certain company, I would think that they should be pretty aware of where that may lead. It seems to me that government really cannot put in regulations and hold people's hands. People have to make those kinds of decisions and have to be aware that there are those out there who are taking those types of actions. I am not sure this really will amount to much, but if it means there could be some improvement we would support it.

The third category is the streamlining of the Competition Tribunal process by providing the tribunal with the power to award costs. This is really important because we have added to the act the important part of the right to private access. Essentially it allows people to bypass the Competition Bureau and take their actions right to the Competition Tribunal.

If there are frivolous acts, nuisance acts or acts to try to find out information which might give people a competitive advantage over their competitor, at least the Competition Tribunal can now award costs. It cannot award damages but costs are a significant factor. If people are brought before the tribunal and have to defend themselves against frivolous actions, at least the tribunal can order the parties who have lost the case to pay costs to the parties that have been brought before it. That is a good move and we need it.

The Competition Tribunal has also been given the power to make summary dispositions and also to determine references. A summary disposition means that it has the right to tell someone coming before it whether or not it will hear the case. It is like a pretrial I would think. The tribunal can determine if it is a frivolous action and refuse to hear it. That kind of safeguard will help protect the Competition Act and will give the Competition Tribunal the power that it needs.

The fourth aspect that was included was the right to broaden the powers of temporary orders. This is important, especially in the case of the airline industry where huge losses can take place in a very short period of time. Cease and desist orders are important. We have seen about three airlines go under this last year in Canada. Perhaps if there would have been tougher cease and desist orders, Canada 3000 still would be providing competition on a lot of runs. Therefore we believe this is necessary.

There are also severe penalties in the airline industry on those companies that would embark on practices to essentially put a competitor out of business. If they ignore the cease and desist orders, they will be hit with severe penalties.

Then of course we talked about the right of private access which was brought about by an amendment through the committee process.

I believe every Canadian has the right to have his or her day in court. Right now the competition commissioner or the Competition Bureau acts as a gatekeeper in deciding who can have a case brought before the tribunal. I and my colleague from Edmonton Southwest were convinced, during the hearings and the whole process of consideration of Bill C-23 at committee, that that was an important element which would help strengthen competition policy in Canada. Therefore, we agree with that.

I just want to say a word or two about the airline industry. Every time we get a flurry of amendments to the competition policy or competition law, it seems as though something has stirred it up. This time it happens to be the airline industry. Some people think that we can run our industry policy in Canada out of the Competition Bureau. That simply does not work. It is important to have a strong competition policy. However it is not a substitute for a healthy business environment, with a true competitive nature, which would allow businesses to compete and provide services to Canadians.

The airline industry is a good case in point. If all these things, such as intervention and regulation, served the purpose, we would have a great airline industry functioning in Canada. However intervention and regulation have the opposite effect in most cases. Therefore, the Competition Bureau, the Competition Tribunal and competition law are important to have but the government needs to clean up some of its act when it comes to intervening in the economy.

In the airline industry Air Canada is a good case in point. Its merger with Canadian a few years ago had strict regulations. In fact, Air Canada was told it had to keep its head office in Montreal and that it had to maintain so many employees. What kind of business can function under those kinds of rules? When the economy is in a downturn, it does not make any sense. Businesses have to be flexible, innovative and be able to adopt new measures. Intervention does not allow that.

There are several other aspects in the case of Air Canada, such as attracting new investment in our country. New investment rules would go a long way to solving some of these problems and might have even stopped Canadian from going under a few years ago.

Important things need to be considered so that the competition law is not the only avenue and in fact is not the best avenue to competition. A good business environment, low taxes and low regulation are what people tell us we need, along with breaking down interprovincial trade barriers. These are the kinds of things for which businesses are looking. They want less intervention in the economy.

While we support Bill C-23, which strengthens the competition policy, it serves as a limited means of success. We challenge the government to do the things that are necessary to allow competition to exist.

We have lost a decade in the country because of the policies the government has followed. We have had a 30 year decline in direct foreign investment in Canada, year after year. We have a Canadian dollar that has lost ground for over 30 years and is now at 62 cents U.S. That says something about government policy. We have government policy that has intervened more and more in the economy over the past 30 years, I suggest, going back to Mr. Trudeau.

The current government, under the present Prime Minister, does not seem to be going in any different direction. Look at the cases of grants and contributions to businesses across the country. This is a government that has totally lost direction. It is rudderless and needs to be replaced because businesses are suffering. Canadian companies trying to compete against companies in the United States are not enjoying the competitive advantages they need to enjoy.

We have the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 and very high taxes against those of our OECD neighbours, which is the measurement with which Canada has to compete. Yet we have a government that does not seem to pay attention. It thinks we can substitute the healthy business environment with competition law and it simply will not work.

In the case of the cease and desist section, although we are strengthening it, companies engaging in practices that are harmful to a competitor and competition now have to wait 30 days. They may get another 30 days in which they are banned from engaging in those practices, but after 120 days has expired they can go at it again.

We should let businesses do what they do best. Let the competition law serve its limited capacity, as it was designed to do, in protecting competition, not competitors. Let us have a government that stops intervening in the economy, and the country would be far better off for it.