Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was debate.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Leeds—Grenville (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Parks October 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, last June the Secretary of State for Parks along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that they would protect our national parks from excessive commercial development.

What concrete actions has the secretary of state taken to preserve the natural assets of our parks for future generations, like my son Zachary who is currently causing grief in the gallery?

Veterans Affairs October 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, as the House heads into Thanksgiving break, I think that independent of the complex issue, all Canadians share concern about the health of the merchant navy hunger strikers. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs update us on what the government is doing to try to resolve this unfortunate situation?

Merrickville, Ontario October 7th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the ice storm that hit eastern Ontario only eight short months ago, it is an honour to stand here today and congratulate the village of Merrickville which has been recognized as the prettiest village in all of Canada. The village of Merrickville won this award through the Communities In Bloom program which was launched in 1995.

This program is committed to fostering civic pride, environmental responsibility and beautification through community participation and the challenge of national competition. I know how hard the people in this community had to work to get their village in shape for this competition. Their community spirit and determination has certainly paid off.

I commend the organizing committee which consisted of Gary Clarke, Rhoda Drake, Joan Spencer and Doug Struthers, as well as the countless volunteers who supported this initiative.

Here's to Merrickville, the best bloomin' village in all of Canada.

Competition Act September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make mention of a point for my hon. colleague from Markham. Unless I am wrong or unless he wants to prove me wrong, absolutely no part of the Competition Act addresses the definition or standard of what constitutes predation or predatory activity. Therefore the act is deficient. That is what we are trying to address in the debate and with the bill.

I also want to congratulate the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. I suggest again to the member for Markham that he is not known for fighting oil companies. He is known for fighting for consumers. I think his track record in that regard is extremely admirable.

During the last sitting I had the very informative experience of participating in the Liberal caucus committee on gasoline pricing. Members will notice a lot of the speakers from this side shared that experience. Many of the opinions that I have in support of the bill were developed through that process. It was a long and laborious process.

In fact the focus of the bill would seem to be the petroleum industry. I must say that one of the most emotional components of the gasoline pricing committee was the testimonials from independents who were at the brink of collapse or who had collapsed because of declining margins.

In all fairness we are seeing the downside of consolidation in a number of retail sectors. The corner hardware store comes to mind. I honestly felt at the time, as I do now, that something was not working in the case of gasoline retailing. Although this bill has its roots in the petroleum industry, it is a timely debate to have as the forces of globalization and centralization begin to impact virtually any economic sector with high levels of vertical integration combined with oligopolistic market structure, which what we have in the gasoline-petroleum industry in Canada. We are not only talking about the petroleum industry because deregulation will cause us to have similar concerns and similar debates in the telecommunications industry, the information technology industry, the travel industry, utilities and the financial services sector, just to name a few.

My hon. colleagues talk about the role that taxes have in reducing margins. Taxes in this country are based on per litre, not price. They are a fixed cost. The debate over taxes may be valid but it is not a reason or it is not a contributing factor to forcing independents out of business.

On the surface this discussion obviously seems to be a classic debate between those who advocate free market and those who advocate government regulation. There are larger issues here that need to be examined.

As hon. members across the way point out, the current federal Competition Act provides for criminal sanctions against persons involved in agreements or actions that unduly lessen competition. The burden of proof in the Competition Act is that predatory pricing and price discrimination must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In large part because of this burden of proof, very few cases make it through the courts.

The paradox is that although we recognize the seriousness of anti-competitive behaviour by enshrining the offence in the Criminal Code, that high standard as opposed to, as was suggested, a civil code standard make enforcement of the regulations very difficult. It is not always easy to distinguish competitive from anti-competitive practices. There is nothing wrong with tough competition even from a dominant firm, but when its intention is to eliminate competition or prevent entry into or expansion in a market, there could be an abuse of that dominant position.

Why is this bill necessary? Traditional approaches to defining predatory pricing use costs as a measure of intent. In most cases pricing above total average costs results in non-predatory practices. Pricing below average variable cost is likely to be treated as predatory in the absence of some clear justification. If a company is selling off inventory that is perishable, then it is justified in doing that. But it is prices between average variable and average total costs that are the grey area. They do not even get looked at because of the high standard in the Competition Act.

The problem with vertically integrated companies is that the seamless nature of their operations, the womb to tomb continuum that they enjoy makes it very difficult to clearly define and allocate costs at specific points.

What this amendment does is it takes the focus away from the allusive and historically futile endeavour of trying to prove predation based on costs and puts it on price, the wholesale and retail prices of the supplier in relation to an independent that purchases product from that supplier. What could be clearer? My hon. colleague says that would be impossible. It is hanging on the street. Price we know; price is public.

Why the focus on the petroleum industry? First of all gasoline is not a discretionary purchase for most Canadians. It is a cost of living. We all know that. When the price spikes up, we get the calls. There are few substitutes for gasoline powered automobiles in the market today. Putting my environmental sentiments aside for a moment, the price of gas is an economic issue to most Canadians.

Apart from octane level and a few product variations such as ethanol, there is little if any opportunity for independent retailers to differentiate the product once they purchase it wholesale. They are at the mercy of low brand loyalty. And there are significant barriers to entry.

The notion that the loss of an independent gas retailer is only a slight temporary adjustment and that any attempts by the dominant firms to increase margins will be offset by new entrants, classical economic theory, goes out the window here. The classic self-policing concept of competition does not apply. The current players are simply too big. We need to recognize this concentration and ensure that we protect fair competition at the retail level.

Other countries are also trying to come to grips with these changing market forces. The French government amended its law in 1996 to make predatory pricing an infringement on its own regardless of any issue of dominance. The Americans, the keepers of the capitalist faith, have recognized this risk and have put in place statutory variations of divorce legislation that limit the percentage of retail operations a vertically integrated supplier can own. It is not because they see this as an intervention of the government into a free and competitive market, but as a necessary action to ensure the long term viability of a free and competitive market.

As the pressures of globalization put pressure on companies to grow through mergers, the accompanying concentration makes vertical integration a viable and sensible strategy. In order to protect consumers and promote effective competition, federal legislation must not simply prevent companies from pursuing growth strategies. That growth must come from the effective implementation of a solid marketing strategy and not simply disadvantaging competitors by exploiting proprietary control over essential components of the distribution channel.

In conclusion, this bill will allow the intent of the Competition Act to be enforced by setting a benchmark for predatory practices that is both public and workable.

Dna Identification Act September 21st, 1998

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that I have been one of the people who has been sitting here flaccid, and any other word that the hon. member for Elk Island has said. I have been listening to the debate and it is certainly food for thought.

I want to make one comment and it speaks to the intervention that was just made. I also think it is odd. We are trying to balance various rights and privileges here.

The CPA is also a proponent of gun registration, as is CAVEAT and hundreds of other groups. How can we decide when the CPA is right? Is there a quick way of determining that?

Supply June 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the issue of gun registration. There seems to be a common thread going through the Reform Party's criticism of the justice estimates.

We have seen a lot of letters being waved around with various dates. In the United States confronted with the increase in children killing children, to the tune of about every two hours an American child is killed because of a firearm, the NRA proposes they send a great big fuzzy bird into the schools, Eddy the Eagle they call it. It is almost like Tommy the Tooth. This is their solution. They are going to go into the schools and they are going to teach kids that if they see a gun they should run to their parents. In other words, the responsibility is the child's. That is absolutely ridiculous.

But I do want to refer to the how with a letter here from Scott Newark. Members quote him all the time, except when it does not suit them.

On June 3, 1998 he said: “Having now seen the registration system demonstrated, it is clear it will live up to the claims originally made in relation to supply of important safety information for both the public and police. Further, it should be an extremely valuable tool in the detection and prosecution of stolen or smuggled firearms”. They listen to the CPA, listen to CAVEAT even when it does not suit their agenda. What would the member say about that?

Supply June 9th, 1998

Madam Speaker, I do not have a question but I feel obliged to break up this Woodstock Tory love-in that is going on over there.

I am sure the member had a lot of experience with this in his former capacity. I spent a couple of years working in Europe where there is a zero tolerance for impaired driving to the point where police are able to require blood tests when they pull someone over. It is not .08, it is zero. The argument is that one of the things that happens when you drink is that your judgment is impaired so why do we not set the bar at zero? Does the member or his party have an opinion on that?

Reform Party Of Canada June 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Reform-separatist alliance seems to be moving ahead now. The meetings between the Bloc and Reform MPs have been officially endorsed by Lucien Bouchard. Who knows, if this courtship period is successful, we might see the creation of a brand new party. The Re-Bloc comes to mind.

What is entirely clear is that if this is the Reform's idea of how a united alternative will work, then it already appears to be falling apart.

As one commentator put it “It is extremely unwise for a federalist party to say it wants to attract separatists or sovereigntists whether they are called hard or soft”. This comment was made by none other than Stephen Harper who used to be a Reform MP. Perhaps he foresaw the desperate lengths that his former leader would go to to try to become Prime Minister.

Canadians rejected this scheme when Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives tried it and they will reject the Reform-Bloc coalition just as quickly.

Canadian Paralympic Athletes April 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today to pay tribute to all the athletes from Canada who participated in the Paralympic games this past winter in Nagano, Japan.

We have in our presence today some of these world-class athletes, athletes who are dedicated to excellence in their sport as demonstrated through their commitment to training and achieving results. The results have been impressive.

This was Canada's best ever showing at the Paralympic games as we came away with one gold, nine silver and five bronze medals.

I would like to recognize the tremendous sacrifices made by all our athletes and the support that is given to them by their families, coaches, trainers, friends, as well as the financial contributions of over 20,000 donors. All these people played a big part in the theme of the Paralympic games which was “Friendship and Warmth”.

I ask my fellow members of parliament to join me in congratulating our very own Canadian Paralympic athletes and medal winners.

Film And Television Industry March 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia boasts the fastest growing film and television production industry in Canada. Major international productions such as the Oscar nominated The Sweet Hereafter , and the highly acclaimed X Files are but two examples of its success.

What has the government done to help British Columbia develop the strongest possible film and television production industry?