Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them, but it will not stop me from thinking them nonetheless.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Supply March 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them, but it will not stop me from thinking them nonetheless.
Supply March 18th, 2002
Yes, and to 5,000 nurses. Is that fiscal imbalance? Is paying back a $500 billion debt to Canada a way to fight the deficit?
Supply March 18th, 2002
Well, that is exactly what it is. Who decided to grant early retirement to 1,100 Quebec doctors who will each receive $300,000?
Supply March 18th, 2002
What about leaving $800 million in a bank account in Toronto? Is it also interfering in provincial jurisdictions?
Supply March 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the original assumption of the Séguin Commission was wrong. It was told that there was a fiscal imbalance. The commission was never asked to check if there was a fiscal imbalance but was told about one. Mr. Séguin and his people were asked to prove and to come to the conclusion that there actually was a fiscal imbalance.
Quebec's Premier Landry showed his hand last week when he stated that the report will be used as a reference document to promote Quebec's sovereignty.
This reminds me of the 1995 referendum strategy where Premier Parizeau asked Mr. LeHir to report, on almost all fields, to show that Quebec could become sovereign and did not need the rest of Canada to look after its business. This is precisely along the same lines, its the same strategy.
I put this question to the member. Is there a fiscal imbalance in paying back $100 billion in taxes to all Canadians, including Quebecers? Is a $21 billion agreement on health care interference in provincial jurisdiction?
Criminal Code March 14th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I know that Canso is going through some rough times, like other communities in Atlantic Canada and Quebec that rely to a great extent on fishing.
The minister has carefully examined various options to provide assistance to that community. He has determined that he cannot approve the request made by Seafreez for increased access to redfish stocks. Right now, the best option for Seafreez would be to capitalize on its 867 ton competitive offshore quota.
The minister urges Seafreez to consider making arrangements with other companies, which might agree to a temporary transfer of their unused quotas.
Raising the Canadian redfish quota in response to Seafreez's request would go against our conservation principles and against our efforts to prevent foreign overfishing within our 200-mile economic zone.
Criminal Code March 14th, 2002
Madam Speaker, we understand that the last decade has been a difficult period for fishers and communities that have always counted on abundant groundfish resources to ensure their survival.
Before the collapse of the groundfish stocks in the early 1990s, this fishery was the main source of income in some 1,300 small Atlantic communities. Even though numerous measures have been taken to re-establish groundfish stocks to higher levels, most of them remain very weak.
The collapse of the groundfish stocks and the moratoriums that resulted had a devastating impact on those who depended on them for their survival. However, it also paved the way for change. Indeed, there was a great deal of change in the industry, and the fact that we began to look at other, less traditional species enabled us to continue fishing.
As the minister has indicated on several occasions over the last few weeks, the Canadian industry must be competitive internationally if we want communities that depend on the fishery to be viable in the long term.
Fishermen and fishing communities in Atlantic Canada continue to lobby for increased access to fish stocks. For the most part, we know that, since he was appointed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans two months ago, the minister has received a number of requests from Atlantic Canada communities for greater access to groundfish, crab and shrimp stocks.
The proposals include the introduction of newcomers to existing fisheries, the transfer of quotas from current holders to new holders and access to experimental fishing. The minister has met with a number of stakeholders and seriously examined their proposals in the meantime.
While we are aware of the crisis faced by communities in Nova Scotia, members have to realize that we also have to deal with the fundamental problems of limited resources, excessive capacity and fish processing plants always asking for more. Since we are aiming for fish conservation, we cannot review the fish quotas even if the prices are going up, because it would put excessive pressure on fish stocks.
The arguments set out in each of the proposals for increased access to the resources in order to increase or maintain the employment levels are not that different from those included in the proposals submitted during the last decade. Most smaller communities in Atlantic Canada, if not all of them, could make the same points when asking for greater access to the resources.
Even though the minister understands the plight of these Nova Scotia communities, he cannot approve the proposals. He has however agreed to work with his colleague, the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, to find ways to help these municipalities.
He will also continue to use his department's resources to come up with viable long term solutions within a national strategy to maintain the competitiveness of the Canadian fishing industry on the world market.
Question No.100— March 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that term.
Police Services March 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, there are jobs that require courage because they are performed under dangerous conditions. Female and male police officers must sometimes work under enormous pressure. Unfortunately, some of them pay the ultimate price in ensuring that justice is respected. Every day, female and male police officers show their dedication to society.
In recent days, police officers have lost their lives in Canada. Others have been injured. This happens all too often. I want to condemn this situation. These demonstrations of violence have disastrous consequences.
My colleagues join me in extending our sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those police officers who were killed in the line of duty.
Competition Act February 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-248, an act to amend the Competition Act.
I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, for his constant efforts on behalf of all Canadians to ensure that the objectives laid out in the purpose section of the Competition Act are fully achieved. In particular, he dealt with the role of the act in preserving and enhancing competition in order to ensure that small and medium size businesses get a fair opportunity to take part in the Canadian economy and to ensure that consumers get competitive prices and a choice in products.
The bill before us today addresses directly those objectives and the way gains in efficiency are dealt with in the review of merger transactions.
We have found that there is considerable support in the House for the principles of this bill, the purpose of which is to clarify the clause in the Competition Act concerning the argument of gains in efficiency. The bill stipulates that consumers should benefit from a merger which results in gains in efficiency but that these gains should not be used to justify a merger which will result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant market position.
This bill was triggered by the acquisition of ICG Propane by Superior Propane. The Competition Bureau challenged the merger because it would have created a monopoly in several local markets, particularly in rural and northern communities. The competition tribunal recognized that this would markedly reduce competition, and at the same time that the anti-competitive impact of the merger was offset by the gains in efficiency cited by Superior Propane, such as savings in delivery costs and the operation of client information centres.
It has been pointed out by several members just how contradictory it seems for a act of parliament aimed at encouraging competition for the benefit of consumers to be used to enable Superior Propane to establish a monopoly or semi-monopoly in several markets on the grounds of gains in efficiency.
We ought perhaps to examine more closely the underlying intention of Bill C-248. The bill would not allow gains in efficiency to be used to justify a merger or proposed merger which, and I quote:
—will result or is likely to result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant market position.
This is an attempt to disallow scenarios where a merger would result in a monopoly.
We must be cautious when making reference to businesses with a dominant market position. Dominance pertains to the situation of a competitor within a market, and not its behaviour. It is too tempting to make a connection between dominant and large, and between large and bad. Abuse is the exception, not the rule.
The Competition Bureau examines proposed mergers and attempts to predict future effects based on specific factors. It examines market share, concentration, existing competition, and accessibility of the markets in question to new competitors.
Dominance is not, in itself, a problem under the act. Let us not forget that anti-competitive behaviour is addressed separately under civil provisions. The Bureau does not oppose mergers merely on the conjecture that the merged entity might engage in anti-competitive behaviour. However, anti-competitive behaviour will most definitely be contested under civil provisions.
Our economy is not always able to sustain a great number of competitors. Such is our reality. This compels us to ask whether it is more important to have more competitors or more competition. There is a difference between the two.
Regardless of their size, competitors are always welcome to our markets, on the condition that they act fairly and respect the rules. A merger must not be prohibited on the grounds that it will create a bigger competitor. Size and success is a characteristic of a competitor; it does not mean that it is guilty of anything in terms of competitive behaviour.
The purpose of Canada's competition policy is to protect competition, rather than protecting individual competitors, in order to ensure for Canadians the many benefits that come from fair and healthy competition. Among these benefits are greater choice, lower prices, better service and increased innovation.
By now, those who are listening have probably concluded that this is a very complex subject. Efficiencies play an important role in assessing mergers. Our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology spent a great deal of time and effort in understanding how efficiencies are treated and assessed.
The issue now is one of timing. The Competition Tribunal finished its hearings in October 2001, and is now in the process of reviewing its decision based on the instructions given by the Federal Court of Appeal. The tribunal's upcoming ruling will outline clarifications on how to deal with gains in efficiency. However, it will be important to continue to examine the issue. Regardless of the tribunal's findings, I believe that we have heard convincing arguments for a full and careful analysis of this very complex question. The results may prove that the Competition Act requires clarification.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge for his tireless support in helping improve our Competition Act. He has once again highlighted the important and difficult issues involved in competition policy.
I would invite my fellow members to vote to have Bill C-248 referred it to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for a more thorough examination.