David Emerson

[Technology Partnerships Canada, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the government's relationship, under the technology partnerships program, is defined in contracts with business. We are dealing with those contracts, we are remedying the situation and the Canadian economy is benefiting. It is nearly 90% small business that benefits from these programs.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a contractual relationship with the companies that are in receipt of contributions under Technology Partnerships Canada. We have audited those programs and we have found breaches in those contracts. We are remedying those breaches and recoveries are being made to taxpayers.

Of the $2.8 billion in TPC funds that have been put out, we have got back $14 billion when we consider the amount that private sector companies have spent on innovation in Canada.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention of the House to the premise here. Canada has a competitiveness challenge going forward. Manufacturing industries have been shedding jobs, over 100,000 over the last year.

It is very important that we encourage innovation, technology use and improve the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. We are reviewing technology partnerships. We have replaced the program. We have a new program with a broader, more effective orientation, stronger administration, and that is what we are going to continue to do because it is good for the Canadian economy.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it that under the technology partnerships program the government has contractual relationships with companies and those companies have an obligation to abide by the terms and conditions.

One of the terms and conditions, as the hon. member said, is that individuals cannot have an unregistered lobbyist and if they have a lobbyist, they cannot be paid a success fee or a contingency fee.

We have found examples of that and we are moving to correct them with zero tolerance. The relationship between the companies and their lobbyists is one that they are working on and until we have very specific information that we should act on, we will just continue to deal with--

[Oil and Gas Industry, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit pathetic when I hear a member of the NDP calling for a tax on a sector, given that the member and his community are so dependent on the automotive sector. To hear him talking like that, calling for mandatory regulations that would hurt the industry and that would drive investments south of the border, I think is pathetic.

[Oil and Gas Industry, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have entered into an agreement with the automotive sector to reduce emissions in automobiles and that we are supporting an enormous amount of environmental technology. In the $4.5-plus billion increases in investment that are going into Canada and Ontario, there is an awful lot of environmental improvement there.

[Gasoline Prices, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed one of the issues we are looking at very closely.

[Gasoline Prices, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is in the House. It does strengthen the Competition Act. I am prepared to look at further amendments. We are prepared to look at giving the Competition Bureau the power to undertake investigations of industries and take action as needed. We are prepared to listen if the hon. member has some suggestions for further improvements to the act. We will have further suggestions of our own.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's interest in the refinery part of the supply chain. As I said in my remarks, the refining segment of the supply chain has been under extreme pressure over the years because we do not have enough supply capacity in the refining segment to support significant increases that are needed in a short price-spike situation such as we have today. We do not have enough refining capacity.

He asks why we do not have enough, that there must be a conspiracy out there because all of a sudden the refiners are making a lot of money. They are making a lot of money now because they have not made enough money in the past to invest new capital into refining capacity that would correct the problem and not put us in the situation where the extraordinary profits may be realized right now.

In order to invest hundreds of billions into refining capacity, investors will demand a long term, sustainable, reasonable rate of return for putting money in that business. It is very capital intensive. It is regulatory and burdensome. There are not many communities that are keen to have refineries next door. If we start to undermine profitability in the refinery business, we simply will end up with a worse shortage as we go forward.

However, if there is evidence that there is collusion or anti-competitive behaviour in the refining sector, I am with the member 100%. Let us go after it, let us attack it and let us deal with it.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of anti-competitive conduct, it is not really a matter of whether people in my department believe there is evidence of anti-competitive conduct. I do not think we have any evidence of that. The issue is really whether the Competition Bureau, which is a legal body charged with undertaking those investigations to a high standard of professionalism, has found any evidence of anti-competitive conduct, and the answer is no.

We can all rail about price gouging and some kind of rhetorically satisfying allegations about pricing behaviour, but the bottom line is that after repeated investigations, there has been no evidence of anti-competitive conduct at the retail or wholesale ends of the market.

On the matter of taxation, I believe that this government is committed, and we will be moving forward in the weeks and months ahead, to deal with the issue of the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. The price of energy is a factor that has to be considered. There are many other factors. The exchange rate is another factor.

We have to worry about Canadians who are disadvantaged and hurt by some of the transitional spikes in energy prices or other impacts that negatively affect Canadians who may not be able to handle those burdens. We should deal with that, but I am not prepared to stand today and say that a micro movement in a gasoline tax would solve the real problem that Canadians have. It would take a more fundamental approach than that.