David Emerson

[Gasoline Prices, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau initiated a study of petroleum pricing on May 4 of this year. It continues to assess whether the petroleum prices, the gas prices that we see today, are as a result of global forces of supply and demand or a conspiracy to fix prices among petroleum producers. The bureau is also looking at the question of whether there is predatory behaviour and inappropriate conduct dealing with gasoline retailers.

When the Competition Bureau completes its report, appropriate action will be taken.

[Broadcasting, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the House knows that the CRTC is an independent body. The government takes pride in ensuring that it operates independently. There are numerous times when senior officials meet with senior officials of these agencies to talk about broad policy issues.

I understand that was the purpose of those discussions, not to discuss any specific issue that was before the agency.

[Noranda Inc., October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we will respond in a very timely manner to any advice we get from a parliamentary committee.

[Noranda Inc., October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the parliamentary committee on industry will be discussing the Investment Canada Act. I am sure it will give some advice and we will give that advice serious consideration.

[Industry, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have the Investment Canada Act. I understand the parliamentary committee on industry is going to have some discussion and review of this issue. I think it is something that needs some very careful thought.

I can say that there is a feeding frenzy going on out there, but there is nothing to eat. There is no transaction yet, so it is a good time for people to take stock of what the long term consequences of these decisions will be.

[Industry, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would check the act, he would find that there is an investment threshold of $237 million in gross assets under which those applications are not reviewed, but they are required to apply.

When it is said that there has been complete approval of those transactions, they simply were not reviewed. The other 13% were reviewed and when approved, were approved with strict undertakings.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there are many sectors that were not specifically named in the throne speech, so the textiles and apparel sector is not alone.

I remember working in Ottawa in the 1970s when the textile industry was basically being buried as a sunset industry, yet we still have a strong and transforming textile and apparel industry today. The government has committed to a $60 million program of support to the textile industry. My own department has a $26.7 million program and funding is now starting to flow. I believe it is a sector that will transform, will be successful and will continue to employ people both in Quebec and in other parts of Canada.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a good one. I absolutely agree that the border is critical. The border has again become an impediment to trade with the United States. It had faded as an impediment for many years and after 9/11 it resurfaced as an impediment.

In my view, there are two things we need to do. One is to strive to improve our competitiveness in terms of Canadian industry. I saw that in softwood lumber, where we were punished by 27% duties by American protectionists. Nevertheless, the industry hunkered down, made investments in technology and improved its efficiency. Today the forest industry has again become strong and healthy in spite of those protectionist actions.

I think the hon. member would have to agree that the improvement of efficiencies at the border will take a while. Some of those improvements have begun, but there will be more to come.

There is an awful lot going on with the smart border initiative, as the member knows. A lot of it will involve technology. It will involve working through some of the nuances of getting along with the American and Canadian border officials, who do not operate in quite the same way and do not have quite the same culture. We need to make some infrastructural investments to ensure we have preclearance facilities, for example, in some transportation corridors where we have some bottlenecks.

We have a lot of work to do. We have made some progress and we will make more in the next year or two.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It is a great honour for me to be here representing the people of Vancouver Kingsway. The privilege has been made greater by the Prime Minister appointing me Minister of Industry.

I am delighted to be speaking in support of the Speech from the Throne. I am delighted to be part of the team that has delivered Canadian economic performance that leads the G-7. I am delighted to be part of a government that has delivered seven consecutive balanced budgets, a substantial program of tax cuts, and a reduced debt burden that will continue to fall over the next decade.

Without this outstanding fiscal and economic performance, a progressive social agenda would be purely academic. There would be no renewal of our health care system, there would be no watershed program to transform cities and communities, and there would be no national program for the care and development of children.

I have a deeply held belief that the pre-eminent role of government is to look to the future. Our most important job is to hand to the members of the next generation a country they can be proud of: a country of opportunity, a country of powerful humanitarian values, a country that leaves no one behind, and a country that draws people and regions together. In other words, a country that is far more than the sum of its parts.

To do this, we need to take our economy to another level. That means taking our competitiveness to another level. It means we have to shockproof our economy. We do face economic threats and challenges. We do face protectionist actions. We do see constant attempts to attract our best companies. We face critical choices. Companies and operations that anchor large clusters of industry are being offered incentives to go elsewhere.

The pulling up of those anchors would have serious consequences for whole regions and whole sectors. We have to fight back. We have to ensure that this country is, by a significant margin, the place to invest for the long haul.

We have some work to do. Our productivity continues to lag behind the United States'. Research and development by private companies is not sufficient to deliver competitive superiority. Infrastructure investments are required to resolve border bottlenecks, not just at the Canada-U.S. border but congestion at our ports and along the corridors leading to ports and border crossings. We are by far the most trade dependent of the G-7 countries. We have the most to gain and the most to lose from the ups and downs of the global marketplace.

We are as a government driving Canadian trade interests at the WTO through NAFTA and through a variety of other mechanisms. We are giving priority to third market development and we are pressing ahead with border security and facilitation issues.

But let us not kid ourselves. There is much that we do not and cannot control. For Canada to be strong, sovereign and independent, there is only one reliable form of insurance. That is the insurance that comes from being the best.

We have to bring our competitive performance to first place. If we are the most trade dependent country, we have to be the most competitive country. That means a quantum improvement in our competitive position. That will not be quick and it will not be easy. It means a margin of competitive advantage has to be attained that will enable us to withstand protectionist actions like softwood lumber, like beef under the guise of BSE, and now pork.

We are not going to be the best by paying our people the least. We are going to be the best by being a technological leader. We are going to be the best by empowering our workforce with the skills and tools it needs to outshine the competition. We have to be at the leading edge of critical scientific developments. We need a cadre of scientific and technical entrepreneurs who can look at science and see commercial opportunity.

We are going to have to regulate smarter and better than anyone. In many cases, our regulatory regimes are complex, duplicative and unresponsive to innovative approaches. We should not lower our standards, but we do need to re-engineer how we regulate. Regulatory costs are largely invisible and they are seldom measured, but I can tell hon. members they are very large.

We are going to have to support critical sectors. I hear many people talking about sunset industries. They used to point at the forest industry as a sunset industry and now I see people pointing at the automotive industry as a sunset industry. I have to say that there really are very few, if any, sunset industries. There are industries that have become globally competitive and there are industries that need to transform to become globally competitive.

We are going to have to maintain and enhance our leadership in “enabling technologies”, such as information and communications technologies, life sciences, nanotechnology and advanced materials. We are going to have to do better than anyone in commercializing and applying science. Canadian businesses, particularly in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, are not aggressive enough at applying technology to improve the competitiveness of their businesses. We need to fix that.

An economy that is environmentally and economically sustainable is not just desirable, it is essential. Without it we will not be able to carry the freight of social programs that are so vital to Canadians. The Speech from the Throne recognizes these challenges. It signals the priorities that will ensure our next generation receives the torch with a lead, a lead that it too can build on.

I look forward to working with all of the members of the House as we take Canada to a whole new level of competitiveness.

[Gasoline Prices, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my department is reviewing possible revisions to the Competition Act. On May 4 of this year the Competition Bureau commenced an investigation into gasoline pricing in Canada.

It will, among other things, assess whether there has been a conspiracy to fix prices, and whether in fact there has been predatory pricing practices on the part of major oil companies. When that report is complete, the Competition Bureau will take appropriate action.