Bradley Trost

[Competition Act, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector).

As I understand it, the underlying objective of this bill is to address potential problems associated with investigating the petroleum sector. We are all concerned with high gas prices and as many in the House are aware, gasoline prices have long been a focus of the Competition Bureau.

High prices in and of themselves are not illegal under the Competition Act as long as long as they result from free market forces and are not the result of anti-competitive behaviour. The bureau does not hesitate to take action to protect both competition and consumers when there is concrete evidence that the high prices are the result of anti-competitive conduct.

In this regard, since 1972 the bureau's investigations in the gasoline and heating oil markets have led to thirteen trials involving charges of local price maintenance, eight of which have resulted in convictions. The bureau has also conducted six major investigations into allegations of collusion and other anti-competitive behaviour in the petroleum sector since 1990.

Those investigations did not find any evidence to suggest that periodic price increases resulted from a national conspiracy to limit competition in the supply of gasoline or from abusive behaviour by firms holding a dominant position in the market. Instead, they found that market forces such as supply and demand and rising crude oil prices caused the price spikes.

That has not stopped the bureau from remaining vigilant regarding the activities of this industry. In 2008, the bureau's investigation into certain cartel activities led to criminal charges against 13 individuals and 11 companies accused of fixing gasoline prices at the pumps in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke, Quebec. As of December 2009, ten individuals and six companies have pleaded guilty in this case, with fines totalling over $2.7 million. Of the ten individuals who pleaded guilty, six have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 54 months.

The same vigilance is evident in the bureau's work in reviewing mergers in the petroleum sector. In July 2009, the bureau announced that it had reached a consent agreement with Suncor Energy and Petro-Canada regarding their proposed merger. If this transaction had proceeded without the bureau's intervention, Suncor and Petro-Canada would have been in a position to restrict supply at the wholesale level, as well as to reduce competition in the retail sector in southern Ontario.

The consent agreement in this case required the merged company to sell terminal space and distribution capacity at its gasoline terminals in the GTA to an unrelated third party to ensure continued competition in the market for wholesale distribution of gasoline in southern Ontario and the GTA. This agreement also required the merged company to supply 98 million litres of gasoline to independent gasoline retailers each year during the 10-year period.

To address competition concerns in the retail sector, the consent agreement also required the merging parties to sell 104 corporate-owned gas stations in the GTA and southern Ontario.

Bill C-452 proposes a single amendment to the Competition Act. It would provide the Commissioner of Competition with the ability to launch formal inquiries under the Competition Act into entire sectors of the economy.

We need to be vigilant with respect to the duties that we impose on the bureau. Currently, the commissioner has the ability to conduct limited market studies as part of her role as an advocate for competitive markets. Studies into generic drug pricing and the practices of self-regulating professions are two recent examples where the commissioner examined the specific practices of various industry sectors and made recommendations to promote a more competitive marketplace.

There is evidence that these studies have been effective in improving competition in these sectors. The costs to business and the resource requirements within the bureau of such studies were minimal and did not interfere with the bureau's priority which is to enforce the act.

If a formal inquiry into an entire industry sector is required, the government may invoke its powers under the Inquiries Act. Such inquiries would include the authority to compel either oral or written evidence from witnesses and require witnesses to produce documents that are relevant to the matter that is under inquiry.

The government may also launch an inquiry under section 18 of the Canada International Trade Tribunal Act. This provision allows the tribunal to inquire into and report on matters of economic, trade or commercial interests to Canada. In the past, the tribunal has carried out studies on the competitiveness of the beef industry and the fresh and processed fruits and vegetables industries in Canada.

Given these existing avenues for inquiry and the range of issues that have been examined under the commission's current authority, I must say real doubt arises as to whether a new broader power is needed.

As we have seen, the Competition Bureau continues to aggressively enforce the Competition Act whenever violations occur in the petroleum sector. In addition, provisions in the act exist to ensure that action can be taken against abusive behaviour by dominant firms in any market. As well, the bureau has used its existing limited market studies authority to proactively promote constructive measures to improve competition in markets where structural problems exist.

Should Bill C-452 be referred to committee, I hope that there will be a thorough and detailed analysis of this proposal to determine whether it would truly advance the protection and promotion of competition for Canadian consumers and businesses.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for my hon. colleague.

First, does he feel that 130 representations on a subject is sufficient? In his experience as a parliamentarian, which predates mine, does he feel that is more than most legislation would receive?

Second, in regard to whether we should go ahead with this agreement, does the hon. member accept that Colombia's elected representatives are the persons, from the Colombian perspective, who should have the final say?

third, does the hon. member also accept that many Colombians who support the agreement are working toward improving human rights and social development in their own country?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will first deal with the hon. member's assertions about the elections.

The Organization of American States sent 80-some observers down there and they said that the elections were substantively free and fair. An independent electoral monitoring organization, with 2,400 electoral monitors in Colombia, stated that the elections were much better than the congressional elections. They said that there was a considerably lower level of shenanigans, which I think would be the proper way to describe the overall description of the way Colombian elections have been handled in the past. In fact, the number of cases that the prosecutors were looking at and charges being laid for election fraud, misrepresentation, et cetera, were considerably lower than normal. Even the presidential candidate who was trailing the Green Party was not alleging electoral fraud by the winners.

The hon. member has made some allegations without having the facts to back them up.

In respect to the hon. member's cherry-picking--

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question goes to something that has been a mischaracterization of elements in this trade agreement.

The critics of this agreement have made two allegations in regard to what the hon. member is alluding to: one, that there will be major displacement caused by Canadian mining companies going in; and, two, that commercial large-scale agriculture will be put into place and will cause displacement.

With regard to the hon. member's question about displacement, when it comes to agriculture, this agreement should not have any effect in causing those displacements. Why is that? Because of the nature of Canadian agriculture exports to Colombia, we will not be displacing the small-scale farmers. The Colombian government has set up tariffs to protect those small-scale farmers. They will not be displaced by crops coming into the markets to compete directly with them.

The second thing is in regard to mining operations that, it has often been said, displace persons. I invite the hon. member to read some of the testimony we have had from one of the mining companies in Colombia. The witness was a Colombian citizen who dealt with social responsibility and discussed the ways that he helped to build the country. I would also invite the hon. member to directly contact some of the mining companies that are working in the social responsibility areas.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation again. Having been involved in not quite all of the hearings of this committee, which have been fairly extensive with over 130 representations by around 100 witnesses, the international trade committee has studied the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement in a very thorough and solid way.

This trade agreement is good for Canada and that is the predominant reason why we as members of Parliament should vote to support this trade agreement. In particular, this trade agreement is really good for agriculture, an industry that is of prime importance to my province of Saskatchewan. The way that this free trade agreement is structured there will be an immediate elimination of certain tariffs on certain agricultural products that come from Canada. This would affect our lentils industry, barley, wheat, oats, grains which are predominantly not produced in Colombia, but grains that we compete against other countries such as Argentina, Brazil and the United States in exporting to Colombia.

This is very important because it deals with one of the criticisms that opponents have made against the agreement, that it will somehow devastate small Colombian farmers. To those critics I should point out that under the structure of the small Colombian farm, the predominant crop is beans. Under this agreement the Colombian government rather prudently protects its small one, two, three acre farmers with a much slower 20-year reduction of the tariffs on beans. Since Canada does not export great amounts of beans to Colombia, it is not of major importance to us.

This agreement is also good for Canada because it helps our manufacturing industry. While we do not always think of ourselves as being in head-to-head competition with the United States when we export Ford, GM or Chrysler products, in the situation with Colombia we right now face the same tariff, but that tariff would be eliminated. So car dealers and car manufacturers from southern Ontario will be able to export and the 35% tariff would be eliminated, so they can then export directly into the Colombian market. This will give them a massive advantage over United States exporters who wish to follow up, particularly as the United States Congress is dragging its feet when it comes to the implementation of its free trade agreement.

One of the advantages that has not be noted too often in this debate is the advantage that Canada will incur under this agreement in the area of services. Services as investments are important engines of the Canadian economy. For example, the service sector contributes to 71% of Canadian GDP and three out of four jobs. There will be opportunities in Colombia for Canadian companies in areas such as financial services, legal services, engineering, architecture and high technology. Canadian service providers are already providing services to help develop the Colombian economy, estimated to be about $80 million to $85 million per year.

This is important in areas such as engineering. Colombia is a country that has had severe civil wars over the last many decades, but it is starting to rebuild its infrastructure. If anyone has been there recently there are highway construction projects. The building of infrastructure in Colombia is very important and Canadian engineering firms can be a part of that development. Therefore, being able to recognize credentials back and forth would save both Canadian and Colombian providers time and of course money.

This agreement removes barriers to entry at the border such as quotas and labour market evaluations which makes the entry of investor service providers and traders into both countries easier. With the ability to move key personnel to different positions with reasonable timeframes, businesses can operate more successfully.

We already know that this agreement gives Canadian service providers greater access to the Colombian marketplace than ever before. It is therefore now time to ensure that Canadian service providers can take advantage of these opportunities and remain competitive in the Colombian market by passing this agreement.

At the end of 2009 the stock of Canadian direct investment in Colombia was $773 million and this trade agreement will establish a stable legal framework for Canadian investors in Colombia. Strong obligations will ensure the free transfer of capital and protect against expropriation without prompt and adequate compensation.

Another element of this free trade agreement is the recognition of the role of governments to promote corporate social responsibility principles with investors. We had the privilege in committee of listening to corporations, including the largest mining company in the country of Colombia, and what it is doing to promote education and social well-being in and around the regions where it works. It was encouraging to hear about the development, to hear that Colombian enterprises, on average, re-invest 3% of their sales into corporate social responsibility compared to 1.5% in Europe, for example.

Overall, investment links mean business to global value chains, and to the technology and expertise they need to forge a wide range of commercial links with our partners around the world. Investment with our partners, inwardly and outwardly, is incredibly important and that is certainly the case with Colombia.

Over the last few years we have seen increases in the security and stability of Colombia, and that has been important. These are some of the factors that are helping to drive Canadian investment in this new frontier market with new opportunities.

Canadian investments in Colombia are expected to grow, particularly in the oil and gas and mining sectors, and Canada has significant interest and expertise to offer our Colombian partners going forward. For Canadians and Colombians alike, the free trade agreement offers an unprecedented level of stability, predictability, and production to assist in taking our investment relationship to a new level in the years ahead.

Since the beginning of the global economic downturn, this government has been very clear that trade and investment hold the key to world economic recovery. That is why the government is continuing to move forward with aggressive free trade agendas around the world that put a focus on creating new partnerships with key nations around the world.

To create new commercial opportunities around the world, we need to do everything we can to open the door for Canadians and that includes promoting free trade agreements, not just with our traditional partners in Europe and the United States but everywhere around the world.

I would like to deal with some of the criticisms that have been addressed in regard to this agreement. While I believe that the predominant purpose of the House is to vote according to the interests of Canadians, the arguments against this legislation have been based on the fact that it is a bad deal for Colombians.

Having watched the results of the first round of the presidential election and the elections for congress earlier this year, I am a little puzzled as to why critics continue to say that because the Colombian people have overwhelmingly voted for parties and candidates who are favourable to this agreement. In fact, the two candidates in the runoff for the presidency, Mr. Mockus of the Green Party and Mr. Santos of the La U Party, are both supporters of this agreement. They both see this as enhancing the prosperity of Colombia.

Critics have said there are supporters of this agreement who have abused human rights, but I would also note that there are opponents of this agreement who have abused human rights. To argue that this is the major basis to vote for or against it is stretching logic as to why we should be for or against it. We should be in favour of this agreement because not only does it enhance the economics of Canada but also job creation for our country. It does the same in Colombia.

It makes a better life for average Canadians and Colombians. Undoubtedly, this agreement will have a greater impact on Colombia than it will on Canada, but it is a positive agreement that will help our farmers, manufacturers and service industries.

I ask all members to vote for this agreement, an agreement which respects human rights and builds the economy in both countries.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, I would very much like to speak tonight about some of the important issues relating to Canada's north, in particular an issue that is dear to my heart, having previously worked in the NWT, Nunavut and Yukon as an exploration mining geophysicist.

We have tremendous potential in our natural resources in the north, but one of the first steps is to understand and assess the extent of these resources. The Government of Canada has a northern strategy that recognizes this untapped potential of the north. In particular, I am speaking of the geo-mapping for energy and minerals, which all provide public geological and scientific information to help the private exploration that already takes place there. This initiative is a lot more than the natural resource projects. We are looking for outcomes that will benefit northerners and Canadians in all fields of economic development, community well-being and sustainable development.

Canada is a global leader in natural resources. The sector accounts for 12% of our GDP and employs close to a million people. However, to fully realize the immense economic opportunities in the north, we need to expand our ability to tap into the largely underutilized deposits of natural resources. Currently there is a lot of room to expand mineral and energy productivity in the north and one of the roadblocks to increasing our activity is that two-thirds of the sprawling land covering three territories lacks modern geological maps.

Unless one has been a geological professional, it may be hard to grasp. As my sedimentology professor who taught me mapping at the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Brian Pratt, told me once, even the good maps need to be redone, or as Mel Stauffer, another one of my professors said, even maps he himself had done contained errors, not because they were problematic but that is the nature of the mapping.

In fact, one of the last projects I worked on before being elected here was the Salluit in northern Quebec. We worked on a particular site that had been explored by the Geological Survey of Canada, by Falconbridge and by a team of geologists for a couple of weeks before we got there. Yet it was a non-professionally trained geologist, one of the old-fashioned types who just sort of learned by doing, who went out there and found a nickel showing, which we nicknamed blind man's showing because everyone had been so blind in looking for it.

Therefore, even with very good geological mapping information, we need to look over and over again. The average layman may not understand just how important a comprehensive geological mapping is.

The geo-mapping for energy and minerals program is actually the first step in the exploration of natural resources in the north. This program is an extensive series of research projects designed to document the geological structure and potential of the north. These studies involve experts from leading research institutes who are involved in conducting the field work and in subsequent laboratory analysis and data integration.

This work is accomplished through air land surveys, with airplane and helicopters doing airborne geophysics, which are also used to develop preliminary geological and geophysical snapshots of the area. Land surveys are then conducted, some of which I have done myself, observing and analyzing from a variety of sources, such as mountains, glaciers and bedrock, using geological and geophysical data.

Our government's priority is to build a vibrant economy in the north, while protecting its environment. We are currently reviewing and approving regulations so we can create an attractive investment climate for the sustainable development of natural resources. The goal is to make the project review more effective and efficient and to strengthen environmental safeguards at the same time. A number of improvements to the regulatory system have been made and work continues, in consultation with people in communities from all northern regions, on the northern regulatory improvement initiative, an important component of the northern strategy.

Geo-mapping for energy and mineral programs will deepen our understanding of the north and will provide opportunities for economic development for northerners.

While it is clear this program will contribute to the north's future, it also raises some questions about the involvement of northern communities. I would therefore like to ask the minister what is being done as part of this initiative to engage the peoples of northern Canada.

[Down's Syndrome, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend Saskatchewan will welcome the Canadian Down Syndrome Society's national conference to Regina. The Canadian Down Syndrome Society works to ensure equitable treatment for the 35,000 Canadians who have Down's syndrome.

Today, Canadians with Down's syndrome work, receive post-secondary education, pay taxes, and get married. Yet unfortunately, certain negative perceptions of Canadians with Down's syndrome still exist.

Some parents are told “our school doesn't do Down's” when they try to enrol their child. Some doctors assume that no family would want a child with Down's when they outline medical options to perspective parents.

That these discriminatory attitudes are still publicly voiced disturbs me, and should disturb all Canadians.

Canadians with Down's syndrome face more medical challenges than most other Canadians, but discrimination against them and their families should not be tolerated.

We as a society, as individuals, organizations, and governments need to do what we can to educate our fellow Canadians about Down's syndrome, and to encourage policies that provide support to Canadians who deal with this medical challenge.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I do not understand in this debate is the personal nature of some of the comments being made.

In Saskatchewan we are very passionate about politics. I disagree very strongly with the CCF and NDP tradition of our province. It is the same with the views in western Canada about Mr. Pierre Trudeau's governing of the country. But I have never heard anyone refer to someone in Saskatchewan as not being a true Saskatchewanian, as someone who is not true to his or her ethnicity or whatever. From my perspective, it is not exactly polite and proper discourse.

I had anticipated hearing this from the Bloc Québécois but not from a federalist politician. My question for the member is, why does he insist on personalizing the issue when referring to people who disagree with his position, Quebec Conservative MPs, as not true Quebecers? Why is he attacking them on their personal motivation? Why does he not just accept that they have a different vision for the country? It seems to me to be somewhat impolite.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not know if he has been listening to the entire debate, but the President of the Treasury Board made the suggestion that the Liberal Party amend its motion today to include not just parliamentary secretaries but all members of Parliament. If I have been listening correctly to the New Democrats, they have indicated, to my ears at least, that they are in favour of that. I am curious as to the member's position on that. Would the Liberal Party and the member in particular support the extension of the motion today to include not just parliamentary secretaries but all members of Parliament?

Second, I know the hon. member has been lobbied by his constituents on another issue where there has been a considerable amount of lobbying back and forth, and that is the long gun registry. I wonder if the member might tell people who is lobbying him on that issue, how they are lobbying and whether he intends to vote with his constituents on that issue.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after 2006 new members of Parliament were elected to the House of Commons. I asked some of my friends and acquaintances in the province of Quebec why the Quebec City region had changed. They told me that it was because the Bloc Québécois was predominantly taking orders from Montreal and Montreal only, and that the people in and around Quebec City wanted their own voice. They did not want members of Parliament taking orders from Montreal when they lived in Quebec City.

This was demonstrated by a report that the Bloc Québécois commissioned. If the principle needs to be applied that for Canada as a whole 25% of the seats are to be reserved for the province of Quebec, should not the same principle then be applied to the province of Quebec and various regions then be given a certain allotment of seats so that regions such as the Quebec City region be not swamped by the Montreal region?

Is the hon. member in favour of giving 25% of the seats in the province of Quebec to the Quebec City region?