Colin Carrie

[Business of Supply, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the motion of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

Let me preface my comments by stating that I am in no way intending to diminish the challenges facing the manufacturing or the forestry sectors. Rather I want to clearly show Canada the hypocrisy of the member's motion and underscore the radical socialist agenda that the NDP is trying to peddle to Canadians.

Let me state at the onset that the government takes the issues facing the manufacturing industry very seriously and we are addressing them head on. We have brought forward billions of dollars in assistance and every time the NDP has voted against these measures.

What is key to the manufacturing sector and the forestry sector is the need to have the right economic fundamentals so our companies and firms can put their full attention and efforts into responding to these world challenges. It is clear that Canadian manufacturers are determined to compete and succeed in the global economy. The NDP does not seem to comprehend that if Canada does not have an internationally competitive economy and tax structure, Canada will not attract new investment, the economy will go into recession and jobs, which rhetorically the NDP members say they would like to defend, will dry up.

When the economic fundamentals are working, businesses have the best opportunity to make their mark and succeed.

Thanks to this Conservative government, the fundamentals of Canadian economy are working and jobs are being created. While other global economies are experiencing uncertainty, we are alone in the G-7 in maintaining ongoing budget surpluses and falling debt burden. Our unemployment is at the lowest in 33 years and our overall employment grew by roughly 360,000 jobs in 2007.

Yes, there are challenges, but also opportunity to ensure that all Canadians share in the benefit from our economic success. Certainly this desire extends to include the manufacturing sector overall. It is not an easy task. While the new jobs generated by our economic gains in thriving sectors offset losses in other sectors, the problem is more complex than that. Otherwise the significant measures the government has introduced to encourage skill development, such as the apprenticeship tax credit and the apprenticeship incentive grants, would represent a sufficient response. However, in a country as large and diverse as Canada, these challenges have a real and profound impact on small communities that have come to rely upon a particular manufacturing plant or mill.

The government took action to respond to these kinds of adjustment pressures. The $1 billion community development trust represents our government's support for provincial and territorial efforts to build a stronger, more prosperous future for communities and workers affected by current economic volatility. The trust allows provinces and territories the flexibility to invest in those projects that best help vulnerable communities and individuals, while respecting Canada's international obligations.

Do not take my word for it. Five provinces, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, have stepped up to leverage the money provided in the trust since it was announced on January 10. We have every confidence this money will be put to good use. By working together, the federal, provincial and territorial governments can best help take the economic challenges we face today and turn them into economic opportunities tomorrow.

The community development trust is one way the government has responded to the needs of workers, businesses and regions affected by economic difficulties.

Despite the NDP's rhetoric, the government has delivered much more. Conservatives delivered the targeted initiative for older workers, which the government seeded with $72.5 million from budget 2006 and has recently expanded with a further $90 million source from budget 2008. Here is another initiative to be delivered at the community level.

Canadian industry needs the skills and knowledge of workers 55 to 64 years of age, especially in the communities that rely upon single industries. While these workers are laid off because of the economic problems in the industry, we need to find some way to keep their knowledge and skills in the labour market.

These are examples of ways in which we have taken tangible action to address the challenges the hon. member mentions in his motion, but we have done much more.

The hon. member refers to tax measures. His motion falsely insinuates that our tax policies do not benefit Canadian companies in all sectors, including those in manufacturing and in forestry. Only the NDP cannot comprehend that cuts to the general corporate tax rate are advantageous to manufacturing and forestry companies. These tax cuts will help manufacturing and forestry companies be more competitive, create wealth and, most important, create jobs for ordinary Canadians.

With the tax measures introduced by the government, manufacturers and processors will receive over $9 billion in tax relief by 2012-13. Our initiatives will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G-7 by 2010. Furthermore, we have also extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector for three additional years.

This was a key recommendation of a unanimous 2007 industry, science and technology report, supported by the NDP member for Windsor West. When it came time to stand up and be counted, the radical socialists voted against their own critic's recommendations. It is unbelievable.

We have allocated $33 billion to the building Canada infrastructure plan, including $2.3 billion for trade related infrastructure and $2.1 billion for gateways and corridors, of which at least $400 million will be in support of a new Windsor-Detroit crossing, an important crossing for manufacturers.

Our 2008 budget also has introduced improvements to the SR and ED tax credit program and provides $34 million more per year for collaborate research for specific industries, including manufacturing, important elements that will contribute to improving innovation so Canadian companies can compete with the best.

For auto manufacturers, we are investing $250 million over five years to support R and D projects that will produce green automotive technologies. Coming from Oshawa, I know how important that is.

We are also helping our manufacturers to extend their business globally. We have improved Export Development Canada's export guarantee program to assist small and medium sized manufacturers in fulfilling export contracts. This is in addition to the $174 million over two years to increase security and minimize delays at our borders. These measures brought forward by this Conservative government will surely benefit our industries, including manufacturing and forestry, attract new investments and will create jobs in Canada.

For the forestry industry, we have resolved the costly and prolonged softwood lumber dispute. The agreement eliminates U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties. It brings an end to costly litigation. It protects provincial forest management policies and it has returned over $5 billion to Canadian producers. Again, sadly, the NDP voted against this deal.

We have also provided $127.5 million to strengthen the long term competitiveness of the sector and a further $200 million to facilitate action to combat the mountain pine beetle.

We have provided $25 million for a forest communities program that will assist 11 forest based communities to make informed decisions on the forest land base. Budget 2008 allocated $10 million over two years to promote Canada's forestry industry to international markets as a model of environmental innovation and sustainability.

Over the past two years this Conservative government, led by our Prime Minister, has indeed taken important steps to set the overall business climate so our industries can grow and become more globally competitive.

What today underscores is the hypocrisy of the NDP toward Canada's manufacturing and forestry industry and workers and the radical socialist agenda that it is trying to peddle to Canadians. However, Canadians will not have the wool pulled over their eyes. Canadians know this government is showing leadership and is delivering for manufacturers and forestry workers and industry when it needs it the most. It is the NDP that must stop playing games with the lives of workers and should start supporting the government's endeavours.

[Dextre, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, astronauts at the International Space Station began putting together Dextre, Canada's most advanced robot in space.

The spacewalks were a success, as astronauts installed Dextre's two hands. Dextre will be able to perform delicate precision tasks outside the station, allowing astronauts more time to focus on scientific experiments inside.

Canada is a world renowned leader in space robotics. Our robotic ingenuity and innovation are a source of tremendous pride and a true competitive advantage for our country. Canada's contributions to the International Space Station and our skill and expertise in space robotics have made us a leader in scientific and technological innovation.

We are in an age of discovery that has been made possible through Canadian robotic leadership and international collaboration.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had the opportunity to read the budget and our last couple of budgets, he will know that this government has done a vast amount to help the manufacturing and forestry industries.

I would like to start by talking about the $9 billion in corporate tax relief for manufacturers and processors. Also, in the forestry industry from 2006 to 2013 we have $1 billion in incremental tax relief for the accelerated capital cost allowance, which is benefiting people in the manufacturing and forestry industries.

We increased the CCA rate to 30% from 15% for industry. We improved the scientific research. We have done massive amounts for--

[Science and Technology, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member. It is actually the Minister of Industry who is responsible for the Investment Canada Act.

The decision is going to be made in the best interests of Canada. The proposed acquisition of MDA by ATK is a transaction that must be approached with caution. There is a process in place and we are following that process.

[Competition Act, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-454, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As members are no doubt aware Bill C-454 proposes a wide range of amendments to the Competition Act. Among its many provisions, Bill C-454 proposes to amend the Competition Act to provide restitution for consumers harmed by deceptive marketing practices and would give the Competition Tribunal the ability to issue injunctions to stop the disposal of assets by anyone engaged in deceptive marketing. This is to ensure that there is money available for restitution.

Bill C-454 also proposes to deter companies from abusing their dominant position by giving the tribunal the ability to award administrative monetary penalties, commonly known as AMPs.

The bill proposes to further discourage deceptive marketing practices such as false advertising, by increasing penalties for the violation of these legislative provisions.

Furthermore, Bill C-454 proposes to decriminalize the criminal provisions dealing with price discrimination and predatory pricing. It also proposes a number of consequential amendments to the act and other statutes.

I do not intend to address specific provisions of the bill today. Some of my colleagues will handle that, I am sure.

It is my hope that should Bill C-454 be referred to committee, there would be a thorough and detailed analysis of its provisions.

My primary purpose in rising to speak on this issue is to express my view that any amendments to the Competition Act should not be made lightly.

More particularly, there must be careful consideration as to how the act fits into broader competition policy, specifically the “price gouging” or, to put it another way, price regulation provisions which are provincial, not federal, jurisdictions, as well as the “anti-cartel” provisions which might negatively impact supply management.

This Conservative government understands the necessity of a modern and aggressive competition policy in this global economy. That is why in July 2007 this government took the proactive step and announced the creation of the Competition Policy Review Panel. The panel's core mandate is to review two key pieces of Canadian legislation: the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act.

The panel will review key elements of Canada's competition and investment policies to ensure that they are working effectively, allowing Canada to encourage even greater foreign investment and create more and better jobs for Canadians. The government is looking forward to receiving the report on June 30.

What I would like to do today is set out why I believe that a careful approach to amending the Competition Act is essential.

Competition stimulates innovation and enhances productivity and economic growth. I think my colleagues from all parties recognize the importance of these factors for Canada.

I would hope they would also agree that economic prosperity is closely linked to the intensity of competition that exists in a country's markets.

Canada has achieved substantial economic success through privatization, free trade and deregulation, despite outright disapproval at one time for one of these economic provisions by all opposition parties. Through a reliance on competition and market forces our economy has thrived.

This government takes the issue of our economic competitiveness very seriously. We are determined to create the kind of competitive environment that will make Canadians much more prosperous.

In saying that, we are well aware that prosperity is not created by governments. What might come as a shock to the Bloc is that a government's job is to put in place conditions that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. It is the private sector's role to innovate, take risks and create wealth in a way that benefits our entire society.

The Competition Act is an important part of Canada's competition policy. However, it is only one part of a larger legislative policy and regulatory framework.

This framework has a crucial impact on the competitiveness of Canadian businesses and Canada's economic performance. As I mentioned earlier, that is why this government created the competition panel in order to ensure these policies are modern and internationally competitive.

This government has also acted in other ways to increase innovation, productivity and strengthen our economy.

We are committed to providing effective economic leadership for a prosperous future and to strengthen the Canadian economy through our long term economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, and through our science and technology strategy.

In our recent economic statement, we built on that foundation, introducing important new measures that will help Canadian businesses compete, attract new investment to Canada, increase productivity, and create more and better jobs for Canadians.

The results are already paying off. Just last week Statistics Canada announced that Canada's unemployment rate had decreased to 5.8%, the lowest in 30 years. In Quebec the unemployment rate has decreased from 7.4% to 6.8% and 77,000 new jobs were created since January 2007.

Canada's economy is still creating better paying, full time jobs, while the U.S. economy is on the brink of recession because this Conservative government has put in place all the right economic fundamentals.

Let me now briefly describe the Competition Bureau's role and mandate, and discuss the importance of the Competition Act.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency. It contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting market competition and allowing consumers to make informed choices.

Led by the Commissioner of Competition, the Bureau investigates anti-competitive practices and ensures compliance with the laws under its jurisdiction.

An extremely important piece of this legislative framework is the Competition Act. It touches on virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy. It promotes and maintains competition so Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality services.

The Competition Act is important for both consumers and businesses. The legislation contains several provisions to address false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices. For example, the Competition Bureau investigates misleading advertising and deceptive telemarketing targeting Canadians. It ensures that businesses provide accurate information to consumers when marketing their products and services.

False or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices can have serious economic consequences, especially when directed toward large audiences or when they take place over a long period of time.

The Competition Act also helps businesses. A competitive marketplace promotes the efficiency and flexibility of the economy. It expands opportunities for Canadian enterprises in world markets and ensures that small and medium sized Canadians businesses have equal opportunities.

Competition is the foundation of a strong, modern and knowledge-based economy, spurring innovation, competitiveness and productivity growth. The Competition Act is one of the key pieces of framework legislation that we have in Canada. As such, it should only be amended after there has been very careful consideration of the impact of any amendment. I would particularly note two provisions in Bill C-454 that warrant careful consideration.

First, I would hope that the Bloc members would revisit the proposal to amend the definition of an “anti-competitive act” for the abuse of dominance provisions to include “abusive exploitation” of a dominant position.

In other jurisdictions this language has been taken to mean excessive pricing or price gouging. Determining whether a price is too high requires price monitoring and regulation, which are matters of provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. Such monitoring may best be left to the hon. member's colleagues in Quebec City. This government will not support provisions that will intrude on provincial jurisdiction.

Second, the proposal to amend the anti-cartel provisions might, as it now stands, criminalize a number of common forms of business arrangements such as supply management or joint ventures that can be beneficial in the long term to competition. Again, the government will not support provisions that could criminalize business arrangements as joint ventures or supply management.

In carrying out their deliberations, I hope the Bloc members will do their best to ensure that these substantive changes are addressed. I also hope a wide range of stakeholders representing consumers, small and medium sized businesses and other interested groups will have the opportunity to make their views known.

In closing, I hope my comments today have shown how important competition and the Competition Act are for Canadian consumers and Canadian companies, no matter what their size.

I also hope my hon. colleagues—

[Competition Act, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points and ask a question.

First, I would like to ask the Bloc member if he is aware that the proposed definition of an anti-competitive act for the abusive dominance provisions to include abusive exploitation may encroach upon provincial jurisdiction?

In other jurisdictions this language has been taken to mean excessive pricing or price gouging. Determining whether a price is too high or too low requires price monitoring and regulation, which are matters of provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction.

Second, the proposal to amend the anti-cartel provision might, as it now stands, criminalize a number of common forms of business arrangements, such as supply management or joint ventures, which can be beneficial to competition.

The government will not support provisions that could criminalize business arrangements such as joint ventures or supply management, or intrude on provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to ask if the hon. member would take time to reflect on implications of his proposed legislation on the province's right to monitor and regulate prices in certain markets and the potential negative effects that the anti-cartel provisions may have on supply management before the second hour of debate?

[Canadian Space Robotics, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, early this morning, Canada's most advanced robot was launched into space on-board the space shuttle Endeavour. This robot, called Dextre, along with the Canadarm2 and the mobile base, will play an absolutely vital role in the assembly of the International Space Station.

Canada is a world-renowned leader in space robotics. Our robotic ingenuity and innovation is a source of tremendous pride and a true competitive advantage for Canada. Not so long ago, the thought of a robot with the dexterity of a human hand and the capacity to move around an orbiting station seemed like the stuff of science fiction. Today it is a reality.

Canada's expertise in the design and use of advanced robotics has positioned us as an innovative, space-faring nation. The expertise at the heart of Canada's space robots is delivering results to Canadians and providing solutions to health challenges here on Earth.

[Science and Technology, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let us get to the facts. No approval has been granted. There is a process. The minister will go through this process and will inform Canadians when the process is finished.

[Science and Technology, March 7th, 2008]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Industry who is responsible for Investment Canada. Any sale of MDA will require his approval. No approval has been granted. The Minister of Industry is also responsible for Industry Canada, Technology Partnerships Canada and the Canadian Space Agency.

The House can be assured that Canadian taxpayers' dollars will be protected and the proposed MDA transaction will require the consent of the Minister of Industry.

[Science and Technology, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, from what came out in committee this week, we found that this was another example of Liberal mismanagement. What this issue underlines is the legacy of the Liberals and how it affects Canada today. In 1998 the Liberals sold Canada out by signing over RADARSAT-2 to MDA because the Liberals could not negotiate a deal.

I can tell the member right now that there is a process in place and the minister will follow that process.