Peggy Nash

[Competition Act, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-454, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to congratulate the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for introducing it.

The Competition Act is an important law in Canada. It governs how we do business in a number of ways. The purpose of the Competition Act is to encourage Canadian businesses to compete with one another with the belief that enhanced competition will lead to lower prices and greater product choice for consumers.

The Competition Act contains criminal and civil provisions which apply to most industries and businesses in Canada, both large and small. The Competition Bureau is an independent federal agency which administers the act.

The current act criminalizes some anti-competitive practices. The criminal provisions include: conspiracy to unduly lessen competition; bid rigging; discriminatory and predatory pricing; price maintenance; refusal to supply; and certain misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. The offences are investigated by the Competition Bureau and prosecuted in federal or provincial superior courts.

Attempts have been made before to update the Competition Act. In April 2002 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology released a report entitled “A Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Regime”. It recommended extensive amendments to the Competition Act.

Subsequently Bill C-19 was introduced. It proposed changes to the Competition Act that would have allowed the Competition Tribunal to impose an AMP, an administrative monetary penalty, if it found that a person or a company abused its dominant position. It would have increased the AMP that the Competition Tribunal or court could impose when it found that a person or company had engaged in deceptive marketing. It would have repealed the airline specific provisions that are currently found in the act, which arose out of a particular period in Canada's aviation history and were designed to deal specifically with the airline industry. Bill C-19 proposed to decriminalize predatory and discriminatory pricing provisions.

At the time, there was a great deal of debate about Bill C-19 but it died on the order paper and ultimately did not pass. The Competition Act remained unchanged and that is very unfortunate for Canadians.

Every time the price of gasoline goes up, we hear complaints from our constituents. They see gas prices rise in lockstep usually just before a long weekend. The greatest instance of consumer complaints is probably from people who believe they are being gouged by gas and oil companies.

The government should deal with this in a more effective way. It is clear that the Competition Act, as it currently stands, does not have the teeth to deal with this kind of price gouging. It should be thoroughly investigated so that Canadian consumers are protected.

The issue of deceptive marketing and deceptive advertising is also of great concern to Canadians. We have an aging population. We all know of situations where seniors especially have fallen prey to deceptive advertising. Again, the Competition Act simply does not have the teeth to protect consumers. It is basically a buyer beware situation, and that is simply not good enough.

We should think of a situation where an individual senior, who lives alone in his or her own home, who maybe does not have access to the Internet, and does not read as widely as some other folks, is up against a very powerful and well resourced company that has a very slick marketing campaign. That individual senior could be quite vulnerable. I believe it is our job as parliamentarians to do everything we can to ensure that all consumers are protected.

We all want to foster a healthy economy. We want to make sure that we are creating the conditions for businesses in our economy to do well and for them to compete. We have a very mature economy, but there has to be a balance so that consumers are also protected.

Today the average person is really getting squeezed. Savings are at an all time low and consumer debt is the highest it has been in a generation. People are incredibly price sensitive. There are people who have to commute from the suburbs to the centre of town to go to work every day. Some people in my part of the country and the greater Toronto area commute long distances. With respect to the price of gas, people are phenomenally price sensitive. When the price of oil goes up, consumers really take a hit in the pocketbook. They need us to make sure that they are protected.

There is one concern that I do have with this bill, and it was a concern with Bill C-19 as well, which is that the AMPs, the administrative monetary penalties, would be tax deductible for the corporations that face these penalties. That does not make any sense. It makes no sense that the Government of Canada and the Canadian taxpayers would somehow be responsible for paying these monetary penalties. That is something we should discuss at the committee.

I will be supporting this bill. As a member of the industry committee, I look forward to discussing the bill at the industry committee. The goal is to protect Canadian consumers, to put teeth into the Competition Act, and to protect our seniors from deceptive advertising. I believe all of these provisions would lead to greater competition and a healthier economy.

[Gasoline Prices, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government, Canadian families are getting soaked by big oil in two ways. First, they watch as the government forks over billions in corporate giveaways to the petroleum industry. Second, they get gouged at the pumps because the government leaves gas prices unchecked and uncontrolled.

Working families deserve better. Will the government legislate and fund an independent regulatory agency to monitor the price of oil and gas, so that instead of protecting the interests of big polluters, the government can start protecting the pocketbook of the average Canadian?

[Science and Technology, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the world will see the launch of Dextre, Canada's latest contribution to the international space station. Like Dextre, RADARSTAT-2 is technology designed and built by Canadians in Canada with our tax dollars.

MDA's proposed sale of this technology is quickly proving to be a national security, economic and ethical nightmare.

Will the government live up to previous funding commitments in order to see MDA continue to thrive in Canada? Will the government declare clearly that the future of Canada's space program is not for sale?

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2008]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-203 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-203 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

[The Budget, March 5th, 2008]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the across the board tax cuts contained in the government's budget are taking money out of the programs and services that working and middle class families need to weather the upcoming economic storm.

Ontario alone lost 77,000 manufacturing jobs. What did the budget do? It stole $55 billion from the employment insurance fund to cover the steep costs of the government's corporate giveaways.

Will the finance minister admit that Tom Flanagan is right that reducing the fiscal capacity of government to build for future generations is the goal of the Conservatives' agenda?

[The Budget, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's middle class families are struggling to make ends meet.

The Prime Minister's number one election adviser says the Conservative agenda is to gradually re-engineer the federal government's spending powers. Economists suggest that corporate tax cuts will permanently slash the total fiscal capacity of government and along with it the capacity to fund the programs that people need.

Will the federal finance minister admit that the budget will permanently deplete Canada's ability to fund social programs?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their input in this debate, especially my colleague from Vancouver East, who has been a trailblazer when it comes to immigration policy. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Bloc who have spoken in support. Colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative parties have expressed opposition to this bill and I guess I am little baffled by that.

Of course, there is no one perfect solution to an immigration system. However, as we look around the world and we see insecurity and hardship, we appreciate what we have built here in Canada. We know that there are others who want to come to Canada. We know there are many newcomers who come here as refugees who are separated against their will. However, we know that one of the best predictors of newcomer success in settlement is the support of family members, and that is why family reunification is so important. The enormous advantage newcomers have when they can count on the economic, social and psychological support of family members is readily apparent. We need to assist families to reunite as quickly as possible.

The sponsorship requirements on families are enormous. To take responsibility for another person for 10 years is a huge commitment and responsibility. Ten years is a long time. Things can change. But the sponsor is still on the hook, which is quite a significant responsibility. People do not take sponsorship lightly, as some in the Conservative and Liberal parties suggest. There is not going to be an opening of the floodgates here because of the very onerous requirements of the sponsorship responsibilities.

Members of the government expressed concern that the bill would open the floodgates and increase the backlog, but clearly, the unacceptable delays in the immigration system today are caused by inadequate resources. Families did not create this backlog. It is clearly the factor of a lack of resources by this government and the previous government. Certainly there would be some additional applicants under this bill, which is why I am proposing it, but let us look at the facts.

As Canada positions itself early on in the 21st century, we face some steep challenges. We have an aging population. There is a demographic shift in the workplace as baby boomers retire, which means a greater burden on our social programs, especially medicare. New growth in Canada's future workforce will come from immigration. We will be competing with countries around the world for the best and brightest newcomers. One factor newcomers look at is the ability to be joined by their family members, their closest relatives, in the new country of their choice. Others come to Canada as a safe haven. They come as refugees and they are desperate to have their family members join them here.

Why would we place additional barriers in front of newcomers? There are other options.

I sit on the industry committee and I hear corporate executives come to the industry committee calling for a rapid expansion of the temporary workers program, but I do not think that is the way to go. People who come here temporarily are often unskilled, are paid very low wages, may not speak either official language and are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. We have seen this already with some high-profile problems across our country.

The better way to address a labour shortage is to increase the acceptance of working age adults as immigrants so that they start off when they come to Canada with full rights and full participation in all aspects of Canadian society. My family reunification bill would do just that.

Let us also recognize that Canada falls far behind many other countries in looking after some of our most vulnerable members. When family members come here and reunite with newcomer families, they can provide child care, elder care and care for people with disabilities. That is how they help family members settle. They will save Canada resources in doing so.

We will have the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not we support the idea of family reunification. We do not have to agree on all the details. However, if we support the goal, let us vote in favour of this bill, take it to committee and there we can answer questions and make any amendments that need to be made.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their support on this important initiative. And for those members who have spoken against it, I urge them to reconsider, support newcomers and support this bill for family reunification.

[Arts and Culture, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today the front page of the Globe and Mail confirms what Canadians saw quite clearly in this week's budget; that the Conservative government does not care about our cultural sector and it is actively undermining our artists and their capacity to create.

The headline article includes the boasting of evangelical lobbyists who successfully convinced Conservative ministers and MPs to root out artistic works with which they disagree. Canadian heritage officials confirmed yesterday that they would be expanding the criteria used for denying tax credits to artists. What they are doing is called censorship. They are trying to silence voices that diverge from their political agenda.

We can stop this attack on our artists. Unfortunately, as the Toronto Star says today, the “official opposition has repeatedly turned itself into a Conservative doormat”.

It is time to stand up for Canada's artists and Canadian culture against ideological attacks by the government.

[Income Tax Act, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the state of post-secondary education in this country is really deplorable.

If we look at the need for our society to adapt to a rapidly changing world, the need to help shape a 21st century economy, and the need for young people to get additional skills, training and development so they can succeed in life and fully contribute to our society and our economy, we see a post-secondary education system that governments are failing.

We are finding students who are saddled with more and more debt. There are young people starting out in life mortgaged to the hilt and paying off their education.

Other countries have chosen a different path. They have chosen the path of encouraging their young people to get as much education as possible and to gain as many skills as possible. They understand that when the potential of young people is unleashed and they are given help to prepare in the best way possible for the future by being given as much education as possible, a huge potential is created for society. That country is then investing in the future of society and the future of the economy.

Many European countries, and Ireland is one example, have decided that this is a part of their strategy for the future in terms of revitalizing their economy. It is to increase the percentage of young people who can get access to post-secondary education.

We know that student access to post-secondary education is really dependent on the affordability. For many working and middle class families, the prospect of starting out life with a massive debt is simply untenable.

Recently at the industry committee I heard from the head of the Canadian Dental Association, who described how dental students are facing tuition fees of $50,000 a year. Dentists are starting out in their careers with an absolutely massive debt at a time when they need to make investments in equipment and machinery. He also said that Canada is graduating fewer dentists today than we were 30 years ago.

That is just one example of the narrowness of our focus on post-secondary education. Simply transferring money to universities is not good enough. What we need to do is actually bring down tuition fees so that post-secondary education is affordable to as many students as possible. We know that with tuition fees as high as they are, and rising, fewer middle class students, especially working class students, are going to get access to post-secondary education.

The focus on RESPs as a strategy for enhancing affordability is really problematic because it advantages disproportionately the wealthiest members in our society, who will be able to have full access to the RESP system, especially if it is a taxable credit. In the first year, it will take about a half a billion dollars. This will of course escalate and increasingly skew the ability of those who are the wealthiest to get access to these kinds of savings.

We in the NDP believes that the best way to use these tax dollars is not to give them back to those who are the wealthiest and the most able to invest in their children's education as it is, but to reduce the cost of tuition fees so that there is broad access for all students. We believe that the grant portion ought to be far more broadly available so that we are not sinking students deeper into debt.

Having said that, I certainly know that many families across the country will be saying that they have gone beyond frustration with governments when it comes to post-secondary education. Governments have failed students by not making education affordable. Increasingly, rather than seeing a collective solution whereby governments invest in post-secondary education and make it affordable for all students, parents are thinking that this is an individual responsibility and that they have to save in accounts for their children, starting off when they are born, to be able to afford to send them on to university.

Again, I do want to say that for parents who are facing job loss or any kind of major economic challenges in life, it is extremely difficult for them to save this kind of money for their children's education. However, for parents who do manage to save for their children's education, those parents certainly would be in support of a tax credit as is proposed here.

It is a difficult issue for Canadians to grapple with. Certainly our party preference is that we create an education system that is affordable for everyone and that we invest in a massive way in post-secondary education so our youth are equipped to deal with a rapidly changing and globally competitive economy and are trained with the best skills possible.

However, I do understand the needs of families who are so strapped but do manage to put a bit of money away. They would appreciate a tax credit for that. I think it is a shame that parents are put in this situation whereby the government abandons the most efficient, effective way of the greatest number of students being able to attend university, including those who have the marks to succeed but do not come from a family wealthy enough to save for their education. I think it is a shame that we pit those families against the families who have the money to be able to save for their children's education.

If we are to look to the future and the need for students across this country to get an education, I would like to think that they are looking at a future in which our government does everything possible to encourage students to go to university and makes tuition fees as affordable as possible so young people do not say that university is simply not an option for them.

As for middle class families who have the money and the resources to put funds away year after year, they are the folks who will be able to benefit from all kinds of different tax shelters and all different kinds of savings accounts, so of course they would rather have the tax credit for the RESP. I am sure there are families in my riding who will say they have been saving since their children were born, they have put money away and it would certainly benefit them to get the tax credit for it. I appreciate their concern. I appreciate their desire to have a tax shelter.

However, I say again that it is a poor way to design an overall education policy. I believe that overall it fails the students of Canada. I believe it fails what we could be for the future. It is a very different path from that of so many other successful economies around the world. I think we could take a page from the books of a number of other countries. Ireland stands out, as I have said before. It really is too bad that the previous government and the current government have not seen fit to make post-secondary education the priority that it needs to be.

My time is almost up. I just want to say that I was at the University of Ottawa last night speaking to a number of students and the number one issue students raised with me was the issue of student debt. I believe it urgently needs to be addressed by this government. It is not addressed in the budget that has been put before this House. I believe it is long overdue that collectively as members of Parliament we decide to take on this issue and finally make some progress.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's critique of the budget. I hear his colleagues describe the federal government as a very frightening far right-wing government. They rail against the policies and budgets of the government in their ridings. However, when they come to Ottawa, they either vote with the government, or they stay in their seats. Which is the real opposition? What they say in their ridings when they talk to constituents, or what they do in Ottawa?

We know there is nothing in the budget for the very poorest people in our society, nothing for homelessness, nothing for affordable housing, nothing for seniors. It completely abandons the manufacturing sector.

Is it a far right-wing government that Liberals will do everything to fight against, which is what they say in the riding, or is it the vote in favour or sitting on their hands when they are in Ottawa? Which is it?