[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1105 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.
In conformity with Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a Chairman of this committee. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I nominate David Walker as chair.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Who is that, Morris?
Mr. Bodnar: The honourable gentleman to my left.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Bodnar that Mr. David Walker be duly elected Chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of this committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Walker the duly elected Chairman of this committee.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for the vote of confidence. It's a pleasant surprise.
Today our task is to get the committee in motion and to go through a number of motions that are normally associated with the striking of a committee, and perhaps we can have a general discussion afterwards if there is anything that you would like to bring to my attention. Following that, the steering committee will meet next week. Mr. Schmidt, from the Reform Party, will be a member of that. He is not here this week. Before the steering committee works and strikes the agenda and gets the committee going, I would like to wait until he returns.
Our second task today is the election of two Vice-Chairmen.
Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): I move that Werner Schmidt be Vice-Chairman of the committee.
The Chairman: There's a motion on the floor that Mr. Schmidt be Vice-Chair of the committee. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): I would like to have a recorded vote, please.
The Chairman: Usually we have discussion before we ask for a recorded vote. Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): Do we present all nominations for Vice-Chairman now or one by one?
[English]
The Chairman: I was going to deal with their motion first, and then deal with it, and then go back to -
Mr. Brien: The other motion.
Mr. Fontana (London East): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do you intend to deal with each nominee separately, or do you want all the nominees -
The Chairman: I would like to deal with this motion first, and then proceed.
Mr. Benoit: I would like to have a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Yes, it will be recorded. I'll ask the clerk to record this vote.
Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 3
The Chairman: Is there another motion?
Mr. Lastewka (St. Catharines): Was Mr. Schmidt not replaced?
The Chairman: Yes. Today?
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Schmidt has not been replaced.
The Chairman: No, he's not being replaced today.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): I move that Tony Valeri be elected Vice-Chairman of the committee.
Mr. Benoit: I would like to have a recorded vote, please. Sorry, not on this one.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, I just want to clarify, because there's a question from another committee member. You are replacing Mr. Schmidt today, are you not?
Mr. Benoit: Or Mr. Harper. Mr. Schmidt.
The Chairman: Mr. Schmidt. He's being replaced.
The Clerk: By Mr. Harper?
The Chairman: No. He's being replaced by Mr. Benoit. Mr. Schmidt is being replaced on the quorum by Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Lastewka: So Mr. Harper is not here and there is no replacement.
The Chairman: Yes, that's right.
.1110
We have a motion on the floor that Tony Valeri be appointed Vice-Chair of this committee. We will have a recorded vote.
Mr. Bodnar: I thought the request was not for a recorded vote.
The Chairman: No, it was for a recorded vote.
Mr. Mayfield: I called for a recorded vote.
Motion agreed to: yeas 13; nays 0
The Chairman: The motion is agreed to unanimously. Is there another motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: I move that Mr. Nic Leblanc, member for Longueuil, be elected Vice-Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: I would like a recorded vote.
Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 2
The Chairman: Our next motion concerns
[Translation]
the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. It is moved by Mr. Bodnar that the Chairman, the two Vice-Chairmen and two other members appointed by the Chairman after the usual consultation with the whips of the different parties constitute the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Do you have any questions?
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: We'll consult the whips, but my understanding is that Mr. Schmidt has indicated an interest in this, and Mr. Leblanc, you'll be a member, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Valeri, and myself.
[Translation]
Since Mr. Schmidt is absent this week, we will have our meeting next week.
[English]
The next one is hearing evidence and printing, the same when a quorum is not present. It's moved by Mr. Bodnar that the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and authorize the printing of evidence when a quorum is not present provided at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.
Since a lot of our work - and we'll discuss this - will probably be dealing with witnesses, it's important that we be able to proceed as quickly as possible with witnesses here. I would like the informal rule, if it's okay with the opposition parties, that we wait
[Translation]
15 minutes for a member of the Opposition. After that we will begin.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, in the finance committee yesterday they reduced that time to five minutes, because it's a member of the opposition, not necessarily a member of the official opposition. It really will make it such that we shouldn't have hold-ups.
The Chairman: I don't want to appear to be too hasty. If the members of the opposition are more comfortable with ten minutes I'm fine with that too. I just would like to leave a polite time but not to leave the witnesses waiting too long. It's up to you. If you feel comfortable with ten minutes, I'd be more than happy to say ten. Ten is realistic.
Mr. Benoit: That would be acceptable.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do you agree on 10 minutes? Very good.
[English]
The next motion concerns printing of copies of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence. It is moved by Mr. Murray that the committee print its Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence as established by the Board of Internal Economy.
.1115
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: On time allocation, it is moved by Mr. Murray that during the questioning of witnesses during any meeting of this committee ten minutes be allocated for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner.
Mr. Benoit: What order will you use in dealing with questioners from the various parties?
The Chairman: Normally, I'll start with the official opposition and then go to you and then to a government member, and go around like that.
Mr. Lastewka: Then you go back and forth?
The Chairman: We can go back and forth afterwards. We're dealing with witnesses from outside. In dealing with witnesses related to legislation, I'll be formal. When we're dealing with witnesses, I'd like us all to give each other an opportunity to pursue witnesses in whom we're interested, because sometimes it's very uneven. I like to leave it that way.
When we're dealing with legislation, I think there's a formality attached to everyone's different position on it that we have to respect.
If you don't mind, when we deal with witnesses I'd like to go back and forth and have people indicate. That means that when you're not really interested, don't ask a question.
Mr. Ianno (Trinity - Spadina): You will go back and forth. After the initial ten-minute round, you're going to go opposition, government, opposition, government - right? Not in this way.
The Chairman: In fact, that's what will happen, yes, because there are two members from this side. Then we'll come back -
Mr. Ianno: So it will be one and one, one and one - right?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Ianno: I just wanted to make sure.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Normally, it's the Official Opposition followed by the third party and then we go back to 10 minutes for each party.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Leblanc: It isn't 10 minutes for the two Opposition parties and 10 minutes for the governing party.
The Chairman: What do you normally prefer?
Mr. Leblanc: Usually the first round is 10 minutes for each of the parties and then five minutes for each party.
The Chairman: That's for the first round. Then you start another round.
[English]
In other words, there are two rounds, because normally you will have two members. We would go around twice in that way and then go back and forth after that?
Mr. Leblanc: First round.
The Chairman: The first round, oui.
Mr. Leblanc: On the first round there are ten minutes for each party. After that, in the other rounds, it is five minutes for each party.
A voice: That's what we did.
Mr. Bodnar: I know that what has happened in other committees doesn't necessarily happen here. If we go Bloc ten minutes, Reform ten minutes, Liberals ten minutes, we will then go Bloc five minutes, Liberals five minutes, Reform five minutes, Liberals five minutes - back to the Bloc, Liberals, Reform, Liberals.
Mr. Ianno: If they want to do five, five, and then ten, that's fine, as long as the time is the same.
Mr. Lastewka: After the first round.
Mr. Leblanc: So there will be ten minutes for each party and after that we'll go back to -
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I believe that if you look at the record you'll find that there were two rounds of ten minutes and then back and forth for five minutes each.
The Chairman: No, no. That gets us into one hour too fast. Then you'll have no chance and people will be totally frustrated.
Mr. Ianno: We can look at it, but my recollection is not what you're saying.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ten minutes each time at every meeting would be too long.
[English]
Mr. Solomon (Regina - Lumsden): I'm John Solomon, the New Democratic Party whip. I'm observing what's going on here and I'm just wanting to put a little pitch in for associate members of the committee. New Democrats are associate members of the committee and from time to time there will be issues and matters before the committee on which we'll want to ask questions. I ask that you consider that request as well, please.
The Chairman: Absolutely, and when you're here we'll talk among ourselves about how to structure it and how to do it. You'll be given time.
I respect your coming and participating.
Mr. Solomon: I appreciate that. Thank you.
The Chairman: If you're going to be involved in a particular issue, let me know ahead of time so I can talk to people and make sure that everybody's okay with how we set it up.
Mr. Solomon: Thank you.
.1120
The Chairman: The seventh is distribution of papers. It's moved by Mr. Bodnar that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public in the official language received, with translation to follow.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Eighth is transcripts of in camera meetings. It's moved by Mr. Murray that one transcript of all in camera meetings be produced and kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation and that all those transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Ninth is on the Library of Parliament. It's moved by Mr. Murray that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair. I would just have that agreed and then say the research needs will be something the steering committee will discuss from time to time.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Tenth, it's moved by Mr. Murray that at the discretion of the Chairman reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who have appeared before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any one organization.
Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): It seems to me we have a history of being pretty careful with our money here. Any time we start on a project that is going to require the attendance of witnesses, we have looked at the topic and looked at a variety of things before deciding exactly how the budget is going to be expended. I hope that tradition will carry on, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Absolutely. None of this will be done without the steering committee knowing full well and being in agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: The French version says: "at least two (2) representatives". I suppose that what is meant is "not more than two". I gather that the English text is the correct one.
The Chairman: It's the maximum.
Mr. Leblanc: So it should be "not more" rather than "at least".
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: As I said to you a moment ago, the steering committee will meet next week. The minister responsible for science and technology released a report yesterday. If you haven't received a copy of it in your office already, would you please see the parliamentary secretary to make sure you have a copy of it. My suggestion is that we ask officials from that department to come to us the week before the break to get an overview of it and to give opposition members a chance to question what the strategy of the government is on this issue.
Then we have two pieces of legislation. We have the standards council legislation and the bankruptcy legislation, which have been presented in the House for first reading but have not yet reached second reading. I don't anticipate having that legislation before the committee until late April at the earliest.
Several other issues have been raised at various times by various committee members. There's the issue of defence conversion in the aerospace industry. There's the issue of regional agencies. There are main estimates for all these agencies. I would like to get agreement at the steering committee to approach the ministers responsible for their estimates and to get a schedule as quickly as we can. I think we should look at the issue of defence conversion in the context of the aerospace industry and the new programs that are being announced, and we'll make a decision about how to proceed on that.
Mr. Mayfield has written to me with some other issues, including information highway, small business, and the Canadian Tourism Commission, and we'll take these into account at the steering committee, as to how to proceed.
Also, there's the issue of the banks. The regular reporting of the banks is due, I believe, in April. We'll have to have a meeting with the banks at some time.
It's a very interesting agenda. I hope you all have fun working together.
I'm open to suggestions for other topics. I don't see our having the legislation in front of us at first, so we have perhaps.... There's a two-week break in the middle. It may be six to eight weeks before legislation, so we might as well use it for study and for bringing in witnesses who are of interest to the committee. If we need to set up a subcommittee, I'm willing to hear representations from the various members on what subcommittees they might want to deal with.
Mr. Benoit: It's been indicated that Bill C-88 is on the top of the list for legislation to be brought back to this Parliament.
.1125
The Chairman: I'm sorry, which one is that?
Mr. Benoit: Bill C-88, on interprovincial trade. I would like interprovincial trade to be an issue this committee spends some serious time on.
The Chairman: My understanding was that it had gone through committee. Am I wrong? I think the House bill introduced last week indicated that bills continued at the stage where they left off. My understanding is that interprovincial trade went through this committee and therefore it's back in the House.
Mr. Bodnar: It's back to third reading in the House.
Mr. Benoit: But in the time we have before any legislation does come to the committee, interprovincial trade would be an issue this committee should deal with. It's too important to ignore.
The Chairman: But my point is that it has gone through the committee.
Mr. Benoit: That's all the discussion the committee will have on interprovincial trade?
The Chairman: If there's a specific focus Mr. Schmidt wants to bring to us on the steering committee, let me see it more precisely and we'll line it up according to the others.
Mr. Solomon, did you want to...?
Mr. Solomon: I would have provided something in writing, but I wasn't sure whether you'd be Chair or not. I would do that subsequently to this meeting and before the steering committee.
I have two issues I would like the committee to consider undertaking a review of in the next little while. One relates to a development in Saskatchewan recently. A company by the name of Hollinger Inc., which is a large newspaper business owned by Conrad Black, has purchased all the daily newspapers in the province - which were profitable, by the way - and it immediately laid off 25% of the employees to make itself more profitable; that was its argument. That having been said, it basically owns all the dailies.
The second development, which happened four or five days later, was that it went into the weekly newspaper area. In a community called Yorkton it does have a newspaper operating, and thirteen communities around Yorkton that have weekly newspapers were threatened to be put out of business by Hollinger Inc. if they were to compete with the Yorkton enterprise. I feel this is a predatory business practice, or at least we should be looking at the concentration of ownership in the media, in particular in Saskatchewan and I think in Canada as a whole.
So I'll put some arguments on paper and get them to your steering committee. I think as an industry committee we should be looking at something to make sure there are some corporate responsibilities in this industry and they have responsibilities to our country and the communities in which they operate.
The Chairman: That would be under the competition bureau - is that what you're thinking?
Mr. Solomon: It could be under the competition bureau or it could be an issue the committee undertakes to review. In my view it's not exclusive.
I have a second issue, but if Mr. Bodnar wants to respond....
Mr. Bodnar: On that point, I can indicate to Mr. Solomon again that I think the competition bureau should be advised of this.
If your caucus has not done it.... I can indicate to you as well, Mr. Solomon, that the Saskatchewan Liberal caucus has already agreed and has forwarded information to the minister, requesting that the competition bureau look into this matter in light of what Hollinger has done in Yorkton.
The Chairman: I don't want to be too bureaucratic, but if you put it down in writing we can then approach the competition bureau to send witnesses here to explain why it's acting or not acting.
Mr. Solomon: I appreciate that, Mr. Bodnar. Thank you. We from our caucus have notified the minister on two occasions since this development.
The second issue is one of national importance. It relates to the pricing of gasoline in particular and energy pricing in general. In Canada we've seen basically four companies set the price of gasoline in this country. Some would refer to that as an oligopoly, but it's the lack of competition in gas pricing that I'd like to have the committee investigate. The background on that is we've seen Imperial Oil and Shell, to name two, have had a 63% and 43% increase in profits respectively, and they're laying off 451 employees and 471 employees respectively even though they're profitable.
The price of oil has remained pretty much consistent over the last four or five years and in fact has declined since 1990. Everything points to making the companies profitable and they seem to be doing quite well. There is no justification for very significant price differentials when you factor out the various provincial tax regimes.
.1130
For example, in Toronto and Ottawa the prices are 52.9¢ or 53.9¢ a litre right now. In Saskatchewan they're 58.9¢. When you factor out the provincial tax differential it shouldn't be 5¢ or 6¢ or 7¢, it should be 1¢ or 2¢ a litre.
On top of that, Saskatchewan is a producing province. We refine it. We process it. We ship it to Ontario, and the transportation costs, theoretically, are absorbed by Ontarians and other parts of the country.
There's a real lack of justification for price differentials at this point; let's put it that way. There are even regions within Ontario and Quebec that differ from region to region without significant justification in difference in marketing costs or difference in processing and refining and so on.
I've had a lot of calls on this. In the last eighteen months literally thousands of individuals have either written to me or contacted me about this. I've been raising it in other forums. So I'd like the committee to consider this. I've put some documentation forward for the steering committee to review and peruse, but I think this is an issue our committee might want to look into as well.
The Chairman: I will take it under advisement. I want to check back with the researchers, because I think this issue has been raised in committee in the House of Commons before and I want to make sure we're not just repeating work that's been done. I think there have been some studies, but I'd be more than happy to update it and see what happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Before prorogation, the Official Opposition had tabled a motion for the creation of a special subcommittee to examine the reconversion of the military industry to civilian purposes.
I gather that the full committee might be interested in this question. As the sponsor of the motion, I would like you to consider the matter. You mentioned that we might be inviting senior officials from the department for a briefing session on the new science and technology policy.
On this particular point do you think that we will be hearing witnesses and that the committee will be able to do an in depth study? Our committee is responsible for industry, science and technology and so far technology has been somewhat neglected.
The member for Ottawa-Vanier shared my concern but he is absent now. I think that the Standing Committee on Industry should attach a certain importance to technology.
The Chairman: As far as the striking of another subcommittee goes, I prefer to wait for the meeting of our steering committee. We'll then be able to decide what subcommittees we require. There are two or three topics that have some claim in our attention and I prefer to be aware of the opinion of other members before discussing the matter.
[English]
Mr. Lastewka.
Mr. Lastewka: My question was going to be whether we had discussed in the industry committee the banks and their approach to being involved in leasing. Has that been a topic here? If not, I'd ask that it be a topic for the committee.
The Chairman: Obviously I'm at the disposal of the committee, but in the first week of April the government will have its white paper on the banking industry. I'd like to have that decided through the committee chairs organizing in which direction to put different matters, because it may be that because it's a white paper of the Department of Finance it will end up in the finance committee. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying to you it's not likely we'll have two or three committees studying the same issue.
Mr. Lastewka: My only concern is that small business is involved with it and this committee has been involved with reviewing small business and we should understand the effect.
The Chairman: I've already spoken to Mr. Peterson, who I think is going to be the chair of the finance committee, saying we should coordinate exactly what happens when that white paper comes out and when the hearings begin and so forth. I just don't want witnesses to have to come up and deal with two committees. They should know clearly in the public's mind who's dealing with this review, because it's a very important issue at the constituency level.
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Chairman, I'd like for us and the steering committee to consider a subcommittee of financial institutions as they relate to small business and matters that pertain to that. I'd like it to be considered by the steering committee as one of the subcommittees we do consider, taking into account that the finance committee will look at it from an overall perspective and not as it relates to many of the small businesses across this country.
.1135
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any other comments? Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. Bodnar: Perhaps Mr. Solomon can clarify one point. He's indicated his interest in gasoline pricing by different oil companies. I realize his concern is about predatory pricing. I am wondering if he would like to extend that to include predatory pricing by other monopolistic agencies - whether it be municipal governments or provincial governments who control energy and the pricing scheme to consumers - or is it simply to be restricted to -
Mr. Solomon: You've got the two confused, Mr. Bodnar. I was referring to predatory pricing in the newspaper industry and a review of energy pricing policy of the oil industry.
If the committee wishes to enlarge the scope from just gasoline and motor vehicle products to include all energy, I think that would be appropriate. Atlantic Canada in particular has a home heating oil problem. Many homes in Atlantic Canada are heated with fuel oil, as opposed to natural gas. There are only one or two companies that provide the service. I think expanding it would be most helpful, into as many areas as possible. If the committee has limited time, they may want to limit the focus, but certainly I'd be amenable to that.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Leblanc.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: I know that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage did a fairly thorough study on the information highway, regulations, radio and television as well as telephony and satellite communications.
We know that there is some problem relating to investment at the present time because businesses are not aware of what the future regulations will be. I'd like to know whether our committee intends to give urgent consideration to the measures required for businesses wishing to invest in high-tech communications but with no clear idea of what the future direction of regulations will be.
I think that the committee should deal with the matter with some dispatch to ensure that Canadian businesses in this field are made aware of what direction the government intends to take with respect to regulations.
I believe there's some urgency. We've had several meetings with telephone and cable companies among others, and they're having serious problems with the regulations. Their investments in research are on hold and this means that our businesses are being overtaken by American and Japanese concerns. So there is some urgency and I think the committee should quickly turn its attention to this matter.
The Chairman: Would you include it under the general heading of matters relating to science and technology or under CRTC regulations?
Mr. Leblanc: It deals specifically with the CRTC regulations.
The Chairman: Do you think we will have a good opportunity to discuss the matter during the Minister's appearance on estimates?
Mr. Leblanc: I don't know what the best time would be but I think that the committee should first study the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. There are some decisions affecting the CRTC that must be taken quite quickly. We'll have to do a quick analysis. I know that officials are working on it but they may have revised certain things or heard some witnesses.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary will perhaps discuss the matter with the Minister and can report to us.
[English]
We'll pursue this, because it's a good topic.
.1140
Thank you very much. It's a good beginning. I look forward to working with everybody. If there are any problems, don't be shy about coming up to see me about them and we'll work together well.
The committee is adjourned to the call of the chair.