36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 119
CONTENTS
Thursday, September 21, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Bill C-3
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Bill C-244
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| ALL-NUMERIC DATES ACT
|
| Bill C-495. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1005
| PETITIONS
|
| Highways
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Homelessness
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Fuel Taxes
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion
|
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1030
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1035
1040
| Amendment
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1045
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1050
1055
1100
1105
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1110
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1115
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1120
1125
1130
1135
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1140
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1145
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1150
1155
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1200
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1205
1210
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1215
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1235
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1255
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Mr. John Herron |
1320
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1325
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1330
1335
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1340
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1345
1350
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| BILL C-3
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| HIV/AIDS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1400
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| NICOLAS GILL
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| MARIE-LOUISE GAGNON
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1405
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| NICOLAS GILL
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY COURT
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| CFB SHILO
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1410
| EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1430
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| LA FRANCOPHONIE GAMES
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1450
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CULTURAL POLICY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1455
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Fuel Tax
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1525
1530
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1535
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1540
1545
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1550
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1555
1600
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1605
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. David Chatters |
1610
1615
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1620
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1625
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1630
1635
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1640
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1645
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1650
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1655
1700
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1705
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Fuel Taxes
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1710
1715
| Division on amendment deferred.
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-318. Second reading
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1720
1725
1730
1735
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1740
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1745
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1750
1755
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1800
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1805
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1820
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
|
| Bill C-318. Second Reading
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1825
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 119
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 21, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-3
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 23,
1999, your committee has considered Bill C-3, an act in respect
of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal
other acts, and your committee has agreed to report it without
amendments.
BILL C-244
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 21, your
committee has begun consideration of Bill C-244, an act to
provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of
persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans,
and to amend the criminal code.
Because of the workload generated by other matters pending
before the committee, it has not yet been able to complete its
study of Bill C-244. Therefore, in accordance with Standing
Order 97(1), the committee requests an extension of 30 sitting
days to allow it to complete its consideration of Bill C-244.
* * *
ALL-NUMERIC DATES ACT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-495, an act to establish a national standard for
the representation of dates in all-numeric form.
He said: This is a simple, sensible bill to avoid confusion of
dates in the computer age. Its purpose is to promote the use of
a national standard for all numeric dates. It proposes the use
of the date form developed by the International Organization for
Standardization; that is to say year, month, day, going from the
general to the specific, so that today the date is 2000 09 21.
1005
A standard approach to dates will avoid the confusion that
commonly arises today from the use of different conventions,
especially in computer-generated material.
I thank Duncan Bath of Peterborough and others who have worked
on this important matter for many years. I urge all members of
the House to support this progressive legislation. I urge
government departments to take note of it immediately.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There is a private member's bill already on the order paper in my
name in exactly this form. It would probably be out of order to
accept another one.
The Speaker: I will respond directly to the member from
Elk Island. We have had precedents where we have had two and
three bills on the same topic, the same effect virtually. If one
were to be adopted then the other two would be withdrawn at that
time. I rule that it is in order to have these two bills on the
order paper.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to have the
opportunity to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36
on behalf of, they say, 700,000 British Columbians. This is a
sample of the 700,000 who point out that insufficient funding for
the national highway system has resulted in hundreds of lives
lost and thousands more injuries because of structural
deficiencies in the highway system. They point out a whole
number of reasons why national highway system funding as a
priority would be a good idea for Canada.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners
point out a number of concerns with the Criminal Code of Canada.
They are asking the Government of Canada to amend the code to
prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released
from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in very
exceptional circumstances.
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from people in the Peterborough area
concerned with homelessness. They point out that homelessness
includes those who are visible on the streets or staying in
shelters, those living in overcrowded, illegal, temporary or
transient accommodation and those in imminent risk of losing
their housing.
They point out that the Government of Canada has the ability and
responsibility to affirm its national role in ensuring that all
Canadians have access to decent housing.
These petitioners call upon parliament to make affordable
housing and an end to homelessness an immediate priority by
declaring that safe, affordable housing shall be a fundamental
human right. This is a very appropriate petition this week as
the ministers of housing across Canada will be meeting on this
very topic.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from many citizens in Peterborough and the
greater region who are concerned about the development of the
bio-artificial kidney as an alternative to dialysis and kidney
transplantation for those suffering from terminal kidney disease.
These petitioners call upon parliament to work and support the
bio-artificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need
for both dialysis and transplantation. This petition was
developed by Ken Sharp of Peterborough.
* * *
1010
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib: Mr. Speaker, I ask that
all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
FISHERIES
The Speaker: I have received notice of an application for an
emergency debate from the hon. member for South Shore. I will
hear a very succinct analysis of what he proposes for an
emergency debate.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
fisheries critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I am
proposing this motion for an emergency debate, seconded by the
hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
Tensions are heightening across the country as transportation is
threatened and the potential for civil unrest is extremely real.
I have a report this morning that as many as 850 boats in Nova
Scotia are prepared to steam to Burnt Church, New Brunswick, and
there is more talk of native roadblocks going up across the
country.
A search for a solution appears to have collapsed. The Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans appears to be in conflict with the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The
Government of Canada is not speaking with one voice on this issue
and the House needs to hear from the government.
Again, there is a real danger of civil unrest if the people
affected do not see that there is a possibility for future
discussions. A House debate would offer another opportunity for
dialogue and movement on this issue.
The House and the Speaker should give the government another
opportunity to talk to the communities affected by ordering a
special debate. We have no other chance to raise this issue and
a full airing must be presented to the House to avoid
confrontation.
We, the Parliament of Canada, must be the voice to raise this
issue and, through our debate, get people talking again. If we
fail in this duty, it is my great fear that the people around
Miramichi Bay, representing both natives and non-natives, will
see this as an abdication of our duty and take matters into their
own hands.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Of course the hon. member for South
Shore raises a very important matter, not only for his area but
for other areas of the country. He was good enough to give me
notice as early as last night at 10.30 p.m.
I have had my officials monitor the matter throughout the night
and early this morning and it is my opinion at this time that
this request does not meet the criteria for an emergency debate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FUEL TAXES
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and
home and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck
drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the
Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the
government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the
increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary deficit
elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998
recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on gasoline
pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning
with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
I am pleased to rise today to kick off this important debate in
my new role as official opposition transportation critic.
1015
I look forward to working with Canadians to address their needs
in this important sector. In my brief tenure I have already met
with several groups and individuals whose businesses and
livelihoods are either hampered or threatened by the government's
policies.
Today I will focus my remarks on the financial and
transportation priorities of the Liberal government, the effect
of these priorities on Canadians, the effect of these priorities
on Canada's competitiveness and, as always, what the Canadian
Alliance would do to rectify the situation.
The Canadian taxpayer is being taken advantage of. Canadians on
the whole are law-abiding people who accept the fact that taxes
must be paid to sustain a quality of life and to support the less
fortunate. However the amount of taxes paid and the expenditure
of tax dollars is where I would like to focus my remarks.
Yesterday the finance minister announced that the federal
surplus for fiscal year 1999-2000 was $12 billion. That means
that the federal government overcollected $12,000 million from
Canadians, or approximately $400 from every man, woman and child
in Canada.
We just spent the summer in our ridings. Many of us like our
constituents took vacations with our families. For the average
Canadian it is a struggle to save up to take a break from work
and spend some quality time together. This year many Canadians
had to cut back on their plans to compensate for the high cost of
gasoline. I am fully aware that gasoline is a commodity and is
subject to variances in the marketplace. We cannot control
market prices, but we can control the level of taxation.
According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the federal
government collected over $4.7 billion in gas taxes in fiscal
1998-99 and returned a paltry 4.1%, or approximately $194 million
back to provincial transfers for road and highway development. On
average, Canadian motorists are paying between 36% and 45% in
taxes with each fill up at the pumps depending on the province.
For the current fiscal year 2000-01 the federal and provincial
governments will collect over $13 billion in gas taxes from
Canadians.
In 1995 the finance minister increased the fuel excise tax by
1.5 cents a litre to help eliminate the deficit. The deficit is
gone. Canadians are experiencing record high gas prices and the
federal government is experiencing record high surpluses. One
would think it is time the finance minister relaxed his
stranglehold on Canadian wallets and reversed the tax hike. The
Liberals have made choices and set priorities, namely raising
taxes to reduce the deficit and spending only on those projects
that will garner political rewards.
How do these policies affect Canadian families? This winter
many will have to scramble to decide whether to cut from their
food budget or kids clothing budget to pay for the increase in
heating fuel and gasoline. What we are calling for today is a
first step, a small step, in liberating Canadians from
overtaxation. We are looking for a little fairness.
World commodity markets have caused the price of petroleum
products to skyrocket while the government is collecting record
surpluses. Removing the GST and a reduction of 1.5 cents per
litre is the least the government can do. It would be the most
practical social spending endeavour of its mandate. In fact the
Liberal caucus endorsed it in its own report.
With an election looming the only reason members of the cabinet
are not interested in pursuing this responsible action is that
the reward is not high enough. It is not enough to loosen the
burden on cash strapped households and small businesses. It is
not good enough to keep truckers on the roads and farmers in the
fields. They want a big political reward.
In question period yesterday the finance minister said:
If he is about to commit the mortal Liberal sin and cut a tax,
he wants the most political bang for it. The finance minister
prides himself as a shrewd businessman. Maybe it is time he used
some of his corporate smarts for the benefit of Canadians. On
the farm we realized long ago that we have to spend a dollar to
make a dollar.
1020
I ask the government to make a break from raking in the cash and
shovelling out the patronage dollars and listen to some common
sense. It is imperative to invest in our infrastructure, not
only for the safety and well-being of our citizens but to
strengthen and augment our ability to move goods and services
both inside and outside our borders.
The government has made a priority of investing billions of
dollars in the information highway while all but ignoring our
national highways. The two are not mutually exclusive. I ask
the House not to take my word for it. Terence Matthews, founder
of Newbridge and Mitel, recently stated that Canada's “economic
boom could be jeopardized if it does not invest in
infrastructure”. The Liberal government's priority has been to
maintain high taxes and spend only on projects contingent on
political reward. These short-sighted priorities are threatening
Canada's competitiveness.
This realization has not been lost on our chief competitor and
largest trading partner. In 1998 the United States passed the
transportation and equity act for the 21st century. That bill
invests $217.9 billion over six years into infrastructure, a
large portion of which is roads connecting its borders to Canada
and Mexico. Legislatively the bill guarantees that a minimum of
90.5% of the federal fuel tax receipts from each state is
returned to that state.
The Coalition to Renew Canada's Infrastructure has been
advocating a national highway program and is calling on the
government to dedicate one cent per litre of federal fuel tax,
the equivalent of about $500 million annually, to highway
renewal. This is not a lot of money when we consider that after
the water fountains, canoe museums, hotels and the rest of the
shovelgate the Liberals still had $12 billion left over last
year. If viewers would like more information on the national
highway initiative, they can go to www.highway1canada.com.
The Canadian Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform Party of
Canada, have had a longstanding policy on dedicated revenues from
fuel taxes. They believe that the way to effectively maintain
Canada's infrastructure is to reinvest the proceeds of fuel taxes
back into the sector from which it is collected.
This is contrary to the Liberal government's record. As I
stated earlier, the federal government only invests about 4.1% of
gas revenues back into the roads. What is even more appalling is
when we look at its record in the other transportation sectors.
In 1995, under the leadership of then transport minister Doug
Young, the federal government began a divestiture program of its
ports and airports. One by one the department handed over
control and expense of these facilities to municipal boards
across the country.
These authorities work on skeleton budgets to try to maintain
their infrastructure to provide essential economic lifelines to
their rural communities. In some cases, like the airport in my
home town of Fort St. John, the authority is collecting an
airport improvement fee from all travellers departing from Fort
St. John. These user pay initiatives are fair in that only those
who use the service are required to pay for it. However the
revenues collected by the federal government for aviation fuel go
into general revenues, with a pittance being returned to the
airports through capital assistance programs. The port
authorities are experiencing much the same. Where is the
fairness in this taxation? Where is the return on our tax
dollars?
In conclusion, I will reiterate a few points. The federal
government increased fuel taxes by 1.5 cents a litre in 1995,
five years ago, to fight the deficit. The deficit is gone. So
should the tax hike be gone. The federal government is
collecting a tax on a tax by collecting GST on top of fuel excise
taxes. World fuel prices are at record highs and so too are
government surpluses. The only ethical thing to do is to lower
taxes on fuel.
The government's choices and priorities are clear and so too are
the consequences. The Liberals mount huge surpluses by
overtaxing cash strapped Canadian families. The Liberals collect
billions of dollars in fuel tax revenues annually with little or
no reinvestment in our infrastructure.
What are the consequences? Canadians are put under undue
financial strain so the government can turn around and try to buy
their votes with their money. Liberals have made a priority out
of buying goodies for the Prime Minister's riding while ignoring
our roads, ports and airports, thus jeopardizing road integrity,
traveller safety and economic viability.
1025
I call on members opposite, in particular those in cabinet, to
support this motion, thereby reducing the financial burden on
Canadians. I also call on the government to make a genuine
reinvestment in the future competitiveness of Canada by improving
our transportation infrastructure.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I have
listened carefully to the words of the hon. member but I would
like to know, having also carefully read the opposition motion,
why he is attacking only the government. I do not understand
why he is not attacking the fuel companies.
I would like the hon. member to tell us what, as of today's
date, the breakdown of the price of a litre of gas is in his
riding of Peace River, excluding the tax. That is what we want
to know: the price of a litre without the taxes, in his riding.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, approximately 40% of a litre
of gasoline is made up of taxes. That is pretty general. It
varies a bit from province to province across the country.
The hon. member asks why we should not blame the oil companies.
That is the government's way of handling situations. It has been
that way for the seven years it has been in power since 1993.
Canadians are getting fed up with it.
It is easy for a government to stand up and point the finger
elsewhere. Either it is the fault of the provinces because they
are not willing to sign some joint declaration of tax reduction,
or it is the fault of oil companies or maybe the way the sun came
up this morning, instead of taking responsibility for what it can
control.
That is what the motion is all about. Why do we not look at
what we can do in the Chamber? What we can do is offer Canadians
some real tax relief, Canadians who are hard pressed at the
moment every time they stop at the pumps. Truckers are trying to
do their jobs and make ends meet. Farmers are out in the field
trying to get their crops off and face these high input costs.
We as a group, when the motion comes to a vote on Tuesday, can
vote for it to bring down taxes just a bit. We are asking the
federal government to give up just a bit. It does not have to
slash and burn its tax base. Lord knows it would not be prepared
to do that. All it has to do is give up a bit so that Canadians
have a better day tomorrow.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
puzzled by my colleague's grandstanding on an issue that is so
important to consumers across the country.
What assurances could he give the House and Canadians, if any
kind of a tax reduction is to take place on gasoline prices, that
this money will go into the pockets of consumers rather than into
the pockets of oil companies?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is the attitude
of the government. I think it is, by the way in which the
finance minister has been addressing the questions many
opposition parties and certainly our new leader have been putting
to the government over the last few days. If that is its
attitude, that only through some ironclad guarantee will it
reduce taxes, obviously it does not ever intend to reduce taxes.
The government is so afraid if it gives up a bit of the money it
has been raking in that perhaps somehow someone else will pick it
up. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member is quite
right. There are no ironclad assurances in life. The reality is
that if the government reduces taxes I believe that we will have
to monitor to make sure that oil companies do not simply tack it
on the next day. That is the reality.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
part of the Liberal caucus investigating price gouging at the
pumps. I am really surprised the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River is not blaming the companies but is just
blaming the government. He is not blaming the companies for
raising gas prices over long weekends, which has more of an
effect on people with fixed incomes than anything else.
1030
When the crude oil price was at $9 per barrel, the price of
gasoline was 50—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but 30
seconds goes quickly when you are on a roll. The hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River will have 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds is not adequate
time obviously so I will simply say that I commend the hon.
member who spoke for serving on that committee. I note that the
Liberal committee that looked at this advised the government to
reduce this tax. Therefore I am quite comfortable that the hon.
member will be voting for our motion because that is in fact what
the Liberals said they were going to do.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for this thoughtful motion
which draws on recommendations from government policy. I will
read once again into the record the motion put by the member for
Prince George—Peace River:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home
and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck
drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the
Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the
government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the
increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary deficit
elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998
recommendation of the Liberal caucus committee on gasoline
pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.
That is the motion. We are asking the government to do two
things that it has committed to doing.
The first is to eliminate a temporary deficit reduction measure.
When I last checked, the deficit was history two years ago
thanks to the hard work of Canadian taxpayers. Yesterday we
booked a $12.3 billion tax overpayment for the last fiscal year.
That is not a deficit. Let me explain the matter to my Liberal
colleagues. That is a surplus. When we are in surplus territory,
taxpayers should no longer be forced to pay deficit elimination
taxes. That is simply a dishonest government policy, an approach
to gouging people. It is a policy set for a certain time which
has now passed.
That is the first thing we are asking the government to do,
namely to keep its word. I know that is a high standard for the
government to achieve given its failure to keep its word in so
many matters: the elimination of the GST; its promise not to cut
health care transfers and its failure to do so; and its promise
to not raise taxes on Canadians. All of the basic Liberal
electoral commitments from 1993 have not been kept. It is not
surprising to see that the government has failed to do so in this
regard.
The second thing we are proposing in the motion is that the
government stop the double taxation of GST on the excise tax.
Essentially the government now applies the 7% goods and services
tax on top of not just the price of gas but also the excise tax
on gas. It is taxing tax. That is so manifestly unfair that even
the Liberal government caucus task force on this matter
recommended two years ago that the double taxation of GST on
excise tax on fuels be eliminated.
The motion simply asks the government to act on its own
recommendations. I cannot understand why we are already hearing
the typical resistance for government to simply keep its
commitments.
Canadians are facing some of the highest fuel prices in our
history when about 41% of fuel costs at the pumps for consumers
is now federal and provincial taxes, excise taxes and sales
taxes. Forty cents on the dollar of what people pay for gas at
the pump go into the public treasury. That is up from about 30%
of taxes on fuel in the early 1980s.
It is interesting, and I will add parenthetically, to hear our
colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party. We welcome
their support for the motion and we are glad to see that they are
new converts to the idea of moderation on fuel taxes given that
it was their leader who proposed the single largest increase in
fuel taxes in Canadian history in this place in 1979. It was
their previous government that actually raised the excise tax on
fuels from 1.5 cents to 8.5 cents during its term of government
from 1984 to 1993.
Even though the Conservatives are the world champions in
increasing gas taxes, we are pleased to see that they have seen
the light of day in this regard.
1035
I have just seen some recent polling results which said that 85%
of Canadians would like to see immediate reductions in the level
of fuel taxes. That is as close as it gets to unanimity on any
issue. Those Canadians know that we need to collect revenues to
pay for our infrastructure, particularly our transportation
infrastructure. They also know intuitively that the government
fails to direct even a reasonable fraction of the revenues it
collects from fuel taxes to the necessary transportation
infrastructure, as my colleague the transport critic has
demonstrated. Instead, the government takes those revenues and
rather than direct them back to the roads used by those fuel
consumers, it takes that money and adds it into its huge
multibillion dollar taxpayer overpayment, an overpayment which in
the first four months of this fiscal year already totals $11.4
billion. That, if extrapolated out to the balance for the fiscal
year, implies a surplus of over $30 billion tax dollars.
The government at least so far has implied it cannot move on
this because it needs the provinces to act first. The finance
minister told us yesterday that he was willing to exercise
leadership but he needed the provinces to go first. I took a
first year logic course in college and that fails as a logical
syllogism. That is not leadership, it is followership.
The federal government is the national government and the
government always talks about national leadership. Maybe it
should begin to exercise that because the very same finance
minister certainly exercised leadership when it came to raising
the excise tax on fuels in his 1995 budget by 1.5 cents a litre
in his temporary deficit elimination tax. He did not consult the
provinces. I rather suspect that none of the provincial finance
ministers then had any shred of consultation about whether or not
to raise the excise taxes yet he went ahead and did so. That is
the same finance minister who failed to consult with the
provinces before he cut their health care transfers by one-third
in his 1995 budget. That is clearly a bogus argument.
Now we hear the Liberals trying to pass the buck to the oil
companies and retailers. They shed crocodile tears in the fear
that perhaps the corner gas station is not going to pass on the
savings of a reduction in excise tax and GST to gas consumers.
This is the same Liberal attitude that says when we give working
families broad based tax relief they will waste it on frivolous
expenditures. Really what that says is the basic philosophy
governing the Liberal Party—and I know as a recovering
Liberal—is that government and politicians know better how to
spend an extra buck or an extra 1.5 cents a litre than do the
consumers. I have every confidence that given the profile on
this issue, consumers would expect and demand of their retailers
to see the full tax break delivered to them at the pump. There
is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. The official opposition would
certainly add its voice to those of other Canadians in insisting
that happen. That is a bogus argument.
Provincial co-operation is a bogus argument. But lo and behold,
today we see in the paper that the finance minister is
considering a virage on this issue. He is considering an
about-face on the question. Why? No doubt because he is
receiving enormous pressure from his backbench. Those members
know what the right thing is in this respect. They recommended
the right approach in their 1998 caucus task force led by the
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, who continues to get credit
from the finance minister for making recommendations the minister
has failed to follow.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Liberal backbenchers
know what their constituents want and know what the right policy
is and so they are trying to find a way to extricate themselves.
We have presented that option in this motion. Next Tuesday when
the deferred vote on the motion is taken, they will have an
opportunity to stand and vote to relieve their constituents and
gas consumers of the huge, unreasonable burden of double taxation
and deficit elimination tax as well as to give the trucking
industry and the transportation industry generally a tax break by
cutting in half the diesel fuel taxes as we recommend, for the
excise tax thereon from four cents to two cents.
That is the option they have.
1040
The Prime Minister has already suggested that the motion to
adopt ostensibly government policy is a confidence motion and
government members must vote against. Let us put members of the
government on notice today that the official opposition, which
has put forward the motion, does not regard it as a confidence
motion. That is completely bogus. The passage of the motion would
not be regarded by us as an indication of loss of confidence in
the government or a need to call an election, as much as we would
like to see one as soon as possible.
On all counts the way is clear for members opposite to vote in
favour of their own recommendations and of their own government's
policy and to do so freely. The failure to do so will once again
be a victory for the whip and a defeat for ordinary working
Canadians who are paying outrageously high taxes under the
Liberal government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, we will go first to—
Mr. Jason Kenney: Point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me, on a point
of order, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just for certainty I
want to point out that while the amendment cannot be moved on a
point of order, it was moved on debate. I was already watching
for other people to rise with questions. That is the way it is
folks. The amendment is in order. Debate is on the amendment.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Chair will know I have the
highest respect for my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast. I
too took a course in logic but in second year university.
Will the member tell us why he does not see a valid distinction
between lowering the tax rate for middle and low income Canadians
in the tax forms and attempting to lower tax through the excise
tax? An oil company might well simply put it in its pocket or a
local retailer might not reduce the price by the amount of the
reduction that the federal government made.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that is the fallacy of
changing the basis of division, the fact that there is no
dichotomy between lowering taxes for lower and middle income
taxpayers and cutting fuel taxes for all gas consumers.
It is possible to do both. We proposed that through our
proposal for broad based tax relief for all Canadians which would
take 1.5 million lower income Canadian off the tax rolls
altogether and save the average middle income families some
$2,500 in taxes.
All of those things can be done within the fiscal room of the
current surplus and at the same time furnish the sort of fuel tax
relief recommended in the motion today. All of those things can
be achieved. We do not need to make a choice.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think you will find in keeping with the standing orders of the
House that an amendment to a motion cannot be entertained on a
point of order. I would ask the Chair to rule on that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is quite right. That is why I made it
very clear when the amendment was presented that it was not being
introduced on a point of order. The point of order was because I
was already on my feet before the member sat down.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I
believe that you did say “On a point of order, the hon. member
for Calgary Southeast”. On that basis I think that the record
will also clearly show that that amendment is clearly out of
order. I would propose an alternative amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary Southeast definitely said “point of order”. Whether or
not I recognized him on a point of order quite frankly I do not
recall.
1045
What I do recall very clearly was the intention of the member to
move an amendment. Procedurally the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is quite correct, it cannot be
introduced on a point of order. The member caught my attention.
How else could he catch my attention? I made a ruling a few
minutes ago. In the absence of change by a higher authority, the
ruling stands.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will make a short comment and then ask my friend from
Calgary to respond.
Some of the problems we have today in terms of the price of home
heating fuel and the price of gasoline for automobiles and so on
are the very high profits of the gas and oil companies and the
tremendous rise in prices by the OPEC nations.
It seems to be that in addition to a tax decrease, which I
certainly support, on the other side of the line we have to make
sure we have some energy review commission that would keep an eye
on the oil industry to make sure that these price decreases are
passed on to the consumer at the pumps or passed on to people in
terms of home heating fuel cuts, rather than have the oil
companies once again increase their prices to fill the vacuum.
In fact, the current Leader of the Opposition made a comment
similar to what he said when he was a cabinet minister in the
government of Alberta. Premier Mike Harris was also concerned
that with a tax cut the oil companies would increase the price
and the consumers would receive no net benefit in terms of that
tax cut.
Would my friend from Calgary agree with the establishment of an
energy review commission or some other commission that would keep
an eye on the oil industry? I realize that this would be keeping
an eye on his friends, but whether or not he would agree with
that is a very important part of this debate.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, first, on the procedural
point, when I rose on a point of order it was simply to point out
to the Chair that I still had the floor and I then proceeded to
complete putting my amendment.
The pricing of the commodity of oil, which is done by the world
markets, is entirely a function beyond the control of this
parliament. The question of supply by the OPEC nations, which is
the principle determining factor in the price of oil, is beyond
our control. What we can control is the gas taxes, and that is
what we propose to do through this motion.
We have no opposition to reasonable oversight on the part of
government, the competition bureau and other regulatory agencies
to ensure that oil firms are pricing the product fairly and that
there are no monopoly type pricing practices. We believe there
are measures in place to ensure that is the case. In principle I
have no problem with the suggestion made by the hon. member.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to give notice, and it is my sincere hope, that
I, seconded by the member for Middlesex, would make the following
amendment to the motion subject to further discussion with the
Chair.
The current motion reads:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home
and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers—
With my amendment, the motion would then read “—especially
for those with lower incomes, this House calls upon the
government to assist Canadians in coping with the rising
financial burden, and that this House strongly urges provincial
and territorial governments to consider providing similar
assistance”.
Mr. Speaker, that is the amendment I wanted to provide to the
House, and I may in fact have that opportunity. However, it is
clear that the new boss and the tactics of the Alliance are the
same as the old boss and the old Reform Party. On an issue so
fundamental and important to the misfortune of Canadians, that
party over there has decided to play politics, where this party,
years in advance, decided to try to do something about it.
I can tell the hon. member for Calgary Southeast that the reason
the price of gasoline is what it is today has absolutely nothing
to do with taxes and everything to do with distortions in the
marketplace.
1050
The Alliance is very quick to point out a recommendation made by
a Liberal committee on gasoline pricing two and a half years ago.
I am really pleased that the hon. members across the way have
finally discovered that fuel and high prices are an issue. It
must be close to an election. Let me warn the hon. members that
this is an issue on which this side of the House did its homework
years ago, specifically with respect to this particular
recommendation where it does indeed deal with a half
recommendation of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing.
For the purposes of enlightening the Chair, let me say what hon.
members on the other side who proposed this motion are not
prepared to say about the recommendations. The recommendation
says that if the GST is removed from other taxes, the federal
government should undertake measures to ensure that the resulting
savings are passed on to consumers and not merely absorbed by the
oil industry.
I know that some members of the Conservative Party would prefer
to jump on this because they think it is a new issue. As I have
already indicated, the report speaks for itself. It was
published some two and a half years ago and the hon. members
across the way have never bothered to look at its implications,
even now.
I will begin my speech by saying that imitation is the greatest
form of flattery but the way in which they have dissected this
document and narrowly picked up on only one issue leads the
consumers in Canada to conclude that they are very narrow in
their focus on the issue of fuel prices. The public is not
bought off and does not find very amusing the idea of these
johnnies-come-lately suddenly picking up this issue that the
Liberal Party has known about for years and is acting upon.
The hon. member and his leader have for some time talked about
the interests and concerns of truckers. Indeed, myself and the
hon. member for Oshawa were the only government members who took
the time to actually be there back in February when the crisis
arose.
Unlike the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts beside
him, trucking and the issue of fuel taxes is totally irrelevant
to the problem. That may stun members of the Alliance because,
of course, they do not understand that the excise tax of 1.5% was
not raised on diesel. Moreover, the GST is remittable through
the input tax credit. More importantly, and I think this will
come as something as a shock to Alliance members, if the
provincial governments, such as the government of Ontario which
charges 14.7% on its side of the excise road allowance tax
consumption, or the government of Alberta at 9%, were so
interested in helping truckers, they would have acted.
It is clear that the opposition in proposing this motion will
not allow the facts to get in the way of a political opinion. It
is with that in mind that I would like to speak at some length
about what this side of the House has done with respect to the
issue of gasoline.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Raise taxes.
Mr. Dan McTeague: It would appear that the hon. member
believes it is rather cute to deal with taxes. Let us talk about
taxes. Let us talk about the fact that his friends in the oil
industry keep taxes for 45 and up to 90 days that could otherwise
be remitted to the government. Let us talk to this member about
the devastation that taxes have wrought on independent mom and
pop efficient retailers.
This is not just happening in my riding or the ridings of those
members, it is even happening in the riding of the hon. Leader of
the Opposition where he goes jet boating on a little water ski.
Does he not understand that last year and the year before ARCO
came in with predatory prices below the cost of wholesale and
knocked out a number of independents? The people of British
Columbia, many of them supporters of the Alliance Party I am
sure, have now found out the real effect of predatory pricing.
What happened? Prices went from 30 cents to 80 cents a litre to
the great shock of the good people of British Columbia, and of
course the hon. member is correct in pointing out the tax
component.
We have addressed this and the province of British Columbia has
addressed the reasons why this should be examined. Unfortunately
those hon. members never thought this was a problem. Their
single track, uni-minded view of always focusing on taxes allows
them to look at something that is totally irrelevant to the
actual problem.
I and every member of the House knows about the record profits
being made by oil companies. I have no difficulty with people
making money. In the free market that is exactly how business
works. However, if one is able to do it based on a vertical
integration and a near monopoly, and one is able to take
advantage of weaknesses in our laws, lack of oversight or
apologists in the Alliance Party, is it any wonder that Canadians
today from coast to coast are being hurt by high fuel prices that
have nothing to do with taxes?
1055
I believe we have an opportunity here. If the Alliance is
serious about dealing with this issue it will join with the
government in not only reading a little more than four sentences
out of a 69 page document, which I believe colleagues on my side
of the House will know is very well written, but it will look at
the other aspects of taxation.
The Alliance has accused the finance minister of saying that
there should not be any co-operation. I know why it does not like
that. It is because the finance minister listens to backbenchers,
unlike certain leaderships in other parties who ignore or perhaps
chastise backbenchers.
The committee made recommendations on a couple of issues. We
have already dealt with the question of tax on tax. Let me deal
now with the six other recommendations with respect to taxes.
Given the first speaker's view on this issue of transportation,
he might be interested to read—although I have not heard him
phrase this the right way—that provincial governments should
refrain from using revenues generated by gasoline consumption
taxes and vehicle fees for projects other than road repair and
transportation infrastructure. I do not see that recommendation
on the floor today.
The joint action between the federal and provincial governments
aimed at restoring Canada's national highway system should be
given a priority and an appropriate cost sharing formula in
public-private partnerships should be established to undertake
repairs at the earliest opportunity.
The federal government should remove the requirement for a tax
bond to be posted by independents who have sales indicating
reasonable financial stability and extend the same tax collection
authority that is granted and enjoyed by refiner marketers.
Alternatively, wholesalers can be required to pay taxes on
balances until they are remitted.
Has it not dawned on the Alliance that if it wants to make
inroads in Ontario it might follow the leadership of the Ontario
provincial government which, ironically, last evening pretty well
endorsed the very findings of the Liberal committee on gasoline
pricing?
I have heard from Ontario's minister of transport, the finance
minister and the premier who have gone out of their way to
compliment the work that we have done and to establish the single
most important issue of taxation with respect to decline, which
is that a mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that the
consumer receives the benefit, not the oil companies.
Are the Alliance members talking through their hats? Obviously
they have forgotten the maritimes. The motion does not say
anything about rising home fuel, natural gas or the relevance of
using diesel on which there is very little federal tax that
cannot be remitted to the individual.
I know the Alliance Party has problems with people in the
maritimes from time to time, certainly some of its members do,
but let me read from the New Brunswick select committee on
gasoline pricing. The committee noted that reducing taxes did
not necessarily translate into lower prices at the pumps.
Members know that New Brunswick has the second lowest tax regime
for gas in Canada next to Alberta but it probably has the highest
prices in Canada. Why is this a phenomenon? It is not because
of me. It is not because we are trying to play some kind of game
over the question of taxation. It is because the New Brunswick
government was the first government in 1992 to implement a 2 cent
a litre tax reduction. According to it, as crude costs were
comparable it was assumed that the refiner and retailer margins
were also comparable to other Canadian cities.
The select committee found that during the first six months of
the tax decrease refiner and retailer margins were 3.7% higher in
Saint John than the national average of other major cities. This
led the committee to conclude that over time the tax reduction
was captured in large measure by the oil markets and that
consumers had not received the full benefits. In the committee's
opinion, lowering the gas tax in that province did not produce
corresponding lower gasoline prices to consumers.
The motion proposed by the hon. member's party and the silly
subamendment that prevents common sense to be put into this
motion ignores the fact that consumers could be badly hurt and
that the companies, unless we understand the market we are
dealing with, will never see the benefit of a tax reduction.
I want to compliment the finance minister, the Prime Minister
and our colleagues for having the wisdom and the foresight two
years ago to say that when the country could afford these kinds
of tax reductions they would be given directly to Canadians.
1100
We know the market functions in a supply and demand free market
system. Where it does not work there is danger, especially when
governments simply co-operate with an industry that can
arbitrarily pad the increase or the decrease to consumers to its
bottom line.
On that point let me make something very clear. Right now we
are dealing with an international situation, and particularly in
the United States of America there are inventory shortages.
Almost any disruption is used as an excuse in the marketplace to
drive prices up. The tragedy for Canadians is that we accept
these things as inevitable.
No one here on this side is arguing for a world price. No one
here is looking to revisit 1980 with the national energy program.
Rather, we want to make sure that competition is free and
abundant in this industry. To that end one has to ask the
question, if there is a shortage in the United States and average
refiner margins in that country posted in New York harbour are
about six cents a litre in response to this tightening of supply,
why is it that refiners in Canada in my area of Toronto can
charge 11.5 cents a litre?
It is because that six, seven or eight mystery cents that are
being tacked onto the price are the result of a lack of
competition which the Alliance members have consistently and from
a determined point of view decided to ignore. Not only have they
ignored the wisdom of what is in this document, and they have
thought enough of picking at least one of 29 recommendations, but
they are ignoring the impact it is having on ordinary Canadians
from coast to coast.
I plead with them to get off their hobby horses if they want to
deal with this industry. I understand that the oil patch is in
the background. There are refiners in Toronto; there is a
nuclear reactor that leaks from time to time in my riding. That
does not prevent me from speaking out on those issues.
This is a place where for generations we have enjoyed the
freedom to speak out on things we know are true. We should not
be confined to looking at only one issue that is totally
irrelevant to the problem. That is exactly what this resolution
is. It is irrelevant. It is dangerous. It is politically
loaded. It will harm consumers because not only will consumers
not see the benefit of the redistributive effect of governments
being able to pay for the very things the provinces are calling
for, it will also mean that consumers will never see any relief.
More important, if the Alliance members claim to be the great
knowledgeable marketeers that they are, would it not make sense
for them to at least consider that given the distortions in the
marketplace they would have an opportunity to see the price, or
any decrease that is contemplated, passed on through the tax
system? I too would like to see taxes passed on.
I could go on at great length, but I want to move my motion. It
is absolutely important that we put some balance in what is
otherwise I am sure a well-intentioned idea to deal with high
fuel prices, notwithstanding the fact that it does not deal with
fuel prices but deals with taxation.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I will read once again the
motion I wish to put before this House today. The motion by the
opposition initially reads “That given the record increases in
the price of gasoline and home and diesel fuel, severely hurting
Canadian consumers”. The amendment would be to replace the text
after the word “consumers” with the following “, especially
those with lower incomes, this House calls upon the government to
assist Canadians in coping with the rising financial burden and
that this House strongly urges provincial and territorial
governments to consider providing similar assistance”.
I want to ask a few simple questions of my colleagues across the
way before they ask me some. I am sure they will know that after
some four or five years I have not been a dilettante on this
issue. I have done many interviews in their ridings and I think
there is some common ground that we can deal with.
The motion the Alliance has provided does nothing to ameliorate
or improve the condition or the misfortune of Canadians to deal
with the underlying uncompetitiveness of an industry that is
dominated by three or four players that control most of the 18
refineries in this country and which cannot, for whatever reason
and like any other industry, operate at the retail level without
being a vertically integrated supplier.
That is a fairly serious indictment about the state of oil and
the cost of oil in this country. It explains why 10 cents or 12
cents a litre, not even dealing with the upstream, at the
downstream, is consistently and routinely passed on to consumers
without even the opportunity of oversight.
1105
When hon. members quote they do so shamelessly
by quoting from only one part of
the document written by Liberal members. They should deal
with the issues of temperature compensation; deal with the fact
that independence has been wiped out of this industry; try to
reconcile the idea of environmental standards that are necessary
for some people who cannot exit the industry; deal with the Come
By Chance refinery which has had a restrictive covenant placed
upon it; do not battle us when we are in the industry committee
trying to propose new changes; and come one, two, three against
good bills that might otherwise prove that parliament and
backbenchers have a role.
Finally I urge hon. members not only to consider the ideology
which underpins their views on taxation. Think of the people who
are going to have to put away what little money they have because
of a marketplace somewhere else outside Canada, a country blessed
with an abundance of energies, in which taxes have built the
infrastructure to ensure that our oil companies are profitable
and competitive, and now find themselves at mercy's end and may
not be able to get sufficient fuel or sufficient resources to
meet the basic necessities. This has nothing to do with taxes
and everything to do with the price of this commodity.
I call upon all members of the House to not just accept the
amendment to the motion which would make the motion relevant and
appropriate, but to have some compassion and put aside their tax
battle until the election. Let us fight for Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the debate of the
hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, the amendment proposed
by the hon. member is a subamendment to the amendment. As all
hon. members know, a subamendment must relate specifically and
directly to the amendment. The amendment was the word
“immediate”. Therefore the subamendment as it was presented is
not receivable.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the member's presentation had
some interesting points, and I am sure he is sincere, from this
side of the House the member ruined the whole effect of his
speech by making a completely outlandish statement at both the
beginning and the end. The statement was that the problem of
high fuel prices had nothing to do with high taxes. In other
words, the government assumes no responsibility for its role in
high gas prices when up to 40% of the price consists of tax.
The member went on to blame the oil companies and the
distributors, which is an old line from both the Liberals and the
NDP. Suppose we accept the proposition that back in the old days
the big oil companies dictated the price of oil, what is the
highest they ever got crude oil prices up to? It was $3 a
barrel. When the governments got involved through the OPEC
cartel and through the response of the western nations the
price went up to $30 a barrel. At least 40% of the problem is
government intervention in that sector and government involvement
through taxes.
Why does the hon. member not accept that 40% of the
responsibility for the problem of high energy prices is the tax
component and support the motion that is before the House?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, it is a double honour that
the former leader of the Reform Party is asking the question. I
am glad to see him in his place. One of the first times I had an
opportunity to debate in the House was with him. We are coming
full circle. I also hope it is a new beginning for both of us.
The hon. member knows full well that this was a big issue. He
has had many days to argue this. He has had many opposition days
to bring this issue forward. The reality is his party is only
bringing it up today because of the high prices.
The context in which he is issuing the edict on the question of
taxes confuses Canadians. Canadians are not fooled. Most of
them know that taxes do not go up on long weekends but prices do.
The hon. member is obviously and skilfully avoiding that.
I can assure the hon. member I have had that question put to me
many times on the national media. The hon. member knows my
answer to that so I must wonder why the question was asked in the
first place.
1110
I am going to take the hon. member at his word. I think he
believes quite frankly that anyone who questions the oil industry
must be categorized as an ideologue. I come from a hardworking
community of consumers. The hon. member was in my riding several
times before I won it back with an even bigger majority than last
time on the issue of gasoline. In our neck of the woods in
Toronto we are facing 78 cents a litre gasoline. That is higher
than what we see across the country.
I might be able to enlighten the hon. member that all of this
began in 1992 while he was on the campaign trail. In fact the now
very famous document, Bloomberg Oil Buyer's Guide, pointed out
that the independent gasoline sector was going to be the target
of the oil companies and that there was going to be a
disciplining by the major oil companies targeted at the profits
of the independents which were too good for their own good.
I am asking for one thing. Let retail mom and pop efficient
competitors compete against their own supplier and not be outdone
by weak laws and irrelevant comments and questions like the one I
just received from the hon. former leader.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member from Pickering for a very interesting
speech. It is clear that he is very knowledgeable on the
subject.
I think he will agree with me on one thing. The thing that
really irritates Canadians and really gets their goat and makes
them angry about the rising cost of fuel prices is the seemingly
arbitrary fluctuation in prices which they just cannot
understand. For instance on a long weekend as he mentioned the
price will spike up and down. Day to day they really do not know
what the price of that important commodity is going to be.
Would the hon. member agree with the concept raised by our party
that there should be a national regulatory body that would
oversee the pricing of gasoline? The oil companies would come to
that body and argue that they should have an increase, perhaps
twice a year, like that which is done in Prince Edward Island
which has actually served that province very well. Twice a year
the oil companies come to a panel saying that they deserve an
increase. The rates are set and locked for that fixed period of
time.
Would that not be some comfort to consumers? Would he see the
value in the creation of such a regulatory body?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of the hon. member from Winnipeg, my hometown. I was just there
ironically about a week and a half ago with the public policy
forum. It is undertaking comprehensive reviews, compliments of
the initiatives of the government along with the conference
board, on the question of gasoline and other areas of
competition.
The question of regulation is an interesting one. Many
provinces have backed away from it because it always preserved
the artificial prices that might otherwise be forced down. For
many years Canadians have enjoyed gasoline prices that were far
more competitive in the past. Regulation in my view is probably
the end of the line. There may come a point where that is in
fact what has to occur.
The hon. member knows that jurisdiction lies squarely within the
ambit of the provincial governments. With that in mind the
federal government and some provinces have obviously talked about
it.
The member who asked that question has a number of
representations in provinces. We can see it in this report.
Provincial governments have looked at the idea of tackling
predatory pricing, creating terminals which is exactly why I
wrote a letter to the Competition Bureau chief two days ago to
deal with the potential for closing these terminals.
Finally, we should not be relying on the oil industry's own
people like M. J. Ervin and others to be the last word. We do
not need the fox monitoring the chicken coop.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, just to recap a couple of facts, I simply want to point
out again that it was the party across the way, the Liberal
government, which raised taxes on gasoline in 1995 one and a half
cents a litre, simply because in that case it said it wanted to
get rid of the deficit. The deficit is now gone. Even in the
wake of that somehow the government is saying it cannot cut
excise taxes on gasoline. We need to recap that.
The hypocrisy of the government is incredible on this issue. Our
friend across the way is saying that it is the oil companies that
should somehow cut prices while his government raises prices.
We have other Liberals who say that gas prices should be higher
because it is good for the environment. The NDP says that
constantly but now is trying to find a way to get out of that.
1115
I am wondering how my friend across the way can justify calling
for oil companies to do their job, over which he is not directly
in control, when he is a part of the government that has raised
the prices on fuel, something over which he does have control and
yet refuses to do anything about it.
Could he square his ability as part of the government to lower
the price of fuel and not do anything about it at the same time
as calling for oil companies to do it voluntarily?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage that
says to see the truth you have written twisted by knaves to make
a trap for consumers. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting
that the debate on this issue before us today is about gasoline.
If so, obviously the member has not even read his party's own
motion.
If members opposite wanted to be sincere about their attempt to
address the rising price of fuel they would have done so two or
three years ago on the question of taxes when it was 50 and 60
cents a litre across the country. However we heard nothing from
those individuals on that side until such time as they could find
a very relevant thin edge of the wedge.
With respect to the recommendations in this document, and they
are quite rightly consistent with the comments of the finance
minister, there is no doubt the government will provide relief.
The amendment which I was skilfully prevented from putting on the
floor by the use of the same old tactics from previous years
calls for that.
There will be relief, but I think the government is more
interested in giving it to the people who count, not lining the
pockets of big oil companies on whose behalf that member speaks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Témiscamingue.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have had a ruling from you with respect to the
amendment which I would like to move. Given your ruling I would
now seek unanimous consent under the same ruling to move an
amendment to the main motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has asked for unanimous consent to move
the amendment previously put forward in his name. Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am positive I heard members of the Alliance say no.
What are they afraid of?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I am very pleased that we
have the opportunity today to debate, and eventually to express
ourselves formally in a vote, on a matter of concern to many:
the price of gasoline, which has reached a record high.
This is a crisis that has gone on for several months, and the
federal government has still done nothing, hoping that time
would be on its side and the crisis would eventually just
evaporate. The only action the federal government has taken so
far, moreover, in connection with fuel prices, has been to
commission a study from the Conference Board, the findings of
which will be known early next year.
We know very well that when they want to do nothing, this is the
best approach. They commission a study with findings to come out
a long way into the future. Until such time, the answer can be
given “We are looking into the matter”.
I am going to read the text of the motion so that there will be
a clear understanding of what we are discussing. It reads as
follows:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and
home and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck
drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the
Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the
government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the
increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary
deficit elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998
recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on gasoline
pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.
1120
I would like to say immediately that we in the Bloc Quebecois
will support this motion. We will vote in favour of it. It
will give consumers a bit of a break. However, we would like
more than that. I will indicate the action we want taken, but
at least this is a step in the right direction. This is why we
will support the motion.
We would have liked the government to suspend the excise tax of
ten cents a litre entirely because of the exceptional nature of
the current crisis.
The proposal on the table will permanently reduce the cost of
gasoline by three or four cents, according to the cost of
gasoline per barrel. This is one of its strong points.
We would like the cost to be reduced immediately by ten cents a
litre to make it substantial and to enable consumers to say the
next morning “Listen, we are paying ten cents less”.
I know that the Liberals will hide behind another approach
saying “We are not sure the consumers will really benefit” and
the like. If that is so, when they say they are not going to
lower the tax by two or three cents because the consumer will
not benefit, they are admitting that healthy competition does
not exist in the industry. If there were healthy competition,
it would be advantageous for one of the competitors to lower his
price right away in order to get part of the market.
If that player and all the players do not do it collectively, if
there is no collusion in that industry, there are at least
serious flaws from in terms of competition.
We are saying that this is perhaps a possibility and we are
convinced that there are flaws in terms of competition. This is
why we want a more substantial reduction than 3 cents per litre.
But the motion is all about a permanent measure. The motion of
the Canadian Alliance Party reads “including”. That does not
exclude other measures. We are still in favour of suspending the
excise tax until the price of the barrel of oil gets back to a
much more acceptable level, and until the price of gasoline gets
back to a more affordable level.
Why are we talking about a temporary reduction? It is of course
because there are all sorts of issues related to this question,
including environmental issues and, also, our taxation level
compared to levels elsewhere.
We are not ignoring that, but we want to send a clear message to
consumers that we will help them, that it is not true that all
the tax reductions granted to them in the last budgets will all
be absorbed by the increase in energy prices.
Gasoline is one thing. What is less obvious but even more
dramatic is the situation of all those who use fuel to heat
their homes. Last winter, heating bills doubled. This winter,
things will not get any better. It is often low or middle income
people who use such heating systems and they are hit hard. To
have to pay twice as much in heating costs in January and
February when one is already on a very tight budget is a real
nightmare. It is definitely not easy.
There should also be special measures to help these people out
so that the present crisis does not hit them too hard.
We on this side have four proposals. Obviously, we want a
temporary suspension of the 10 cent a litre excise tax
immediately. That is very important.
Second, we want to talk about the industry's practices. I will
elaborate on this—I will come back to it and develop it further—to
show that there should be special measures to improve
competitive practices in this industry.
We also want to see investment in alternative energies.
We should not find ourselves with every successive crisis—this is
not the first time there has been a fuel crisis, and at some
point we will have to learn—back in the same situation.
We are very dependent on petroleum products. There are areas in
which alternatives are emerging. But the power of the petroleum
industry, which has no interest in seeing alternatives
developed, makes funding research difficult in these sectors.
Without public funding to develop alternative energies, the
obstacles to their becoming a reality and benefiting consumers
are obviously considerable.
1125
I would like to come back to competition. The federal
government is responsible for this issue. There is competition
legislation. It is in the government's court. The government
does not have to wait for Tom, Dick or Harry, the provinces, its
neighbour or the international community. It has responsibility
for the competition laws.
I have here a report produced in 1998 by a committee of the
Liberal Party that looked at the gasoline issue. We are not
talking prehistory.
This report pointed out repeatedly that there were many
shortcomings in the competitive practices of this industry. It
even said at one point that the Canadian market is a bonanza for
petroleum producers.
A very well done study also showed that our average gas price
before taxes is 4 or 5 cents higher than in comparable markets
in the United States.
Why is it that we always pay more here for our petroleum
products, yet the federal government does nothing but sit on its
hands? Competition issues were indeed looked at a little, but
no measures with any clout have ever been forthcoming to remedy
what is going on.
How, for example, can it be possible for three companies, which
are refiners, distributors and retailers all at the same time,
to control 75% of wholesale sales? The market is dominated by
only a few players, who control the situation. They have a huge
ability to influence prices. Successful operation is not easy
when the station across the street buys its gas from the same
supplier.
To take an example, and I do not want to name anyone in
particular, we have an independent right across the street from
an Esso, and they both buy from the same refinery. It is
understandable that it is not easy to do business when you have
the people who sell you your gas operating right across the
street.
The Liberal's recommendations contained some very interesting
points. For example, might it not be worthwhile to separate
refining and retail sales, so that one company could not do
both?
There is nothing socialistic about this. It is already in place
in several of the American states. It is designed to ensure
competition at both levels: refinery and sales. The best way to
do so is to not allow companies to be so vertically integrated
and to control virtually the entire market, including sales to
their competitors, that such a situation can result.
This fascinates me. I have studied economics and if I go back
to school, I will study the oil companies. Why is the price
always the same at the retailers? Why is the price always the
same at Esso, Ultramar and Petro Canada? Why does one of the
businesses not take a little initiative and edge out the others
by one or two cents for a few months as the result of
discovering better technology or coming up with a better
marketing strategy? Why does no company ever stand out from the
others?
This is a mystery to me. Why, in a competitive market, does no
company ever take the lead, other than temporarily? Why does no
company make the necessary adjustments and finally lower its
price? This indicates clearly that there is no healthy
competition in the industry.
It is a good thing to lower taxes, but it is a temporary and
exceptional measure. We must not, however, lose sight of the
fact that there are problems in this industry.
I know that some members on the other side of the House agree
with this. I am looking forward to seeing how they will vote
when the time comes. I know that on the other side of the
House, if they stick by their recommendations, there will have
to be amendments so that a few players will no longer have such
sway over the Canadian petroleum market. This is an element of
competition the government can work on.
I wish we would act quickly, and not wait for the Conference
Board study, but to have a very clear debate or have the
minister refer the whole matter immediately to committee in
order to consider the appropriateness of separating the
activities of retailing and refining.
This does not mean that refiners could no longer retail their
products, but they could have, for example, a limited percentage
of shares.
If Imperial Oil wants to retail its products, it could perhaps
hold a certain percentage of shares, up to a limit of, say, 15%,
20% or 25%. This is already done in other areas. It is done in
the banking sector. It is done elsewhere to avoid having some
people control the market. It could also be done in the gasoline
industry.
1130
A refiner marketer could be allowed to have a limited interest.
It could also be prohibited from getting into the retail
business. Other players would then take over, thus creating
greater competition.
I want to be clear. We are not saying that people who own or
manage a gas station in their community are not doing their best
to be competitive. However, given the price they pay refiners
for gasoline, they have little leeway. Very often, they are told
what price to sell their gasoline; they get a call, saying
“Starting this morning, this is what the price will be”. This is
how it works.
These people are not very vocal, because they are in business.
But when we talk to people who used to be in business but no
longer are, we realize that some very dubious practices exist in
some cases. These practices do not comply with the spirit of the
Competition Act, which seeks to protect consumers.
Some interesting possibilities were raised by the Liberals
themselves—again, and I am not afraid to say so—in a good report
that was released. The problem is not the quality of the report,
but the will to implement it. A lot of good work has gone into
it.
A large part of the study took place in Ontario. Not much time
was spent in Quebec. It would have been nice if they had spent
some time in Quebec, but the situation is very similar. The
dynamics are the same. Now, the government's knee-jerk reaction
is to say that this is an international issue.
We are not interested in demagoguery. We know that the price of
a barrel of oil dropped to $10 or $12 and has just soared to $35
or $37, or thereabouts, in recent days. We are all aware of
this. We know that this accounts for much of the price hike.
But I would like someone to explain something to me. Normally,
when you have a business and the price of whatever you sell
keeps going up—as we have seen with gasoline—consumers try to cut
back a bit, and the business is forced to lower its profits to
protect its share of the market. This is not the right context
in which to go after greater profits. How is it then that, at
the same time as such a serious crisis, with consumers
ultra-sensitive to prices, we see the oil companies making record
profits? This is very disturbing.
I realize that some companies are involved in direct activities,
meaning that they make more money if the price per barrel goes
up, but I would like to know where this money comes from. What
were the retail profits compared to the preceding quarter or the
last one or two years?
These are comprehensive and very complex financial statements.
It is not possible to determine how they made this money. Is it
just the increase in a barrel of oil? Is it more than that?
Are we not still paying a few cents a litre too many at the
pump?
I support the Canadian Alliance motion, with one exception: it
completely ignores the competition angle. I agree that there
should be temporary tax relief, but sight should not be lost of
the fact that there are ongoing problems in the industry.
The Canadian Alliance's proposal is to permanently lower prices,
in a competitive market, by about three cents a litre.
Comparing the American market, healthy competition could have
the same effect, and permanently. A permanent combination of
the two measures in a good competitive market could bring prices
down by 7 or 8 cents a litre.
This raises some questions. Do we want to stimulate sales of a
product we know has an environmental impact? This raises
another issue relating to what I was saying earlier: we must
invest in alternative energies, because our dependency on
petroleum products must be reduced.
The omission, or what we would have liked to have seen from the
Canadian Alliance as far as competition is concerned, is quite
understandable. We know where the oil patch is located.
It does not take much scrutiny of a map of Canada to realize
that Alberta does not have much to complain about as far as the
price of a barrel of oil is concerned. This is understandable,
for it means money in the pockets of their fellow citizens.
Human nature being what it is, we would probably have the same
reflex, but a broader perspective is needed.
Some Liberals, but I will not name names, will have to stand and
be counted when this motion is put to a vote. People cannot say
they are going to vote it down because it is insufficient. We
have to start somewhere, and this is a step in the right
direction.
1135
One great advantage of lowering taxes will be the very strong
pressure that doing so will exert on the government to improve
the situation and perhaps recover this money.
We wanted to give it a stronger and temporary character because
the government would perhaps say “I suspended my ten cent excise
tax. It brings in nearly $400 billion a month. Perhaps if I
were to make competition stronger it would be better to set
profits at four or five cents a litre and for us to then take
four or five cents in excise tax”. That might be a good thing.
It would be to the government's advantage in economic and
financial terms if it considered this issue with a little
greater urgency.
In European countries, there has been much unrest. We must not
think the same thing will not happen here too. The price per
barrel of oil is very high despite the recent decision by the
OPEC countries. There is talk of a threatened traffic tie-up by
the Ontario association of truckers tomorrow. The economy is
relatively strong. The truckers were busy working this summer.
In the fall, the economy always slows down a bit. When they
have a little more time available and they let off a little
steam and they try to make their truck payment and so on, some
people will, when they are not carrying merchandise, make
themselves heard.
There are others too. I am thinking, for example, about farmers
over the summer. This is not the best time for demonstrations.
The government should not be surprised, though, if the situation
gets worse.
One simply has to talk to people to realize that the public is
greatly concerned by the price of gasoline. People are asking
the government to take action at two levels: by lowering the tax
and by making the oil industry accountable.
Why is it—there are a lot of unanswered questions but I raise
them nevertheless—that last spring we had days where—the figures
here are only indicative of the situation, but the differences
reflect the facts—gasoline sold at 65.9 cents in the morning, at
72.9 cents in the afternoon, and then at 68.9 cents the next
morning? During that time, the price of the barrel of oil
remained stable. Why is it that there were such strong
fluctuations over such short periods? Why is it that, at a time
when market conditions were stable, the price of gasoline
sometimes fluctuated by as much as 10% in a single day?
Oil companies must be made accountable.
I would like to see them come before us to explain in detail the
profits they make at the retail level. They can tell us anything
they want, because we cannot check the facts. That is the
problem. We should pass a better Competition Act and set up a
more effective competition bureau with a special mandate.
We also asked for such a mandate for the competition bureau,
with regard to the oil industry. We should dangle a sword of
Damocles over the head of the oil industry, we should make it
feel some pressure and we should constantly monitor it to keep
it in the straight and narrow.
It takes exceptional measures to follow up on a regular basis,
to examine the financial statements of oil companies, to make
them accountable, to not always be the ones bearing the burden
of proof but to make them accountable sometimes. I think such
measures would help improve the situation.
In conclusion, because my time is running out, we will support
this motion which, I hope, will be agreed to. It would be better
to suspend collection of the full excise tax, and we continue to
ask for such a measure. But the motion of the Canadian Alliance
does not exclude that and we will support it.
We want the government to wake up and to assume its
responsibilities. There are competition problems within the
industry.
There comes a time when the government must stop burying its
head in the sand and must stop telling itself that all the
decisions are made elsewhere, that the international situation
is to be blamed or that it is the provinces' fault. The federal
government has responsibilities and it has the financial means
and the legal authority. Let us see it use them.
[English]
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member opposite. He certainly made some points with
which I would agree. We need to make certain that we keep the
oil companies more accountable.
However, I am a little perplexed. The member opposite insisted
that we remove the federal excise tax totally but he failed to
mention that in Quebec the excise tax on gasoline is 15.2%, the
second highest of all provinces, and on diesel it is four times
the federal excise tax. Additionally, there is a 7.5% sales tax
in Quebec even on fuel oil.
The hon. member is demanding that the federal government reduce
its excise tax but I did not hear any commitment that he would
lobby his provincial government to do the same and reduce its
much higher taxes and, as I pointed out, four times higher on
diesel fuel.
1140
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question. It will give me an opportunity to raise a point I did
not cover in my speech.
It is true that the provincial governments, and I am going to
talk about Quebec, with which I am more familiar, tax gasoline,
but they have responsibility for the roads. I would point out
that, when we add up the revenues from the two taxes mentioned,
compared to what the Department of Transport contributes, it
works out to about the same.
Ottawa is collecting close to $5 billion a year in excise tax
alone.
How much is Ottawa putting back into roads? Very little. Not
even 20% of gasoline taxes is reinvested in transportation or in
the environment, and I am talking about the entire Department of
Transport budget.
We must keep things in perspective. Nor is it necessary to be a
math wizard to see that the provincial coffers are not in the
same shape as those of the federal government. Here, only four
months into the year, there is a $11.2 billion surplus, whereas
a surplus of $1.5 billion or $2 billion would be exceptional for the
government of Quebec.
Yes, there are provincial taxes on gasoline. If the hon. member
is interested in more information, she should know that there
are regional rebates.
The 15 cents a litre she is referring to is not the figure
everywhere; it is 15.2 cents, but in certain regions with less
tax it can be as low as 10.9 cents. It is not 15 everywhere.
Of course, if a person were to take the maximum and use it as a
comparison, that does yield the figures we have just been given.
This does not mean that one day the provinces will not join in a
movement, but it is not true to say that Ottawa is going to use
the fact that the provinces do not initiate the offensive as
an excuse not to do so itself. Ottawa should set the tone. If
the provinces want to improve the process later, all the better.
I am not excluding that possibility.
First of all, the federal government has the capacity to take
action, and the responsibility to do so, particularly since I
would very much like to see reference in this debate to the
profit the government makes from gas taxes, from its shares in
Petro Canada, from its partnership as well in the Hibernia
drilling rig. The federal government rakes in a lot from all
this but very little gets reinvested in transportation
infrastructures, the road system or the environment.
There is material for a very worthwhile debate on this matter
and I am ready any time to make a comparison with what Ottawa is
doing.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for making
several points on the issue but I want him to expand on the
revenue that the federal government is receiving from this.
It is my understanding that the federal government does collect
some $5 billion in revenue from taxation and returns a paltry
$200 million back to the provincial government in transfers for
road and highway improvements.
Does the member not agree that the gas pump is actually being
used as a cash cow for the finance minister and that consumers
are being milked by a callous government with this overtaxation?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what my
colleague has said. The tax on gas is a cash cow for the
government. It is extremely profitable, and the government
reinvests little of it.
It is all very well to boast from time to time because there is
an infrastructure program, even if the infrastructure
megaprograms represent an investment of $2 billion over three
years, which represents about $700 million a year for all of
Canada. Every year, the government collects $5 billion in
taxes, excluding revenues from the GST. With the excise tax, it
is nearly $5 billion a year.
The total budget of the Department of Transport, including the
rail, air, land and other sectors, amounts to no more than $1
billion. The same is true of the Department of the Environment.
In social terms, the government could say that gasoline taxes
fund the highways network and are reinvested in the environment,
because there are alternatives to gasoline, which affects the
environment.
I would have no problem with closely examining the issue of
dedicated taxes and having the excise tax go to funding them.
The federal government would have to deal with the following
problem: either it reinvests more in highways and the
environment or it reduces its taxes, because they are not
justified and it should not be taking this amount of taxes.
1145
I totally agree with that and hope that the entire debate on the
present matter will lead us to look at what is actually
happening in the federal government, at how it profits hugely
from the current situation and the high taxation, which is quite
indecent, given how little of it is reinvested. The comments by
the Alliance member in this regard are absolutely right.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I observe that Quebec is the only province where the
provincial tax on fuel exceeds the federal tax. All other
provinces have a provincial tax which is less than the federal
tax.
An hon. member: Check again. You are looking at diesel.
Mr. Ken Epp: I am not looking at diesel. I am looking at
gasoline, which is what we are talking about.
Would the member comment on the role the gasoline tax plays in
the province of Quebec vis-à-vis the provincial tax?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figures
with me, but I can assure the hon. member that it is not true
that Quebec is the only place where the provincial tax is
not lower than the excise tax. There are other provinces where
that is also the case.
Mr. Mac Harb: In New Brunswick.
Mr. Pierre Brien: The hon. member mentioned New Brunswick. I
believe there are other maritime provinces where the situation
is similar.
That being said, as regards the fuel tax in Quebec, which is
15.2 cents per litre, there is a tax rebate in several regions
and that rebate varies roughly between 10.5 and 15.2 cents per
litre. So, in some cases, that tax is much closer to the level
of the excise tax, while in other cases it is higher.
After this technical explanation I should add that, in my
opinion, the justification is better when we consider what the
government reinvested in the road network. In Quebec, the
amounts collected in gas taxes and the amounts reinvested in the
transportation budget are similar. The percentage is much closer
than it is at the federal level. I believe that over 80% is
reinvested.
So, this is much closer to the principle of a dedicated tax. In
Quebec, if we add the environment, we are almost there. I do not
know the situation for every province, but I know that this is
the case for Quebec.
This is why I think it is justified to have gasoline taxes. It
is normal to apply the user pay principle. It is normal that the
users of the road network make a greater financial contribution.
This does not mean that other members of the public should not
contribute, because everyone uses transportation infrastructures
in some way. But it is only normal that users should pay more.
Except that right now we have reached the limits of what is
tolerable. Some help is needed on a number of fronts for
consumers of gasoline and diesel fuel, for truckers and for
those who are or will be using heating oil for their energy
needs, especially this winter, because it is going to cost them
quite a bit. Action is needed on all fronts.
This is where I feel the Canadian Alliance motion has something
of a flaw, and it concerns the GST rebate for truckers. Fuel may
be seen by many as input; they have tax refunds. For them,
therefore, lowering the GST would not mean much of a change in
their situation.
That is why we are focusing more on the excise tax, because this
can also help truckers, particularly the independents, facing
tough situations.
I will therefore conclude by saying that we are going to support
the motion. Other things can be done as well to improve the
situation and take things even further. Let us not lose sight
of the fact that what we have here is a Canadian industry with a
competition problem and that that is what we must tackle, not
just in 2001, after the Conference Board has pronounced, but
sooner than that. We can do it and we do not need to look very
far; if we look across the border, a number of American states
have laws that could quite easily be adapted to our situation
here.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to take part in this important but I would suggest
relatively simplistic debate today. The motion before us talks
about a portion of the oil profits.
Canadians have a difficult time digesting the oil situation, the
cost of gasoline at the pumps and the cost of home heating fuel.
They know that taxes form a small component in this regard.
However if we were to ask Canadians their concerns with regard to
the reality of the prices, we would be told that they are
twofold. Well ahead of taxes is the oil cartel, the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The second concern would be
the high, obscene profits enjoyed by Canadian oil companies about
which we will talk a bit later.
1150
Those numbers in any public domain polling are far higher than
the component of gasoline but they are not mentioned. Gasoline
profits are not mentioned in the resolution before us this
morning. In fact the reform alliance party never mentions this
topic, obviously because it does not want to offend its friends
in the oil patch in Alberta when the newly crowned leader of the
party is looking to sell tables at $25,000 a pop or when he is
meeting or has met with the Conseil du patronat and he identifies
himself with the business community. I am splitting my time with
the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
I was looking back this morning in preparation for this speech
and I noted that there were 75 sitting days between February and
June in the House of Commons. On any given day the reform
alliance had an opportunity to ask about 19 questions. If my
math is correct, and it may be suspect, that is about 1,425
opportunities.
How many questions were there on gasoline pricing? None, nada,
zero, nothing, except to repeat the lines of the big oil
companies. If we are not prepared to talk about oil profits and
we are not prepared to talk about OPEC, we are not really dealing
with the heart of the matter. I think Canadians understand that
especially when they see that gas company profits for the last
quarter have jumped by an average of $558 million or a percentage
increase year over year for the second quarter of 2000 of over
500%.
Someone who has talked a lot about this topic in the House of
Commons this year is my colleague, the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. He has been indefatigable on the
subject of fuel costs since arriving in the House some seven
years ago. In fact 10 times in the past year he has had specific
questions for the Minister of Natural Resources and other
ministers on the subject of gasoline pricing.
He has warned the House that oil companies have driven down
their inventories on home heating fuel by some 39% since last
year and that the result inevitably will be sharply higher
heating bills this fall. He has asked the Minister of Natural
Resources to organize or arrange a summit with the oil companies
and to put a plan into place. There is no hint of that in the
motion before us today.
The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has private member's
Bill C-488 calling for an energy prices commission, something
that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asking about earlier
in this debate. It is an energy summit to make the oil companies
accountable for their actions. Because energy is the
underpinning of our economy it is vital in a geographically
dispersed country such as ours.
Energy price shocks have triggered rounds of inflation before
that have ultimately put many Canadians out of work and have
driven up the cost of living for everyone. Surely, if we accept
the regulation of freight rates, drug pricing, stamps and cable
TV, it is not out of line to consider regulating the price of a
key commodity and economic input like energy that is used by
virtually every Canadian family.
The member's private member's bill seeks to avoid unreasonable
increases. On that topic, it was instructive for me, as my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned earlier in the debate,
that Prince Edward Island is one province that has some form of
an energy review commission.
When I was there earlier this year I noticed that not only were
prices lower in P.E.I. than they seemed to be in other parts of
the country but what was even more interesting was that the
spread between premium and regular gasoline was about 4 cents a
litre as opposed to the 9 cents or 10 cents a litre that the rest
of us pay. When I asked an official at Petro-Canada about it
some time ago he just dismissed it and said “That is our profit
margin and we are not going to touch it”.
1155
For those of us who are old enough to remember when it was sold
in gallons rather than litres, the price spread was not anything
like a 40 or 50 cents a gallon difference between premium and
regular fuel.
Something else is noteworthy and could be done. When the energy
price shock first hit after the Arab-Israeli war in the early
seventies many Canadian provinces, perhaps all of them,
implemented a program whereby there was no price increase. If
the cost of a barrel of oil went up, they determined that there
was a 60 day supply in the line and that no price increase could
therefore take place at the pumps prior to 60 days. It seems to
me that would be useful and worth exploring by the government.
As an aside, I am sure I would have the support of the hon.
member from Labrador opposite who I recall was most upset last
year about a tanker on its way up to Labrador in September filled
with home heating fuel. The price was jumped while the tanker
was in transit. Even though they had paid one price, they were
to reap a windfall profit from the good folks in Labrador when it
got to port.
Bill C-488 would reduce the risk of collusion by involving the
Competition Act. We feel that the government has refused to take
appropriate action and obviously the reform alliance has moved
this motion on pricing—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
decided to count them and after three times I would rise on a
point of order. The hon. member has now misnamed our party three
times. It is the Canadian Alliance. The Speaker has previously
ruled that is the name to be used in the House. I would ask you
to call him on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Elk Island has made the point.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing here on
the environment, something else that is very important to this
party. We need to see something in energy on supporting
expansion and use of public transit. As my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre mentioned on countless occasions, we need to
retrofit buildings to meet higher standards of energy efficiency
and we need a green screen. We need to encourage green
industries and technologies, but we do not get very much, if
anything, from the government opposite.
Something potentially very interesting is happening on this
front in the province of Saskatchewan. One company is looking at
building an ethanol plant in the prairie provinces that would use
straw and other biomass which could produce up to nine billion
litres of gasoline. This holds some hope for the future but it
is not clear to me what, if anything, the government is doing to
assist that process.
We seem to be stumbling toward Kyoto without our ducks being
lined up, without knowing what it is that we will actually
achieve on that front.
We want to promote fair fuel prices through an energy price
commission and approve fuel price increases in the future in a
transparent way. We want to reduce gridlock. We want greenhouse
gases to be controlled, none of which is happening because of the
higher prices that Canadians are paying at the moment.
In conclusion, with the deficit eliminated finally there is
certainly no rationale to keep the surtax on. As far as it goes
the motion is supportable by us, but we do so with the
recognition and realization that it could have been so much
better by way of a resolution to the House which would have
included an energy price commission, a green screen and a
rational way to absorb price hikes in the future.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech and I appreciate
his thoughtful presentation. He talked a couple of times about a
bad thing, the high prices that the oil companies are charging,
whereas in fact roughly 50% of the value of the product is
charged in taxes. Taxes are a very large component of the price
we pay at the pumps.
1200
With respect to the profits the companies are making, it seems
as if the prices have gone up primarily due to the change in the
world supply as manipulated by the people in the near east. When
the world supply goes down the price seems to go up. That seems
to be one of the rules of economics.
Is the member proposing that we have a two price system, that we
sell domestically a product that is comparable to what we are
willing to pay and with exports we go with the world price? Would
he then extend that to farm product prices so that Canadian
farmers would have one price for their product if it was sold
domestically and another price on the international market? I
would like the member to expand on that.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that he
said the taxes were approximately 50% of the total price at the
pumps.
Mr. Ken Epp: No, I said of the product.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Oh, of the product. The former leader
of the Reform Party, when he was speaking earlier, said that it
accounted for 40%, give or take 10%.
The answer to the question on the two price system is, no,
simply because under the North American Free Trade Agreement, as
the member should know, it would be specifically prohibited to
have a two price system for oil, natural gas or any farm
commodity.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Palliser for his presentation and his environmental concerns of
fuel and taxes.
We all saw what happened in England when there was a truckers'
blockage. We saw shortages in the stores. We saw hospitals open
for emergencies only and selective surgery shut down.
We know that petroleum from the North Sea will be completely
gone by the year 2020. With that in mind, knowing that time is
catching up to us, can he recommend to Canada what we should be
doing in terms of going beyond petroleum? Like the commercial,
BP now says that we are beyond petroleum. If we could reduce
taxes on petroleum that would be great, but the long term picture
is what our grandchildren will do without petroleum products.
Can he elaborate a bit more on what Canada and governments
should be doing to see that our children have renewable,
sustainable energy for their products as well?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, this is an extremely
important question since the world supply of fossil fuel is
finite. There are varying debates as to how many years it will
last but we simply have to get on top of this issue in terms of
new products like ethanol and other products. There has to be
more use of battery operated vehicles. Perhaps we need to
encourage that direction by looking at additional costs for the
price of the fancy, gas guzzling SUVs, which some people prefer
to purchase, that clog the highways and do nothing for the
greenhouse gas emissions that Canadians are facing.
There is a range of answers that are available but what we need
is a government that has the will to do the job.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that the New
Democratic Party will be supporting the motion when it is put
later today in terms of what could be one small effort to deal
with what has become a major issue, indeed a crisis in much of
the country.
There is a lot of mystery, mythology and confusion surrounding
this issue. For example, I was trying to think the other day,
when the Canadian Alliance holds its fundraiser in Toronto in a
few days, and it is charging $25,000 a table—
An hon. member: Isn't it $2,500?
Mr. Nelson Riis: No, it is $25,000 a table. I just
cannot imagine it.
1205
When I raised this with some of my Canadian Alliance friends in
Kamloops, they said “Mr. Riis, you are wrong. The Canadian
Alliance would never have a fundraiser where the price is $25,000
for a little table”.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Are they not the grassroots party?
Mr. Nelson Riis: That is what they said, that they are
the grassroots party.
I said “Listen, I will check”. I came back and checked with
some of my friends here and was told that it was $25,000 a table.
I had to wonder who on earth had $25,000 to go to that lunch to
help out the Canadian Alliance. Well I noticed the other day
that the hottest stocks on the market these days are the oil and
gas stocks. They are rocking and rolling in the oil patch. This
is looking very good.
I then began to wonder about the profits of the big oil
companies. I will give a few examples. Imperial Oil's profits
from last June to this June only went up 120%, Shell's profits
went up 155%, PanCanadian's profits went up 271%, Petro-Canada's
profits actually went up 314%, Canadian Occidental's profits went
up 429%, Canadian Natural Resources' profits went up 518%,
Alberta Energy's profits went up 616%, and Husky Energy's profits
went up 2000%.
The oil companies are doing extremely well. I guess that is why
the oil and gas stocks on the exchange these days are just
booming. That is where people are putting their money these days
to make some good income. I guess the first mystery as to who
will be able to afford the $25,000 tables has now been solved. I
suspect a lot of the oil company reps will be there but we will
have a look at that when we find out who is attending.
There is also another mystery. I think all of us know that just
before a holiday weekend, such as Christmas, Thanksgiving or May
24, the prices go up all over the country. The price will go up
10 cents a litre overnight because they know that people are
travelling and they have no choice but to buy gas. There is a
little spike of super profit before every holiday weekend. The
oil companies, when asked, say that is just the way the market
is. Well, fair enough, that is the way the market is for them.
There are other mysteries. On one of the corners in Kamloops
there are four gas stations. When we checked last week, the
price was 71.9 cents at every single gas station. Where is the
competition? When we go into a 7-11 to get milk, it is always
priced differently from one store to another. Chocolate bars are
different. Everything is different, but when it comes to gas it
is always the same. That is a mystery of the marketplace that we
hear of all the time.
As a matter of fact, among those four gas stations, three are
self-serve and one is full serve. In other words, people are
hired at the full serve station to clean our windows, check our
oil and tires and yet it has the same price as the stations that
have no people serving us, just a little machine. This is a
mystery.
The biggest mystery is that we are having a debate today that
was initiated by Canadian Alliance members. I am trying to
think, as my friend from Palliser said, when they have asked
questions in the House of Commons about gas prices. I think he
said that out of the 1,400 questions asked recently there were
virtually none asked by the Canadian Alliance members. All of a
sudden there is a reborn gas prices type of person who has seen
the light and knows that gas prices are of concern to Canadians.
However, to be fair, at least we are having this discussion
today.
Forty-two per cent of the price of gas at the pumps is a result
of taxation. We agree that the 1.5 cents a litre surtax put on
to combat the deficit ought to be taken off. We have also said
that now that the deficit is under control there are all sorts of
things we should be doing. What about health care, education and
all sorts of useful programs that have been cut over the last
number of years?
The other issue I have is double taxation. I think anyone in
the country who is honest and fair with themselves, as the
Liberal task force actually was, would say that double taxation,
taxes on taxes, is kind of nutty, inappropriate and just not
right. I think it was the Liberal task force that said it is a
dumb thing to do.
Later today we will find out if the Liberals will actually
follow their own advice and do what Liberals tell them to do.
1210
What are some of the other solutions? Let us face it, this is
an interesting initiative put forward by the Canadian Alliance,
but will it really solve the energy crisis in our country? The
answer is, no, much more is required.
My colleague already mentioned Bill C-384, an energy price
commission, and said that we regulate all sorts of things. Canada
is the second largest country in the world geographically where
the price of fuels is factored into the cost of every single good
and commodity in our country, everything from pantyhose to grain.
One would think that if there was ever a country in the world
that would be concerned that whatever the increases were that
they would be reasonable, it would be Canada.
My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is suggesting
that we put together an energy price commission as they do in
P.E.I. It works reasonably well in P.E.I. It could even be
doing more. If we regulate stamps and all sorts of other things,
why would we not regulate the one commodity that touches the cost
of living of every single person? It just makes nothing but
sense. That is one good idea we will put on the table for
consideration.
Another good idea is the one suggested by my friend from Elk
Island, which is the fact that oil companies pay world price for
oil. That is only partly true. Who does the drilling? Let us
talk about Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil explores for oil, drills
for oil, transports oil, refines oil, trucks oil, wholesales oil
and retails oil. In other words, vertical integration. It has
the whole thing sewed up. When we talk about the world price
that the OPEC nations are influencing, Imperial Oil does the
whole thing, from finding it, digging it out and pumping it into
our tanks.
Another thing we could do is what some of the states do in the
United States, which is to break up that retail sector so that we
would actually have real independent retailers and the oil
companies would actually have some competition in the
marketplace.
Right now I think it is fair to say that we have four big oil
companies virtually controlling the entire market. Is it
collusion? Is it price-fixing? Is it a cartel operating? Is it
a monopoly or an oligopoly? It probably is but it is hard to
prove, as my friend from Pickering knows. However, we all know
that is what takes place, a sort of informal form of
price-fixing, which is why we need a regulator. We need to break
up the oil companies so that the retail sector is an independent
sector with some real competition in the marketplace as we see
even in that bastion of capitalism, the United States of America.
More important, if we are looking at the future, all of us will
have to acknowledge that fossil fuel is not and cannot be the
future because one day it will simply cost too much to develop,
it will be too remote, too difficult and too environmentally
unsound.
My friend mentioned Kyoto and what we have to do about that. We
have to start putting more of an effort into the development of
alternate forms of energy. Alberta is doing that now and is
leading the way in wind technology. It is looking at geothermal
technology and the big cell development like Ballard's fuel cells
and so on. Canada is actually leading the way in terms of
developing those technologies.
We could be doing all sorts of things but we seem to be fixated
on the oil companies, who, I hate to say, will probably be buying
most of the seats at the Canadian Alliance fundraiser at $25,000
a table, where they may have undue influence in terms of public
policy development.
We have to acknowledge that we have to develop alternative forms
of energy at a much greater rate than we are doing today.
There are some other alternatives on the table. This is a very
small step toward a resolution but the New Democratic Party will
be supporting this initiative when it comes up for a vote later
today.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am greatly encouraged by the comments made by my colleague
from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
[English]
I want to point out to the hon. member, who has looked at the
the Liberal caucus committee report on gasoline pricing, that he
should not fall into the trap of the Alliance and only read the
first recommendation. He should also read the next
recommendation which is contingent on the first occurring. I
will read it for him:
The committee further recommends that if the GST is removed from
other taxes, the federal government should undertake measures to
ensure the resulting savings are passed on to consumers, and not
merely absorbed by the oil industry.
1215
Since there has been sudden newfound wisdom by some in the House
on this very question, I ask the hon. member a question.
Considering what ARCO did in terms of its activities over the
past year by driving the price of retail below the cost of even
taxation let alone wholesale, and the resulting damage of higher
prices in British Columbia, would he not see wisdom that it can
also be found on page 34 of this report with respect to the
concerns that the British Columbia government has already brought
forth in its inquiry and more important, ensure that he does not
vote in favour of this motion?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I will agree with half
of the point my hon. friend from Pickering makes. That is, I
will follow the suggestion of the present leader of the Canadian
Alliance. When he was treasurer of Alberta he was concerned
about the same thing, that having a small tax reduction without
any controls on it would likely result in the oil companies
making even greater profits. They would take advantage of the
confusion in the marketplace and do that.
Also, if my recollection is clear, Premier Harris was also
warning us of this possibility, that removing a point or two of
taxation simply means that the oil companies would probably make
even more profits than they are today. That is not the point of
this.
The point on page 34 is well taken, that simply to take this
initiative and result in greater oil company profits is obviously
not what is intended. To be fair, I do not think that is what is
intended by the motion before us. It is a concern that we would
have to find some way to monitor it.
I do not think it would warrant voting against the motion simply
because the follow-up is yet to be determined or arranged or some
policy put into place to ensure the benefit is passed along to
the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is often difficult to sit here
and have one's position twisted and made to appear very different
than it is. I was listening to the NDP members talk about how
many questions we have asked in the House of Commons. They did
not do their math right. Somebody in their research department
really could not count. I would ask them to go back and maybe
withdraw the numbers they have there.
They try to indicate that we have not raised this issue in the
House of Commons previously, but nothing could be further from
the truth. In fact, the member for Palliser, who said that we
have not done anything in this regard, and the member who just
spoke have not done their research. I personally have been
raising this issue for more than three years. I have talked
about it in speeches. In agriculture I have called upon the
federal government to reduce the tax burden on fuel. I have said
that this is an unfair burden that cannot be passed along. We
have talked about the price of fuel for a long time. For them to
indicate otherwise is totally false. I think the public ought to
know that.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, my friend from the
Canadian Alliance indicates that somehow we were attempting to
distort the situation. To be fair, he has done exactly that.
The point made by my friend from Palliser and reiterated by me
was that when we looked at the record for question period, the
number of questions asked by the Canadian Alliance over the last
number of months, there were no questions we could identify which
related to oil prices or gasoline prices. We stand to be
corrected. My challenge would be to correct that, but that is
what our research indicated.
I looked at it. My friend looked at it. Our researchers looked
at it. During question period, which is the time when we focus
the concern of a political party as opposed to speeches generally
and so on, there did not seem to be any record of that.
I stand corrected, but looking at the results, of the hundreds
and hundreds of questions posed by the Canadian Alliance in
question period, to our knowledge not a single one was calling
for the government to take action on gasoline prices.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member asked that I correct that and I would
like to correct it. I personally have included it in the
questions. It may not have that title in question period and
also, that is not the only time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has
gone into debate.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I intend
to share my speaking time with the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris.
1220
[English]
The debate today is not really about tax policy; it is about the
response of the government to a growing crisis that is facing
many Canadians and which is going without response right now. In
fact, this crisis could affect the very lives of men and women
across our country. It is not something to be casually put
aside.
On Monday my colleagues and I took the initiative to raise this
issue. We are pleased that there has been a follow through by
the party formerly known as Reform. It is our intention to
support the motion when it comes forward to a vote.
My colleagues and I had the opportunity through the last several
weeks to meet with representatives of trucking associations,
among others. Last night we met with the Greater Ottawa Trucking
Association. I want to express my appreciation to that
association for its decision not to resort to any kind of public
protest. That is the appropriate way to deal with these issues
at this time and is in stark contrast to some of the threats that
were raised by the new gunslinger who hides out in the basement
of the House of Commons.
There are two realities we have to face in this debate. The
first is that Canadian citizens are facing fuel price increases
which many of them simply cannot afford to pay and which are a
very real risk to the health and to the lives of Canadians who
are older or who are on low incomes. That is one reality. The
second reality is that we have a federal government today that
has billions of dollars of surplus money which is earning money
from this crisis through the taxes that it collects. It refuses
to take any leadership on behalf of the citizens of Canada.
Let us deal with the first reality. Let us deal with the
question of the Canadians who are at risk right now. We need
only go anywhere in the country and look at the gas prices at the
pumps. They are rising regularly. More seriously, look at the
person who is a trucker in an industry upon which the country
counts. We see increases in diesel prices at the pumps from
Corner Brook to Halifax to Yarmouth to Saint John to Quebec to
Montreal to London to Red Deer to Vancouver to Whitehorse to
every community in the country. The trucking industry is being
driven steadily toward bankruptcy by these increases.
The Canadian Trucking Alliance has said that fuel prices rose
about 40% over the summer. In Ontario alone the average price of
diesel fuel this year is 75% above what it was a year ago.
I had the opportunity on Saturday to meet Paul Easson of
Easson's Transport of Berwick, Nova Scotia and a former president
of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association. He confirmed
that increase causes as much difficulty for truckers in Atlantic
Canada as it does anywhere else in the country. The reality is
clear. No business can operate with increases like that as its
biggest single expense. That is the crisis the Canadian trucking
industry is facing today.
The cruelest impact of these changes falls upon senior citizens,
children and people on low incomes. The Consumers' Association
of Canada has said “Low income families and the elderly could
face winter without heating and car fuel as our oil prices
skyrocket”.
Steve McIntosh, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Oil Heat
Association said “We have already in Canada exceeded the price
hikes that were experienced during the gulf war”.
The National Pensioners' and Senior Citizens' Federation said
yesterday “Many pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes
properly”. Obviously, living in the cold has very serious
health implications. Senior citizens are being put at risk by
the government's indifference to this issue.
[Translation]
The ones hardest hit by the far higher fuel oil and gasoline
prices are older and low-income Canadians. They are getting
ready for a long hard winter. Given their fixed incomes, these
are the people least able to absorb sudden dramatic price jumps.
According to Statistics Canada figures for 1998, there were an
estimated 752,000 low-income families here in Canada, that is
households with an income below the poverty line for a family of
their size in their community.
1225
Households headed by seniors have not seen any increase in their
net incomes.
The government must take steps to assist these people. Canada's
northern climate requires people to heat their homes. On the
average, heating and hot water costs are going to be $1,450.
This is $950 more than last year.
The federal government must show some leadership and not leave
people to struggle on their own.
[English]
General tax cuts do not help people who do not pay income tax.
Yet these people pay the GST. With respect to home heating
fuels, the most direct way to help them is to take the GST off
home heating fuels.
The second reality has been the surprising but consistent
refusal of the federal government to lead on this issue. It is
an old story. The Liberals' habit is to duck tough issues. They
ducked on free trade. They ducked on the Marshall decision. They
ducked on the question of health care until the provinces forced
them into an agreement. They ducked on the question of refugees.
Their answer on the issue of refugees was to wait for the
weather to change.
We cannot have a government that leads by waiting in this
country. The Liberals' first excuse was that we have to wait for
the world. The Minister of Finance said “Canada cannot act
until Belgium does. Canada cannot act until Luxembourg does.
Canada is waiting for Gabon”. That is entirely inconsistent
with the traditions of this country. We are not some other
country. We are a geographic giant. We are a strong economy. We
are a winter country. We are a country with a huge surplus. We
are a country with an obligation to our citizens who are facing a
crisis right now.
I make the point that on other major issues that involved
international co-operation Canada did not wait. We did not wait
on acid rain. We did not wait on free trade. It is possible for
this country to show leadership both to move the country forward
and to help individuals who are struck now and are caught now in
deep and serious personal difficulties.
The government's excuse is that we have to wait for the
provinces. That is not leadership in a country like Canada. What
the Government of Canada should be doing is causing the provinces
to act. Give them reason to act. If the government will not
give them reason, at least give them a telephone call.
Yesterday in question period the Minister of Finance had not
even begun the consultations that might lead to a concerted
action on taxes by the provinces and territories. This country
has a health accord only because the provinces forced the
Government of Canada to act. There is a clear duty of this
parliament to force the government to act on this issue and there
will be an opportunity in the vote on today's motion.
I want to refer briefly to the final excuse, that it is all the
energy companies' fault. If the Liberals are concerned that the
benefits of a tax cut would not be passed on, let them deal with
that question. Let them act on this issue but do not hide behind
it.
The present Prime Minister, in an earlier capacity as long ago
as 1978 said to the Windsor Star, one of the bastions of
the Liberal Party “We will be in touch with the oil companies
and tell them we want the money passed on”. He was prepared to
do that in 1976. What has happened to his resolve now?
Why is the Prime Minister hiding out behind the energy companies
instead of calling them in, using all of the power of the office
of the Prime Minister and saying that lives are at risk in Canada
because of these high prices and it would not be acceptable for
tax cuts not to be passed on to consumers? Why is he not using
the moral suasion that sits in the office of the Prime Minister
of Canada to get some action?
Canadians are at risk. Truckers risk bankruptcy. Senior
citizens and people on low incomes risk having a winter that will
not only be cold, but could be fatal. This is the place from
which action must come. Now is the time for action. Voting for
this motion is a way in which the Parliament of Canada can force
the Government of Canada to serve the people of Canada.
1230
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the Right hon. Leader of the
Conservative Party speaks from his heart on a question which this
side of the House has for many times decided that this was to be
an important issue. It is only today with higher prices that the
very things we were warned of in this document, which was very
well written by my colleagues, have now come to bear fruition.
I do not doubt the party's concern. Yesterday, in most of the
papers in their provinces another dimension of concentration in
their neck of the woods is about to unfold with respect to the
disruption of supply. The right hon. member will also know about
my recent letter with respect to the Energy Supplies Emergency
Act.
Given the New Brunswick select committee's background and
knowledge about what happens when taxes are reduced in the best
intention of helping Canadian people, can the right hon. member
tell me, given the motion that I read this morning about helping
those with lower incomes with an immediate rebate, if this is not
something he would agree with and by implication vote against the
odious resolution motion by the Alliance Party? Which is it?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have before the
House a motion that would have the effect of causing the
government to act. It is not a wish by a private member. I
regret that the government's treatment of its private members has
been by and large to ignore their initiatives.
Parliament has an opportunity to act. The member asked me if I
would make a choice. Yes, I would make a choice. My choice
today would be to vote for this motion so there is increasing
pressure upon the Government of Canada to stop ignoring the
truckers, stop ignoring the poor and stop ignoring people who
need help right now. The only obstacle to that help sits in the
front benches of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is the issue.
That is the choice of the opposition of the House.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Right hon. Leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party talked about the need for the
government to take action and that it should not wait. When the
Progressive Conservatives were in power they did not wait. They
invented the tax on diesel fuel and increased it twice to its
current rate of 4 cents a litre. In addition, with regard to the
tax on gasoline, it increased the tax on gasoline six times.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party if he supports the comments of the premier of Ontario who
said that if the government lowered its 14.7% flat tax on fuel
the oil companies would just raise their prices in kind. Mr.
Palladini, the development minister of Ontario, said that
whenever the government has cut fuel taxes it has not been
reflected at the pumps and that international supply and demand
and huge profits in the oil industry were definitely at the root
of this problem.
Does he support those statements by Tories in Ontario?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, this normally would
not be a history lesson except the hon. member obviously needs
one.
When I became prime minister in 1979 and was introducing a
budget, the deficit that we had inherited from previous Liberal
governments was larger than the entire budget of the Government
of Canada in 1967.
An hon. member: Revisionist history.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: This is not revisionist history.
These are absolute facts verifiable by anyone who is interested
in looking them up. The point is that those were actions that
were taken to bring down cumulative deficits. We are talking
about now.
The hon. member asked whether or not it would be possible to get
agreement from the premiers given the fact that one of them has
expressed reservations about proceeding. Of course it is. Are
we going to give the premier of Ontario a veto over the fiscal
policy of the Government of Canada because the premier of Ontario
does not want to do something? Is the Minister of Finance going
to run away and say he cannot do anything because he is not the
Minister of Finance anymore? Is he going to say that he will
just sit there and have his strings pulled by various provinces?
1235
That might be Liberal leadership but that is not the way to get
this country acting on issues that are very serious to the people
of this country.
Will I hide behind the provinces? No, I will not. Will I hide
behind the view that oil companies might not pass on the benefits
of tax reductions? No, I will not hide behind that. What I
would do is call in the oil companies and make sure that the tax
benefits were passed on. That is what leadership is about. That
is what the Prime Minister should be doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we resume
debate, an explanation is in order for members who have been
rising to ask questions.
The Chair, using its prerogative, determined to recognize
questions and comments from the other side of the debate,
recognizing in full that there were members on the same side of
the isle who had the same opinion on the subject at hand.
We will resume debate as there is no time for questions and
comments.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Just so that we are clear, I can understand that when we
are having exchanges during the question and comment period, we
are trying to find out and clarify positions of different
parties. I think it is important that when someone speaks from
one particular party that they do not also ask questions of their
own member, at least not at first. The prerogative should be for
others to have an opportunity.
It seems to me that on occasion it is important for parties on
all sides of the House to flesh out ideas, concepts. It gives us
the chance to find out what the positions are. It is not just an
opposition-government thing at all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us give it a
break. I raised the issue as an explanation. It does not change
the fact that I still use the prerogative to go from the
different side of the debate.
If there were more time for questions and comments, there is no
doubt that more people would have a chance, even those on the
same side of the issue.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I beg the indulgence of the House to seek unanimous
consent for an additional five minutes of questions and comments
for the right hon. former prime minister so that each party can
ask one question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to extend questions and comments by five
minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It is a related subject, Mr.
Speaker. It is simply to say that I would never ask for special
consideration in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): But there may be others
prepared to extend that special consideration.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party on his maiden speech of this 36th
parliament.
It is very intimidating for me to follow such a statesman who
has just had the opportunity to address this House. I am sure
that there are many in the House who will be able to learn from
his experience and statesmanship, as I wish to and hope to over
the next numbers of years in this particular party.
I am very happy to stand and speak to this motion from the
Canadian Reform Alliance. I am especially happy to speak to this
motion because it embraces basically every one of the issues that
I, the leader and other members of this party had an opportunity
to speak to on Monday morning at 10 a.m., substantially before—
1240
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. member for Athabasca.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this
debate all morning. At least three times, members have stood and
reminded the Speaker that the name of this party is the Canadian
Alliance. That party has been deliberately misusing the name and
you have not said a word. I would urge you to correct them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I understand the
point that the hon. member for Athabasca is making. When a
member rises on a point of order, the point has been made. If
the Chair occupant reinforces that point it contraindicates what
it was about. However, I will repeat it.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris referred to the now Canadian
Alliance Party by its previous name, the Reform Party. I would
ask that the member refer to the Canadian Alliance Party as the
Canadian Alliance Party.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, if you check
Hansard, my reference was to the Canadian reform alliance.
For clarification, I am under the impression that the actual name
is the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance. Is that not
correct? I would like clarification on that point. Or, is it
the Canadian reform conservative alliance? Could you please
confirm that because I would like to have the opportunity to
speak to them in their true form.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker has
previously ruled on this. I would prefer not to go down that
road any further. We are wasting important debate time.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I still
would like to have clarification because I do believe that the
official name is the Canadian reform conservative alliance. I
will refer—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, the
Chair is not the Brandon—Souris research department.
Brandon—Souris has ample opportunity to determine that on its
own. We are in debate.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss. I do not
understand why there is such an embarrassment of that particular
party with respect to its previous roots and previous name and
its raison d'être for being back before the metamorphoses of
whatever this new party is. However, I will get back to the
debate.
I am very happy to speak to our issues and our points which were
brought forward. Last Monday I was very proud to stand shoulder
to shoulder with the Right Hon. Leader of the Conservative Party
and with other members of the party to put forward to Canadians a
blueprint, a road map, a strategy that would help Canadians
overcome a crisis, the crisis being a terrible increase in gas
prices which most Canadians cannot incorporate into their lives
right now.
I will speak to those issues. First, when we brought these
issues forward, the finance minister rather than saying yes, that
they had the ability to help those people out, he said that they
had to bring all of the provinces together before they could make
any decisions. That is a political cop-out. That same finance
minister came forward two days later and said we had a surplus of
$12.3 billion in the fiscal year 1999-2000. For the first
quarter of the fiscal year 2000-01 there is now an anticipated
$13 billion surplus.
The finance minister should thank the member for Kings—Hants
and the previous government for putting in the policies that
allowed the finance minister to accumulate those surpluses.
Those policies were free trade, the GST and an inflation rate
that took interest rates to the point where we did not have to
spend the majority of Canadian taxpayer dollars on the service
and debt. Thankfully, the interest rates are low enough because
of a policy that was put in by a previous government.
I have not heard the finance minister thank us yet but I am sure
it is on his agenda.
1245
I also heard the finance minister make comparisons to liquor
taxes, cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes. That is terrible. It
is nonsense and it is ludicrous. Gasoline tax is not a luxury.
Gasoline is the engine by which our economy is driven.
I had opportunity last night to speak to and meet with some
truckers. Truckers drive our economy. Canada is a huge country
with small populations over huge areas. It costs an awful lot of
money to deliver goods and services across the country. Truckers
are the lifeblood of our economy. Gasoline is not a luxury. It
is what we depend on.
Also a misconception was raised yesterday during a telephone
program in which I took part. One individual on that program
said that there is and must be a risk management opportunity for
truckers to put a gasoline surcharge into their contracts.
That is the misconception out there in the public. In the
majority of contracts signed by the trucking industry, by
independent truckers particularly, there is no ability to include
a gasoline surcharge clause. If an independent trucker tried to
include that in a contract, the contract would not be accepted
and the trucker would not have a job.
The federal government today does not allow gasoline surcharges
in its contracts. People in my constituency office have signed
contracts with Canada Post, a crown corporation. Those contracts
do not have a built in gas surcharge. When they sign a contract
to move mail hundreds and hundreds of miles on a daily basis for
Canada Post, they do so based on a contract price.
The unfortunate part is when the gas prices go up, as we have
seen them go up in the past number of months, those costs are
borne specifically by truckers. They are now doing the job for
nothing. When they approached Canada Post to have a change in
that contract they were told they had to live by the contract.
There were, in fairness, some changes made and some dollars
returned to the truckers but on a totally ad hoc basis with no
logic associated to it at all.
The point I am trying to make is that there are no risk
management tools of which truckers can take advantage. We would
like to see the government show some leadership. It should stand
and say that it respects the trucking industry, the agricultural
industry, the mining industry, natural resources, and those
people who are doing jobs for Canadians. It should try to do
something to allay all the problems they are now facing with gas
prices.
Some 1.5 cents per litre of gasoline is not the be-all and
end-all, but it shows there is a government that cares and
understands there is a problem. Truckers will not be made rich
by a 2 cent diesel tax reduction, but it will make them feel that
someone cares, someone is listening, and there is someone who can
do something for them to show respect for what they are doing.
There is no such respect right now. All I have heard from the
finance minister is that they cannot do it until the provinces
come along or until the oil companies promise they will pass it
on to consumers. That is a political cop-out, a pure political
cop-out. We would like to see some leadership and some action
taken.
Do we not think the provinces will follow suit? Do we not think
the provinces will say that the federal government has finally
done something to show it cares and that they will do that as
well? There is political pressure within the provinces. Are
there not enough smart people on that side of the House to make
sure the gas companies pass that on to consumers?
Gas companies are not that stupid. They know that has to be
passed on to consumers. We have said unequivocally as a party
that we need action and we need action now.
1250
We will support the motion that has been put forward simply
because this is our motion. We would also like to say that there
is one other very important component. That is taking the 7% GST
off heating fuels, including natural gas and heating oils.
As was mentioned earlier in the discussions by the leader of
this party, that would go directly to consumers. We know that.
That cannot be attached in any way, shape or form by oil
companies. It will specifically go to the people who need it
going into this winter. It is September 21 today. It starts
getting cold very soon.
Members of the governing party need some direction so that there
is an opportunity to reduce those costs going into the winter
months. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this
very important and very valid issue. I wish they would also look
at it as being a valid opportunity to put forward a request for
the government to show leadership and to start going in the right
direction.
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge said that this was not
something new. He is absolutely correct that they have been
working on it. The report was tabled in 1998 and contained some
excellent recommendations. This is now September 2000 and none
of those recommendations have been acted on. I wish they had
been. When they come forward we will look at them and we will
support them as well.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the last part of his
comments. It is clear that document was written two years ago,
but it is important for the hon. member to understand what has
happened.
Most of the recommendations in the report have already begun
their very long and torturous road toward finalization with both
the Conference Board of Canada and the public policy forum, not
to mention the fact that there have been several bills. Some of
them are close to becoming law, no thanks to the former member of
his party who sat on the industry committee.
Notwithstanding the relative low profile the fuel issue has
received until now, suddenly the Johnnies-come-lately in the
Alliance discovered this was an issue. Given what happened in
New Brunswick with the first and only example of a tax decrease,
would the hon. member agree that the precedent set and agreed to
by all parties, including the Conservatives along with the
Liberal government of Frank McKenna of the day, concluded that
there was some difficulty in ensuring that tax decreases would be
passed on to consumers who so desperately needed them?
The resolution I have provided is tantamount to basically a
rebate directly to people. Would it not be better than simply
relying on the oil industry? As a consequence, would the hon.
member not feel that what he is doing is nothing more than
operating on the belief that oil companies would be honest enough
to pass it on?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the hon.
member, I really do. He is so cynical as to suspect that the
removal of a 1.5 cent per litre excise tax, which was put in
place initially to resolve the deficit issue, would automatically
be taken up by gas companies and not passed on to consumers. That
is true cynicism on behalf of that member. If we do not attempt
to do that, it simply means that they are not prepared to try
anything. Would it mean that the tax remains forever, that the
1.5 cents a litre has to remain forever?
The government could never get rid of it and, if it did, it
would automatically go to the profits and bottom lines of oil
companies. We as Canadians suspect that every tax placed on
cigarettes, on liquor, on gas and on everything we do will never
be changed because the government cannot do it in that the
companies will take advantage of it.
The member also said that a lot of these recommendations were
being implemented. That is cold comfort for the people who have
not been benefactors of any of the tax reductions that should be
taking place right now. Saying simply that we will look at and
implement tax legislation is cold comfort for the people who will
not be able to pay their heating fuel bills this coming winter.
1255
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the member of the Conservative
Party. Before I ask it, I congratulate the leader of the
Conservative Party on his maiden speech in the House of Commons.
I notice in the motion before us today by the Canadian Alliance
that there is no reference to the very excessive profits of oil
companies. Would the member for Brandon—Souris agree that maybe
there is a relationship between this oversight and the fact that
Alliance members are having a fundraising dinner in Toronto where
they are charging $25,000 a table? Of course they will be sold
to the corporate elite. That is different from the grassroots
approach of the former leader of the Reform Party, who would not
dream of having such a dinner.
Would the member agree that maybe it is just a coincidence or
indicate whether or not there is a relationship between this
$25,000 a table dinner where grassroots Canadians will not be
found, except those serving the dinner, and the fact that they
make no reference whatsoever to profit in the motion before us
today?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest I
cannot speak to the fundraising tactics of members of the
Canadian reform conservative alliance party. If they want to
associate or involve themselves with a certain sector of
industry, that is fair ball for them. I do not have the privy or
the insight as to their connections with that sector.
I do realize, however, a substantial number of their members
come from Alberta. I suspect they have an awful lot of ties with
the oil industry. That is to be expected. I also suspect that
their fundraiser will be attended by any number of people. I
expect a lot of grassroots populists will probably also be in
attendance.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today
to address an issue of prime importance to all Canadians. It is
especially an honour for me to do this in what is known as my
maiden speech.
Just bypassing any references or reflections to that, I do know
that walking down this aisle the other day felt somewhat
matrimonial. I found only seconds after that sense of great
bonding among the people here. It did seem as if the honeymoon
was over in a matter of seconds, so I will approach this speech
in a similar manner.
I dearly and deeply thank the constituents of
Okanagan—Coquihalla who have allowed me this opportunity, with a
great demonstration of support, to be here to address an issue
which actually I heard much about while I was campaigning in that
riding in the byelection.
I also say a word of thanks to the voters of Red Deer, a
previous constituency of mine, who over the years continued to
support me and allowed me to work with others and find and
discover in reality outside the theoretical laboratory that the
principles we will discuss today in fact do work, not just in
theory but in practicality.
The situation we are discussing today in terms of the
possibility of seeing our gas taxes lowered is of very
significant importance.
[Translation]
I believe that today there is an opportunity, for the federal
government in particular, to show the public that we have
members of parliament and a government that respect the
taxpayer. It is an opportunity to provide our support in
principle and to plan for the day we will be able to reduce the
tax rate, not just on gasoline, but on other products as well.
[English]
It is a great opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that not
just the members of parliament here but the government itself
respects hard work and understands the implications of high
policies of taxation.
Let us be very clear about this, that just as ideas have
consequences policies have consequences.
Tax policies have consequences that are immediate and future and
far reaching. As we look at the base of these discussions and
the effect of gas taxes, we need to consider the broader base of
taxation and build a platform of discussion so that we can see
the importance of zeroing in on some taxes, whether it is a few
at a time or in a broad measure. This is what the Canadian
Alliance proposes to do.
1300
I do not think anybody in this Chamber is standing and
exclaiming that there should be no taxes anywhere. As a former
minister of finance I would be grieved in my heart if I thought
there would be no ability to get dollars from the taxpayers, but
it has to be done in a way that is not just fair but seen to be
fair. We recognize the need for taxes, but we also recognize
that there is a point in time where the level of taxation
actually becomes a disincentive and a discouragement to people.
We need to be aware of that.
As a matter of fact, it was in this Chamber in 1917, during the
first world war, that the concept of a tax on income was first
discussed for the war effort. Canadians rallied to that. The
original suggestion was that taxes would be implemented on income
at a level of 2%. In the ensuing debate one of the hon. members
commented that if we were to allow governments to begin to tax
people at a rate of 2%, he said “Mark my words, the day will
come when governments will tax people's income at maybe 3% or
4%”. Just as we are laughing now at where that has gone, that
was the reaction of the day. We have gone far beyond that.
We recognize that taxes are necessary, but we have to be careful
about the level. It was Jean Baptiste Colbert, the fine minister
of finance for King Louis XIV who described taxation by saying
that the art of taxation consists in plucking the goose in such a
manner as to get the most amount of feathers with the least
amount of hissing. He was being a very honest finance minister.
I would never have suggested anything like that in my days as
finance minister. I hope we will never see that from our federal
minister.
An hon. member: We already have.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we already have. I would
say that the hissing has been going on for some time. We need to
be careful about that.
Something we should know in terms of general principles related
to taxation is that any jurisdiction which lowers its taxes will
always experience a stimulus effect in the economy. It will
always experience growth in the economy, more jobs, more
opportunities, more businesses, businesses arriving in that
jurisdiction and businesses deciding to stay and invest more. An
increase in revenues will be seen going into that jurisdiction.
Sometimes, as history notes, it is in the first or second year.
Sometimes the revenues are forgone for more than a year, but the
jurisdictions with lower taxes will always increase in terms of
their revenues.
Let that be a dispelling of the myth which unfortunately some
Liberals and others are trying to propagate, that lowering taxes
means a weakening of our social structure and our social
programs. It does not. It will bring more revenue to government
for protection of social programs. If we truly believe in social
security, we will be aggressive about lowering taxes.
We can look at history and we can make this non-partisan because
I strive daily to make this a non-partisan Chamber and always
think of the good of the country. We can talk about JFK, a
Democrat, significantly lowering income taxes, and gas taxes
would have the same effect, and we can see and track the revenue
increase to the government coffers of that day. We can talk
about Ronald Reagan, a Republican, so this is non-partisan, and a
reduction in taxes and an increase in revenues. There was a
corresponding increase in spending, and some say unfortunately
especially on the defence side. But definitely and clearly there
was an increase in revenues which many economists are now
pointing to being the single greatest factor in what appears to
be an unbroken approach in the business cycle and a great
opportunity that we have seen in North America, unlike at any
other time in history.
1305
Moving to Canada, we can talk about Ontario. There is an
amazing coincidence between reducing taxes and increased revenues
to the government. We can talk about Alberta, which I will be
happy to do in some detail in a moment.
We can talk about Ireland which is an Atlantic jurisdiction. For
decades it has been very low in terms of productivity, income
growth and opportunity. It has taken a very significant approach
to the reduction of taxes. Yes, there was some subsidy input at
the beginning but it has moved away from that. That gives great
hope and opportunity to Atlantic Canada having seen other
jurisdictions experience long term growth because of this
particular approach. It will always work to lower taxes,
increase opportunity and increase revenues to government.
If people do not mind, I will use the Alberta experience. In
1986 to 1993 there was an increase in taxes and a lack of
corresponding response in the economy. From 1993 on there was a
very significant reduction in taxes and an expansion not just of
revenues but of the base economy.
I will tell the House how significant that was. In 1986 the
total amount of income from corporate revenue coming from oil and
gas in Alberta was 59%, a pretty significant portion of that
corporate base. After six years of lowering taxes, from 1993
onward, there was a significant broadening of the base of the
economy. New businesses such as high tech businesses came in. We
looked at the 1998 results. In terms of reliance on one single
resource area, only 21% of revenue from the corporate sector was
from oil and gas. The economy was vastly expanded. It happened
in Alberta and it is happening in Ontario. It happened in
Ireland. It will continue to happen.
People have talked about advantages across the country. Do we
not think it is time that we had the Canada advantage? As we
look at the possibility of lowering these fuel prices, we are at
an all-time high in history of revenues going to the government
through various taxes. For the last seven years, over $1
trillion in revenues has gone to the government.
It is interesting to look at some of the comparisons, especially
with G-7 and the OECD countries, groups of which we are members.
I say this very dubiously but in the G-7 alone we have the proud
distinction of having the greatest increase in taxes compared to
economic growth of any of those countries. It is 14%. Fourteen
per cent is not the amount of taxes individuals pay. As we know,
depending on where we live it can be over 50% of our income.
Canada has the greatest tax increase versus GDP increase, at 14%.
That is not something to be proud of. The United States was
only 11.6%, the U.K. was 8.8% and Japan was only 5.9%. These are
not things of which we can be proud.
Canada has had the greatest increase in terms of the marginal
rates for people moving from low income to middle income. We try
to encourage people to move up that scale. However, there is a
14% increase in the marginal rate when they move from low income
to middle income. That is disrespect for middle income earners
and a significant disincentive.
If we do a comparison of 25 countries in the OECD, which nation
had the greatest growth in GDP, the greatest expansion of the
economy over the last 10 years? It was Ireland which had a 92%
increase in its GDP over 10 years. Where is Canada in GDP
growth? Out of the 25 nations, we proudly stand at number 24.
We only had a 5% increase in our GDP growth because of taxation
policies that are repressive.
If we want to measure in terms of labour productivity which is a
very key indicator, one of the nations that leads in labour
productivity is the United States. We are at only half of its
rate in terms of increase of labour productivity. We are at the
bottom of the list of OECD nations in terms of labour
productivity. This is a very significant disincentive for our
citizens.
With this reality in place, we need to look at where we can
begin to send a signal to Canadians that this is a country in
which they can work and be proud and labour and receive the
rewards of their labours.
Let us look at gasoline taxes and a variety of approaches that
we can take. We can look at lowering that excise tax 1.5 cents.
1310
Just today it was recorded in a national newspaper. I do not
want to advertise which one it was, but it was posted today in
one of those national newspapers that the federal Minister of
Finance said that the government has a moral obligation to lower
that 1.5 cents off the excise tax, as we have suggested, because
in 1995 it was put in place to reduce the deficit. The deficit
is gone and the finance minister to his credit said there was a
moral obligation to reduce that.
I am glad the Prime Minister wants to talk about values because
his finance minister is saying it is a moral obligation, that it
needs to be put back. I congratulate members who have talked
about doing that and who have recommended doing that.
There is the issue of the GST. This is so insidious. With all
the costs that are already on fuels, add on to that provincial
taxes, add on to that the excise tax, and then insidiously put on
top of that the GST, a tax on a tax on a tax.
It was at the University of Manitoba that Professor Nicolaou did
the study in terms of pricing of gasoline. He said that the
cascading effect of the GST, the tax upon tax upon tax alone
would save Canadians 1.7 cents a litre if the GST was moved down
just to below where other taxes are put on.
We are not even going after the Liberals for totally not
acknowledging their promise to kill, scrap and abolish the GST.
We are saying if they are not going to do that, could they at
least move it down so that they are not punching people out at
these different levels. We are asking for that.
There are truckers with long term contracts who face the
inevitability of losing their businesses and their livelihoods.
Let me make it very clear. We are suggesting this change not in
the threat of a truckers strike. We talked about this before
there was that threat. We are talking about this because it is
the right thing to do.
A happy coincidence of moving in this area would be to alleviate
the possibility of a truckers strike or slowdown, and also to see
families and individuals with a great increase in confidence in
their government because it was responding. We need to move that
diesel tax downward also.
It is significant to note that small things can lead to great
things happening. It was Demosthenes who said that by taking
small opportunities one can lead to great enterprises. What
greater enterprise than to send a signal of hope from coast to
coast to coast?
Who would be affected by that signal of hope? The person who
sent me an e-mail from Saudi Arabia who said there are many
Canadians over there who consider themselves tax refugees because
of the high levels of taxation in this country. It would send a
message of hope to people whom I talked to throughout the summer
across the country who said because of the Canadian Alliance
position on taxes, they were going to delay their decision to
move out of the country, or to move their business out of the
country in the hopes that we would be elected and form the next
federal government.
Let us turn the hissing of Canadians to cheering. Let them cheer
the fact and let me invite members of the Liberal government to
vote with us on this great motion, to say that they acknowledge
that the government has huge surpluses and it is partly as a
result of taxing people at too high a rate. The other reason the
surplus is there is because of what has happened in a number of
provinces that have their fiscal houses in order. They have
reduced taxes, have rejuvenated economies and have created
surpluses which then of course quite properly are shared with the
nation. It is time for great enterprise.
I thank the members who are already indicating they will join in
this great enterprise. I invite our Liberal counterparts to join
also and send a message of hope and opportunity across this great
nation of ours.
1315
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Albertan, I would
most sincerely like to welcome the new Leader of the Opposition
to the House, a fellow northern Albertan. The new leader does
not consider himself to be a southern Albertan.
He mentioned Ireland at least twice in his talk. Does he not
think that the free post-secondary education in Ireland has had a
significant part in the Irish success story?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I would say that its
emphasis on education has had a significant effect. In fact I am
surprised to hear the member for Edmonton Southeast say that it
is free. We know that there is no free lunch and there is no
free education. That cost is being picked up somewhere.
However, I certainly would agree with him in terms of saying
that everything we can do to maintain high education levels and
research and development is something that should be followed. He
is right from the point of view that Ireland's emphasis is on
education but it is not free. The taxpayers pick up the cost.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to commend the hon. Leader of the Opposition for
his statements. I also want to commend him for his insight on an
issue that we on this side have been working on for some years.
I wish, however, that the hon. member would perhaps take the
time to read the rest of the document which has inspired his
first foray into the question of taxes, that all ills can be
resolved by dealing with gas taxes.
Given that the price of gasoline is rising as a result of the
commodity, and given Dr. Nicolaou's views that the Canadian
gasoline market is sheltered from competition and that this
market disease is a profit boon to oil majors, would he not agree
that it is better for the Government of Canada and the opposition
to accept the motion that the member put forth this morning which
tactically they denied through unanimous consent, and allow
Canadians to receive the rebate, not the oil companies as a third
party?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I first want to
congratulate the hon. member for his work in this particular
area.
Rebating is a legitimate form of returning to taxpayers that
which has been taken from them in an excessive amount, as the
federal Liberal government has been doing. I have even
recommended that at various times in the past. As a matter of
fact there is one government in the country which is now doing
that.
The issue of the tax is the quickest, easiest and least
administrative in terms of that particular reduction. I sense
and share some of the concern that if the taxes are lowered, how
do we keep the oil companies in line from, as I have been quite
properly quoted as saying, filling in that particular ditch.
I would say that the federal government has the clout to sit
down with oil companies, and far from presuming that that would
happen, give those companies the benefit of the doubt, tell them
there will be a very close monitoring and allow that to happen.
However, administratively the signals could be sent out
immediately through the tax process.
I again commend the member for continuing to advocate this. I
am not sure how he will be voting. I am sure the history of a
previous member on his side, who raised the concern about taxes,
haunts him somewhat considering where that member is not today.
However, sir, I commend you for your courage and insights on this
issue.
The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members to please
remember the Chair when they are answering.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could
the hon. Leader of the Opposition tell us how many times he
reduced the provincial tax on gas in the province of Alberta
while he was the minister of finance?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I, honestly, have lost
track of the number of taxes, fees and costs that I specifically
reduced in Alberta. I will produce a definite list for the
member because it is quite exciting that my colleagues and I were
able to do that.
On the issue of the gas tax itself, when that question came up
as the price of oil started to move up over the last year, my
proposal clearly was that it should be for a rebate rather than
the tax because of the lack of ability of a province to harness
those national companies around a table and tell them they would
be monitoring it.
The consideration at that time was not to go the tax route but
to send out to all consumers, to everyone in the province, a
rebate. That took place about three or four weeks ago. I was
gone by then so I cannot claim the full credit for it, but that
was my approach and that is what has taken place.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the Leader of the Opposition on a number of his
remarks and, in particular, his commitment to lowering taxes. We
in the Progressive Conservative Party know that is how to grow an
economy.
1320
I want to clear up something that happened yesterday. When the
Prime Minister referred to the fact that he was the Minister of
Finance at the time that gas taxes were increased 9 cents per
litre, was he or was he not a member of that government and did
he support the budget that actually increased gas taxes during
the Getty regime?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, clearly, as a newly
elected MLA, yes, I was a member of that government and that was
when that tax was put in. It was not put in while I was finance
minister, as some have unfortunately tried to indicate. It was
about a year after I was elected when that tax went in.
I will admit my deficiency. I was not able to stand as a lone
member and turn the tide of that particular request. I was
deficient in not being able to hold off the horde of others who
wanted to see that go forward. I apologize for that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very intently to the Leader of the Opposition's speech.
I think he would agree that taxation is all about choice. What
he is asking us to do today is to make a choice on $700 million
worth of revenue coming into the federal government.
The government has made a commitment to reduce debt. For every
$10 of debt we reduce we also reduce $1 forever because it is a
debt off our shoulders.
At the same time, we also note that fossil fuel is creating more
air pollutant problems. Five thousand people died last year just
because of airborne pollutants. As a societal good, is it really
the duty of governments to be reducing consumption? When the
cost of fossil fuel went up during the Reagan administration in
the mid-eighties consumption went down. We should be promoting
the use of alternative fuels and the reduction of fossil fuel not
in fact celebrating them.
From the member's knowledge as a treasurer, how much of that
barrel of oil goes into the provincial royalty payments?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I will keep all those
questions in mind. First, on the issue of the environmental
effects, we are talking about people who have to drive to work
every day. We are talking about truckers. We are talking about
people whose livelihood and transportation needs depend on
gasoline.
If nothing had happened at all over the last decade or so in
terms of a reduction in pollutants, then I think the point would
be stronger. The fact is that just with the elimination of lead
in gasoline alone, 85% of particulate has been removed from the
atmosphere. There is clearly more to do. A number of provinces
are allowing electricity and other forms of energy to be plugged
into the power grid system which people can then order. Wind
power, for instance, is already being plugged into the power grid
in some jurisdictions.
Many things are going on for the good and proper pursuit of the
reduction of particulate in the atmosphere. This, however,
should not be used as an excuse by the government to be taking in
more money than it should be.
In terms of the overall amount going into the treasury, and I
obviously cannot quote the figures of the last month or two, but
there has been quite a shift not just in the corporate percentage
of revenue coming in but in the overall revenue. As a matter of
fact, about two years ago in Alberta, as I recall the figures,
the resource royalty amount coming from crude oil alone had
dropped from just below $2 billion to about $545 million. So
there has been a very significant reduction in terms of the
overall royalty, but again an increase in the economy.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition on his
maiden speech. However, I am a little curious and wonder if he
might be able to respond to a question.
I will go back to November 29, 1999 when that member was the
finance minister in Alberta. In his second quarter fiscal update
he went to great pains to celebrate increased revenue in the
province of Alberta, which he clearly said resulted from what
were stronger energy prices.
1325
I wonder how he reconciled his position to the people of
Alberta, when he was known as the shah of Alberta, of celebrating
oil prices in those days and then stand here today and take the
position that he is taking when Alberta's surplus of $5 billion
results directly from $4 billion in energy—
The Speaker: Our time has virtually expired. I will
permit the hon. Leader of the Opposition to respond and then I
will listen to a point of order.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I am humbled by the
amount of fascination with my previous history. As an elected
person, as we all are, with virtually no ego at all, I hate
talking about myself but when I have an opportunity like this I
find it irresistible.
The $5 billion surplus figure that he just quoted is of course
now. I was not there enjoying that type of surplus. What he
left out of the figures that he was also quoting for 1999 was
that 1999, closing out the year for 1998, was a phenomenal year
of expansion and growth in the economy in Alberta. There was
about $1 billion less in terms of resource revenue that year.
There was $1 billion less in 1998 than in 1997 and yet the
economy continued to expand, which continues to make my very
precise point.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In the interest of ensuring that we achieve goals for
Canadians in common, and with the Leader of the Opposition here,
I ask for unanimous consent to amend the motion by deleting
everything after the word “consumers” and replacing it with the
following, “especially those with low incomes. This House calls
upon the government to assist Canadians in coping with the rising
financial burden and that this House strongly urges provincial
and territorial governments to consider providing similar
assistance”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As a member of the government, I would encourage the
member to put that on the order paper for tomorrow and we would
be happy to debate it at that time.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. parliamentary secretary.
What I would first like to look at is who the real culprit is
when it comes to Canadian taxes on fuel versus the oil producers
and the cost of oil. The simple fact is that two days ago the
benchmark October contract for West Texas intermediate crude was
$36.51 U.S. a barrel. A year and a half earlier in 1998 it was
less than $11 U.S. Obviously the price of crude is the real
culprit. This is why the finance minister will be taking very
constructive steps, I hope, with his G-7 counterparts in Prague
this weekend, to try to deal with the very serious impact on the
economies of all the countries in the world.
The second point I want to talk about is the impact on truckers.
To the extent government taxes add to the cost of diesel fuel,
are these taxes mainly provincial or federal? Let us look at the
federal taxes.
1330
We have a GST of 7% but it is fully refundable to truckers. They
do not pay it so it cannot be the GST. Is it the excise tax? The
excise tax federally is four cents. It does not fluctuate with
the price; it is constant. This is the lowest excise tax in the
G-7 and it is fully deductible for tax purposes. Four cents,
yes. It is deductible and it costs less for the trucker.
Let us look at the provincial taxes. In Alberta truckers pay a
nine cent excise tax on their diesel fuel.
I want to look at this issue raised in the House today through
the motion. It was the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge who
first raised the issue of fuel tax prices in the country. Now we
see very quickly, for the first time in history and never talked
about before, that members of the official opposition are running
after the parade, trying to catch up to it and get in front of
it, but they are stumbling all over themselves in so doing.
Nothing could be greater evidence of their craven efforts to grab
headlines and of their abject incompetence in coming to grips
with this particular issue.
Let us look at the motion before us. It talks about the severe
hurt to Canadian truckers and homeowners. Then what does it
propose as the antidote to this harm? Two things: cut the
federal excise tax by 1.5 cents per litre and eliminate the tax
on the tax for gasoline. That is what those members are
proposing in this opposition day measure to deal with this huge
issue we face in terms of the cost of fuels. How will these two
little tax measures they propose help truckers and homeowners?
First, truckers. Let us look at the 1.5 cents per litre cut
that has been proposed. It never applied to diesel fuel and it
does not today so it cannot be that. Since the GST does not hit
the truckers, there is no tax on the tax. So the measures have
absolutely no impact on truckers. How will they help truckers?
Not one nano-cent.
How about the homeowners the opposition talks about? Since
there is no federal excise tax on heating fuel, their proposed
1.5 cent tax cut will not help them. And obviously there is no
tax on tax. How will these proposed measures, the opening salvo
of the official opposition, help homeowners? Not one nano-cent.
In conclusion, these proposed measures if enacted would have
zero impact in helping homeowners and truckers.
Let us say the 1.5 cent tax cut went through. Even if it did,
would car owners ever see it or would it just be swallowed up by
the producers? These are very real concerns. In rejecting a fuel
tax cut less than a year ago for Alberta, the present Leader of
the Opposition said:
Will it flow through to the people? Will it be reflected at the
pump? What kind of guarantees have we got that gas retailers are
also going to drop the price?
There are no guarantees in this motion reflecting these very
real concerns expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. I just
listened to him a few minutes ago. In response to questions
dealing with this issue, he said that he really does not favour
tax cuts, that he prefers tax rebates. Then why did he not bring
forth tax rebates in the motion? Even the Leader of the
Opposition is admitting that it is a flawed motion. Is there a
guarantee in the motion that a cut would be passed on to the
consumers? Not one nano-cent.
This is either very cheap politics or it is total legislative
incompetence on behalf of the official opposition. Canadians
will not buy into this phoney motion because it will do nothing
to help the homeowners, the truckers, or the people buying gas at
the gas pump and they are not going to be hoodwinked by this type
of flim-flam.
1335
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what a diatribe that was. It is
perfectly understandable how the junior minister would state that
it is total legislative incompetence for us to put forward a
motion to reduce taxes. I know that to reduce taxes is
completely against anything a Liberal has ever stood for.
The big issue here is how the cut to fuel taxes would be
guaranteed, I think is the word the hon. member used, to be
passed on to the consumer, to the gasoline purchaser. If the
federal government is waiting for the provinces to come on board
so that they can jointly reduce fuel taxes, how would that ensure
that the joint cuts would be passed on to the consumer?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question. The Leader of the Opposition has adumbrated that this
is indeed a very important question. He has suggested rather
than just have a tax cut that we have a rebate. That could be a
very real possibility.
I wish that whoever drafted the motion had talked to the Leader
of the Opposition first, because he might have indicated that
maybe just cutting gas prices will not be passed on. When there
are fluctuations at the pump of five or six cents a day, a one
and a half cent cut, even if there were goodwill to try to pass
it on, would not even be noticed by the people. This is why the
government is looking very seriously at the issue and is looking
at other mechanisms for ensuring that a reduction of these very
onerous fuel prices for all Canadians will have the best impact
in terms of where they are most needed.
Mr. Jay Hill: The hon. member did not answer my question.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Of course I did not answer the hon.
member's question because I said we are looking at mechanisms for
passing it on. The hon. member's leader has suggested that it is
not tax cuts but rebates. I am saying that this is at least
slightly more thoughtful. I wish that the motion you brought
forward had reflected the latest thinking and maybe it is just
today—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I must interrupt. I
do want to remind members to address each other through the Chair
as we indicated earlier.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this morning I made a phone call to my riding
and talked to a friend of mine, a farmer. He informed me that
his crop which is not harvested is now covered with about three
inches of snow. It does not look very promising for farmers to
get their crops off. He also knows about the debate today. He
realizes that farmers surrounding him are in a bad position not
only because of the failure of the government's AIDA program,
which has just not been successful at all, but also because
farmers realize once more that they will have no say on how they
will be able to market any crop of wheat and barley they do get
off. He is saying to fight tooth and nail on behalf of farmers to
see that at least we can get this much relief. We need help.
I am surprised the agriculture minister is not in here demanding
his government help the farmers to what little extent it can. The
farmers are major consumers and it could amount to significant
dollars that could save farmers.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, farmers do not pay tax on
coloured diesel. It is very simple.
An hon. member: Simple.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Farmers get a rebate for the GST and
they do not pay the tax on the coloured diesel.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Everybody should be a farmer.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the hon.
member does not know what the facts are concerning farmers. It
takes a city boy from Toronto to tell him.
Having said that, the party opposite has twice rejected a motion
that would allow those hit hardest by these high fuel prices to
be compensated through assistance. That might be one of the ways
in which the compensation goes back to those who need it most.
1340
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be involved in
this debate.
When the Leader of the Official Opposition gave his maiden
speech he said initially that we should remove the partisanship in this
debate and let us work in the interests of all Canadians. I
almost fell for it until all his colleagues burst into laughter.
I should have known that nothing has changed.
My colleague the member for Pickering—Uxbridge—Ajax tried to
introduce an amendment to the motion and members of the Alliance
used the trick that they have used ever since they came here.
They used a procedural ploy. Canadians who are watching the
debate may not fully comprehend the subtlety of it; it is
procedural gobbledegook frankly. They denied Canadians the
opportunity to see a real debate and denied members of the House
an opportunity to choose either their motion or an amendment to
the motion proposed by my colleague.
Nothing has changed. They talk about a new way of doing
parliament. They talk about how their name is different but I
look across the Chamber and the people are the same, except
perhaps for one, and the policies and philosophies are exactly
the same.
I would like to talk about fuel costs. Of course rising fuel
costs are a concern to all Canadians. We need to understand what
is driving the increase in energy costs.
In the last 12 months the price of crude and the price of fuel
at the gas pump has about doubled but surprise, surprise, the
federal taxes have not changed. The excise tax on gasoline and
diesel is on a per litre basis. It does not change when the
price goes up or down. If the government reacted to the concerns
of Canadians and who knows, maybe it will, but it would not be
because we are the culprits. It would be because we would be
concerned about the plight of a number of Canadians and the
amount they have to pay at the gas pump and the concern about the
heating fuel costs for the upcoming winter.
We need to put the whole debate into another context as well. If
we compare the taxes on gasoline in Canada with the
industrialized world, our taxes as a component of the total pump
price are actually relatively low at around 42% on average. In
many of the OECD countries they are 70% to 75%.
Gasoline taxes in Canada comprise about 42% of the price at the
pump and are very low by international standards. All we have to
do is travel to see the price of gasoline at the pump in places
like the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. I am not
trying to trivialize the problem but we need to understand that
our gas taxes here in Canada are really low in comparison to the
other countries of the industrialized world.
When was the last time that the taxes went up over a long
weekend? It does not happen. The taxes have not changed for many
years. We are talking about a situation of pricing policies of
oil companies.
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and I have been working
on this issue for some time. Through his leadership our caucus
has been concerned about energy costs for some time. The caucus
made a number of recommendations which have led to action on the
part of the government by the industry minister with reviews of
the Competition Act. That is an area where we have jurisdiction.
It is an area where the government might act to put more teeth in
the Competition Act.
1345
In talking about fuel costs, we are obviously looking forward,
but we have to be concerned about the context of the debate. As
I pointed out earlier in rebutting the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, it was during the tenure of the Tory
government that diesel excise taxes were invented and the excise
tax on gasoline was increased six times.
Likewise, we can look across the floor to the Leader of the
Opposition. When he was in the legislature in the province of
Alberta fuel taxes went up six times. In the province of Alberta
they now sit at nine cents a litre. Our excise tax on diesel
fuel is four cents a litre compared to the Alberta government's
fuel tax of nine cents a litre.
Some people say that the federal government should just act
unilaterally. I was on a talk show last night in Edmonton. I
was reminded many times that these were not government tax
dollars but the tax dollars of Canadians. If we are trying to
alleviate the concerns of Canadians, why would we not be
concerned about the question of whether any reductions in excise
tax will flow through to consumers? Are we saying that we would
reduce excise taxes? If they did or did not get into the hands
of consumers is an irrelevant question. Let us do it. Let us
show leadership.
As the Minister of Finance has said, if we are to provide real
relief for Canadians we have to work in concert with the
provinces. Unlike what some members have proposed in the House,
the provincial taxes on fuel are in general higher than the
federal excise taxes on gasoline and on diesel, for sure.
The problem is that the motion before the House seems to have
been crafted in a very hasty fashion. If one were a cynic, one
would say it is based on political opportunism. It talks about
heating oil, consumers and truckers. As my colleague earlier
pointed out, the motion fails miserably in trying to address
these questions.
For example, there is no federal excise tax on heating oil. That
is the first problem. The second problem is that they talk about
alleviating the problems of truckers. I have great sympathy for
truckers. I have a lot of trucking companies in my riding. When
truckers pay the GST they receive a GST input credit when they
pass it on to their customers. The GST they pay is a
flow-through. All of us in the House understand that.
An hon. member: On this side.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, on this side we certainly understand
that. The excise tax on diesel fuel is four cents. In Ontario
the tax on diesel fuel is about 13.5 cents a litre.
How could we realistically come to the Chamber and put before us
a motion that does not address the issues they are proposing to
address? At the same time they ask, if we did something on
excise taxes and it did not flow through to consumers, would it
be such a big deal?
We are managing the tax dollars of Canadians. If we are to do
anything we want to make sure it gets to consumers. The NDP has
proposed some regulatory mechanism to try to ensure that would
happen. I personally do not support it because it would be far
too regulatory and cumbersome.
As members on the benches opposite know, the reality is that it
would be virtually impossible to determine if a reduction in the
excise tax made its way to consumers. There are many different
variables. The oil companies will say that they were planning to
do it but forgot it because their other costs went up.
The motion is horribly flawed. I am very disappointed that we
did not have an opportunity to vote on an amendment so the House
and Canadians would have an opportunity to see the two sides of
the coin. I certainly will not be supporting the motion put
forward by the Alliance Party. I would encourage everybody in
the House to do the same.
1350
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I take exception to some of the
comments that were made on flow-through costs. Part of the
difficulty is that truckers cannot pass their costs on because of
long term contracts.
The issue is like a nutcracker. High fuel costs are part of it.
The other side of the nutcracker is that truckers and the people
of Canada are caught in low economic conditions like in British
Columbia where logging trucks are facing markets that are
non-existent. I talked to a mill lumber manufacturer who said
that he was trying to do business where there were no markets for
his product. The difficulty is the federal government is
responsible for softwood quota agreements that have deprived the
industry of the profits it needs to pay the high taxes demanded
by the government.
How can truckers pass the costs on through long term contracts
which do not allow for this pass through? What recognition has
the government taken of the difficulties it has placed on
industry through faulty international trade agreements like the
softwood quota agreement?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, having lived in British
Columbia for 13 years I am quite sympathetic to the forest
industry. What will happen after the softwood agreement is
somewhat extraneous to the debate.
With respect, I think the member is confusing two issues. I
came from the private sector. It is a very competitive market
and sometimes one is quoting on a fixed price. It seems to me
that if truckers have learned anything, they should probably
include in the next go-around some escalators when talking about
a major component of their cost base.
The reality is the member is right that there are some truckers
in this predicament. That is why the government is seized with
the question. However, if we look at the GST, it has nothing to
do with the contracts with their customers or clients. It is an
input tax credit. They pay the GST, fill in the forms and get it
back.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a brave man to be
speaking to this issue. I respect him for that.
When I fill up my gas tank in my province I pay 15 cents a litre
provincial tax. I also pay 10 cents a litre federal tax. Would
the member mind telling the House what percentage of that tax per
litre, which was a designated tax because I was grabbed at the
pump, went back to the province of Saskatchewan for the purpose
for which it was taken?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the province
of Saskatchewan, the provincial tax on gasoline and diesel is 15
cents. Our diesel tax is four cents and our excise tax on
gasoline is 10 cents.
The point is that excise tax on gasoline like the tobacco tax
and a whole range of other taxes go into the consolidated revenue
fund of the government. They are used to serve the needs of all
Canadians, including relief for farmers on the prairies which was
between $1 billion and $2 billion in the last budget alone.
The revenues from excise taxes flow through to the consolidated
revenue fund. They fund, for example, the $23.5 billion the
Prime Minister recently concluded with the provinces and
territories to invest in health care and education. They are not
a dedicated tax. They were never intended to be and never will
be.
1355
The Speaker: Rather than proceeding with the debate, we
could hear a few more statements today with a little luck.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
Sunday thousands of police and peace officers from across Canada
will gather on Parliament Hill to pay tribute to colleagues who
have died in the line of duty.
The police and peace officers national memorial day ceremony is
a lasting tribute to the sacrifice of these brave men and women.
These services provide Canadians an opportunity to express their
appreciation for the dedication of police and peace officers and
their ultimate sacrifice to keep our communities safe.
The names of fallen police and peace officers inscribed on the
memorial pavilion is a solemn reminder to all of us of the danger
of this noble profession. The memorial's motto is a fitting
expression of our appreciation: “They are our heroes. We shall
not forget them”.
* * *
BILL C-3
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am beginning to see why Canadians have so little
respect for politicians.
For the past number of months the justice committee has heard
witnesses from across Canada on Bill C-3, the youth criminal
justice act. These folks have tried to convince the committee to
change the bill. I thought they were successful. The committee
ended up with approximately 260 amendments.
However, through the ineptitude of the rules, coupled with the
government majority on the committee allowing one individual to
prevent any discussion on these amendments, months of committee
time has been wasted. The bill is to be reported back to the
House in exactly the form it left over a year and a half ago.
Those who testified cannot be impressed that the justice
committee was unable to make the changes. Canadians cannot be
impressed that the committee has done nothing with this
legislation.
As a member of parliament I am most disappointed that when we
send a bill to committee for review and potential improvement it
is not done. We have a problem when an individual who has not
seen fit to present any amendments of any real substance to the
legislation is able to prevent all other parties of the committee
from doing their jobs for Canadians. I am outraged and Canadians
should be outraged.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the outstanding volunteer efforts of Dr.
Jan Barica and Mr. Gary Norton.
These two Burlington residents have recently returned from
working internationally with CESO. Dr. Barica provided her
considerable expertise to the laboratory of applied ecology in
the faculty of agriculture at the University of Southern Bohemia
in the Czech Republic. Mr. Norton assisted the Peruvian Central
Reserve Bank to develop a reporting system, train staff, review
technologies, and ensure it has the best possible system.
These two bright, caring individuals demonstrated the best of
Canadian values internationally. My congratulations to Dr.
Barica and Mr. Norton for their incredible achievements. They
are fine Canadian ambassadors. I am sure all colleagues join me
and their family and friends in proudly celebrating their
accomplishments.
* * *
HIV/AIDS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this Sunday, 16 communities throughout Nunavut will participate
for the first time in the national AIDS walk campaign to promote
awareness of HIV/AIDS.
I will be taking part in this important event in my home
community of Arviat as we help raise national awareness of this
devastating disease in an attempt to prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS.
I wish to congratulate Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association, the
sponsor of the Canadian Inuit HIV/AIDS Network with funds from
Health Canada, on its excellent work in co-ordinating Inuit
participation in the national AIDS walk campaign.
I wish all participants in Nunavut and throughout Canada good
luck and say a big thanks to all sponsoring organizations that
have donated tokens of appreciation and food for the participants
to enjoy after their walk. Mutna.
* * *
COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I am pleased to let you know that Richmond Hill in my riding of
Oak Ridges has received the highest possible rating, a four bloom
rating this past weekend at the awards ceremony of the national
Communities in Bloom program.
To win a four bloom rating a municipality must achieve more than
800 out of a possible 1,000 points in eight different categories.
The town is particularly pleased that it achieved its highest
scores in the areas of heritage and community involvement.
Richmond Hill has been invited to represent the province of
Ontario in the national competition next year, one of only six
towns and cities to have earned that opportunity.
1400
The Communities in Bloom program is dedicated to improving the
quality of life of Canadian municipalities. Improving the
appearance of neighbourhoods, parks and streets through the use
of flowers, plants and trees and increasing environmental
awareness helps make Richmond Hill a wonderful place to live,
work and play.
Good luck next year in the national competition. I look forward
to seeing yet another beautiful display of my community in bloom.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a sad story.
Sergeant John, a World War II veteran returned home in 1944 from
the battlefields of Europe. He married his high school
sweetheart Sylvia in 1945. For the past 10 years John and Sylvia
have received veterans independence payments from veterans
affairs to help them live in their own home rather than be put
into institutional case.
John passed away a few months ago and now a severe injustice has
occurred. Sylvia, his wife, is denied by legislation the VIP
monthly allowance that her husband was eligible. That was to
help her to continue life in her own home. If the couple needed
help keeping their own home when John was living, is it not
obvious that his wife will need even more help now that he has
passed away?
Parliament needs to correct this disgraceful injustice and
provide veterans' spouses the same standard of living, not just
one year after the veteran dies, but for the rest of a spouse's
life.
* * *
[Translation]
NICOLAS GILL
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to the
achievement of one of Canada's judo greats, Nicolas Gill of
Ville-Saint-Laurent.
This athlete did Canada proud today, winning the silver in judo
at the Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. This was Canada's
first silver medal.
Mr. Gill first made a name for himself on the international judo
scene at the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, where he won a
bronze. After a serious knee injury, which almost ended his
career, Mr. Gill returned to the sport and won a bronze medal in
the 1999 world championships and a gold at the Pan-American Games
in Winnipeg the same year.
Nicolas is a model of commitment and perseverance for all the
young people who meet him, including my seven-year old daughter,
Anne-Darla, who has her yellow and white belts and for whom
Nicolas is a great hero. I call on hon. members to join with
me—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we can have all the tax cuts and social programs we
want, but if we do not have the ability to produce our own food
we are not a sovereign nation.
We cease to be self-sufficient in food production if we allow
the Americans to put our farmers out of business by artificially
lowering the commodity prices through their huge subsidies. We
are seeing it now with skyrocketing oil prices. We do not
control the supply and are being held hostage by foreign nations.
Just think what would happen if we had to depend on other
countries for our food.
Ontario grains and oilseeds organizations sponsored 11 meetings
across the province last month, with one of the largest being
held in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. They reminded the
provincial and federal governments that the low income situation
is reaching crisis proportions.
The government has made some positive changes for the
agricultural sector but recognize our work is not done.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if repeated calls from the Canadian Alliance were not
enough to convince the government that agriculture is in the
throws of a crisis, perhaps the Prime Minister should consider
the latest StatsCan figures which indicate that there are 26,200
fewer farm workers on the prairies this fall than there were last
fall.
Sadly, there is no reason to expect this trend to stop. Input
costs are soaring out of control, commodity prices remain at
record lows and poor weather across the country has affected crop
yields.
But this should come as no surprise to the Prime Minister. The
Canadian Alliance action for struggling agricultural producers
report warned that 75% of farmers surveyed thought the future of
agriculture was bleak.
Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Prime
Minister should have a look at ISAP report that the Canadian
Alliance sent them this spring before they get any more nasty
surprises.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIE-LOUISE GAGNON
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
residents of Appartements Louise in Jonquière have a special
reason to celebrate because, on September 30, Mrs. Marie-Louise
Gagnon will be celebrating her one hundredth birthday.
Mrs. Gagnon was born in 1900 in Pibrack, in the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Mother of eight, she can point
with pride to 35 grandchildren and 24 great-grandchildren.
1405
Mrs. Gagnon remembers, perhaps with nostalgia, the wonderful
roaring twenties. Her memories of the two world wars and the
Depression are sad ones, but Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon is
still a source of wonderment.
She has lived through the key events of the past century and her
recollections are part of our collective memory.
What better to wish you than health and the love of your family?
And for the one hundredth time in your life: Happy Birthday, Mrs. Gagnon.
You have earned it.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me
to illustrate what Quebec will be able to do in health care in
the next five years thanks to the recent agreement signed with
the Canadian government.
Quebec will be able to purchase some $1 billion worth of
hospital equipment. It will be able to empty waiting rooms. It
will provide quality health care to seniors. It will be able to
have a more appropriate policy on pharmaceutical products. It
will be able to resolve the problem of shortages of doctors in
the regions. It will be able to invest in new information and
communications technologies in health care.
This agreement is in keeping with the spirit and the rule of
Canadian federalism. It is another example of federal-provincial
co-operation that will benefit Quebec.
* * *
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
corporations and corporate executives should face criminal
prosecution when they are found responsible for workplace
accidents that kill or harm employees. This principle is at the
heart of a unanimous motion by the House of Commons justice
committee and is one that Canadians overwhelmingly endorse. The
ball is in the government's court.
Canada's New Democrats, members of the United Steelworkers of
America and bereaved families in communities from coast to coast
are watching very closely to see that our efforts lead to
success. We will not let this matter drop.
The campaign for corporate criminal responsibility in Canada is
based on the Westray tragedy of May 1992 when 26 people died in
Pictou, Nova Scotia. The report on the commission of enquiry
into the tragedy by Justice Peter Richard released three years
ago said that the attitude of senior Westray managers to their
responsibility for workplace safety was “wilful blindness”.
Justice Richard identified a terrible flaw in the Canada Criminal
Code.
The Liberal government has had three years to consider the
recommendations of Justice Richard. Working Canadians want this
legislation now.
* * *
[Translation]
NICOLAS GILL
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois would like to congratulate today Nicolas Gill on
winning a silver medal in judo at the Sydney Olympics.
According to the experts, Mr. Gill won the four earlier matches
with grace, before conceding defeat in the finals to the Japanese
Kosei Inoue, but not without a good fight.
This is Nicolas Gill's second Olympic medal. He won a bronze
medal in Barcelona in 1992. Used to taking first place in many
international competitions, Mr. Gill was dreaming of bringing
back gold. We say to him that his silver medal is a source of
great pride to all of Quebec.
Mr. Gill started his judoka career at age six, obtained a black
belt at age 17, and took first place on the podium in most of his
competitions in recent years.
Nicolas Gill is an accomplished athlete, who will certainly
inspire hundreds of youngsters, who will put on their judogis
with pleasure in the hope of becoming judokas.
* * *
[English]
IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY COURT
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to express regret and concern at the decision of the Iranian
Revolutionary Court to uphold the convictions of the 10 Iranian
Jews, despite flagrant violations of the defendants' rights to a
fair trial as guaranteed under Iranian law including: being held
incommunicado in detention for over a year; denial of the right
to the presumption of innocence; the absence of any evidence
implicating the accused; denial of the right to counsel of their
choice; and denial of the right to an independent judiciary as
the Iranian Revolutionary Court serves as one and the same as
investigator, prosecutor and judge.
This is justice delayed and justice denied. I call on Iranian
authorities to vacate the convictions and release the accused,
the whole in accordance with Iranian justice and Islamic law.
* * *
CFB SHILO
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Defence has had all summer to come to a
decision on the future of Manitoba's land forces.
I am sure the minister's officials gave him a copy of the May 24
report entitled “Final Business Case”.
1410
The defence report clearly states that the best option for
restructuring would be to relocate the Second Battalion Princess
Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to Canadian forces base Shilo
to share the training facilities with the First Regiment of Royal
Canadian Horse Artillery. It is clear CFB Shilo outranks all of
the other options available.
The Minister of National Defence assured me that the decision
would be made this month. The minister also told me in the House
that the final decision on Manitoba's land forces would be made
on the basis of what is good for our military, not what is good
for politics. I would like to take him at his word.
The defence department recognizes that CFB Shilo is and can
remain one of the top military facilities in the world. The
facts are in black and white. It is now for the minister to
decide. The men and women of the Canadian military deserve a
decision and they deserve it now.
* * *
EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first six years of a child's life shapes that
child's health, learning and behaviour across a lifetime. This
formative period is anchored on four critical pillars: a healthy
start to life, parenting and family support, a child's personal
growth and a strong community milieu.
To support these pillars, our first ministers, under the
leadership of the Prime Minister, agreed 10 days ago to the early
childhood development initiative. To this end, the Government of
Canada has committed $2.2 billion over the next five years.
The constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul welcome this
initiative, our collective legacy and promise to the next
generation.
Indeed, Canada's continued vitality and economic prosperity in
this new century and beyond depend on the opportunities we
provide today to the very youngest of our citizens. Truly, when
we secure the future of our children, we secure the future of our
nation.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the new RCMP commissioner's statement that “there are
criminal organizations that target the destabilization of our
parliamentary system” should come as no surprise to the House.
It is well known that since my election to parliament I have
provided evidence warranting criminal investigations which has
resulted in intimidation, death threats and finally a fictitious
assault charge. The documented evidence I provided to the
solicitor general shows RCMP negligence and intelligence leaks.
The solicitor general refuses to act.
The government must immediately investigate and address these
internal RCMP problems before it can hope to tackle organized
crime. The advantage that organized crime has is that it is
using our justice system to protect its criminal activity.
* * *
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to register the objection of the NDP to the decision
by the Minister of International Trade to appeal the ruling of
the World Trade Organization which went against Canada with
respect to the exporting of asbestos to France and Canada's
complaint about the law in France which prohibits the import of
asbestos into France.
This points out to us exactly what is wrong with the World Trade
Organization. It can be used by various countries,
embarrassingly so this time by Canada, to try to overthrow
legitimate attempts by elected national governments to protect
the public interest and to act in the interests of public health
and the environment.
I call upon the Minister of International Trade to reconsider
this particular decision.
* * *
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when the hon. Leader
of the Opposition said that one of his political heroes was the
former finance minister of France, Anne Robert Turgot, who was
the finance minister from 1774 to 1792 under King Louis.
Anne Robert one time said that the expenses of government having
for its interest the object of all should be borne by everyone
and the more a man takes advantage of society, the more he should
hold himself honoured to pay for those expenses.
How in heaven's name is it justified that a millionaire, the
most advantaged in society, would pay over $100,000 less in taxes
under his goofy 17% plan than an ordinary person working at
Loblaws? My goodness, gracious, Anne Robert Turgot
would turn over in his grave as a mentor of this particular
person.
The Speaker: Goofy is a little close.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated with
some concern that he could not allow a free vote to go ahead on
the Canadian Alliance motion on lowering gas taxes for all
Canadians because in fact it could be seen as a motion of
non-confidence in the government as it is a budgetary item. I
take him at his word that that is a concern of his. I would not
want him to be in that tough position.
I have consulted with members of the Canadian Alliance caucus.
We have all agreed we would not see this as a motion of
non-confidence. As a matter of fact we would see it as a motion
of great confidence in the government. Canadians would see it as
a motion of great confidence and I would give the Prime Minister
credit for doing it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition met the
press in the whine cellar, he said that he was a member of
parliament.
He indicated more or less that he was not in favour of increases
in the price of gasoline in Alberta. When he was part of that
government he voted for that. Not only that, it was done in
three stages. The second and the third times he was the whip and
he had to make sure that people voted that way.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when you continue to live in the past
you continue to be wrong. The Prime Minister said very clearly
that he would like to see the next election based on values. In
1995 when he—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I will start again. As I
said before, when you live in the past you continue to be
inaccurate about the present and the future. The Prime Minister
has indicated he would like to see the next election based on
values. I am encouraged by that, because he made a promise in
1995 when he slapped a tax on the excise tax for gasoline that it
would be to eliminate the deficit.
The deficit is gone now and I believe very strongly that keeping
one's promises is a very important value. Will he now live up to
that value and scrap this increase in tax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that we are looking at all
options at this moment. We are discussing them with the
provincial governments because, as many people said, there is a
big danger that just the reduction of that tax will not be passed
to consumers.
I would like to quote somebody the hon. member might know. Al
Palladini, the Ontario minister of economic development and
trade, said yesterday: “Cutting fuel taxes is not the answer to
this situation. Whenever government has cut fuel taxes it has
not been reflected at the pumps”.
We have to consult and act in the interests of consumers, not in
the interests of giving an opportunity to oil companies to pocket
the money.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, taxpayers will hold the Prime
Minister to account for his words, not some other minister from
another province.
[Translation]
During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberals promised to
eliminate, abolish and scrap the GST. We know what happened.
In 1998, a Liberal committee proposed to stop collecting the
GST.
Will the Liberal government once again break its promises
regarding the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member spoke about a new era in the House, an era where
we have to be very careful and very clear about what we are
saying.
If he wants to take a moment to be very accurate, he should take
a look at the 1993 red book. The Liberal Party policy on the GST
was very clearly stated. We said that we wanted to harmonize the
GST with the provincial governments. That is the promise we made
and that is the promise we kept.
1420
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was very encouraged to see a
statement of moral obligation being made by the finance minister.
Apparently, if he was accurately reported, and it is in the
newspaper and so I do not doubt it, he said very clearly that he
saw it as a moral obligation to reduce the particular tax on the
excise.
I am very pleased to see that, just as I was pleased to see him
stay with his commitment to go ahead with putting the surplus
toward the debt. I commend him for that and I am sure they will
all start to applaud now, but that was very good work. I
appreciate that. Does the Prime Minister not also see this as a
moral obligation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has just said that the government is
considering many options. Among those options is the one that
was put forward by members on the Liberal side of the House
today, an option which said that any help the government should
give should go into the pockets of Canadians, especially those
with lower incomes.
The fact is that by using procedure the official opposition
rejected that amendment. The question is: Why does the official
opposition object to Canadians getting the benefits of any such
reductions? Why does it want to give it to the oil companies?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister needs to look at
the credentials of his research staff. If they had informed him
and briefed him properly they would have indicated very clearly
that that motion is being taken up tomorrow. In fact we will be
discussing that among our caucus. We are open and willing to do
that type of thing. Does the finance minister's moral
obligation—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day: I will be here on Friday for that
discussion. It will be interesting to see.
Will the finance minister's sense of moral obligation, which I
take sincerely by the way, also extend to protection for
consumers, to diesel fuel and to home heating fuel?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says he is prepared to
discuss it tomorrow at his caucus. Why will he not discuss it
today before the Canadian people?
The Liberal amendment can be accepted with unanimous consent of
the House. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to accept
the Liberal amendment.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
year, the Minister of Finance was off by $9 billion in his
forecast for the surplus. This year, he expected a $4 billion
surplus. We know that, after only four months, the surplus is
much bigger, at about $11 billion.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us if he has revised his
figures, his forecasts, and can he give us his current forecast
for this year's surplus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois leader is well aware that we are going to have
meetings with economists. In fact, we are going to start meeting
with the country's top economists next week. Following these
meetings, we will examine their projections and tell Canadians
about them. I will personally do it in the financial statement
that will be presented in November.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister already has figures, which date back to the spring. He
could have revised them. I realize one thing: his department's
public servants are after taxpayers who use two sets of books,
one for tax purposes and one for their personal use. It seems
that the Minister of Finance also uses two sets of books: one
for the public and one for his personal image.
Will the minister stop playing hide and seek with the public and
release the real figures? I am convinced that he knows them.
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
projections will be presented in the financial statement, during
the month of November, after an extensive consultation exercise
with the country's top economists.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance made the following statement:
Following our last budget, a family with two children and an
income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax.
The minister just happened to neglect to point out that this was
forgoing to be four years down the road.
With $12 billion in surplus last year, and $11 billion the first
four months of this year, will the minister not agree that, if
one's heart were in the right place, the time to act is right
away, not in four years? Why does the Minister of Finance not
reduce taxes immediately for those with low and middle incomes?
They have been waiting for this for seven years.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, seek
and ye shall find, ask and it will be answered. In four years,
it will be $35,000 and it is $30,000 today for the example the
hon. member has just given.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
four years. What he did not say is that he has not made the
people earning $250,000 and up wait; they have had a $2,000 tax
saving for the past two years.
What answer does the Minister of Finance have to give a
family that is having trouble making ends meet, one that is
becoming poorer because of the federal tax and the minister's
sneaky little tricks aimed at winning votes? Is he saying they
have to wait four years? Is he asking this family to tell their
grocery store to wait four years before it will see any
money, to just put it on their tab? Is that what he means?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
sneaky little tricks have seen us with 5% more revenue than
predicted.
In Quebec, Mr. Landry's revenue has also exceeded his
predictions by about 5%. Is this also due to sneaky little
tricks?
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Shipping tons and tons of
Toronto garbage to Kirkland Lake is lunacy. It is madness. It
threatens the safety of drinking water for local residents and
for millions of residents downstream.
I urge the Prime Minister to think of the Ottawa River in terms
of water for drinking, not just water for rafting. When will
his government announce the details of a full federal
environmental assessment of the Adams mine proposal?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the
Environment has been petitioned to conduct an environmental
assessment. As a matter of fact, our hon. colleague from
Timiskaming—Cochrane has kept this issue on the front burner.
The minister has asked the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency to advise him if the project triggers a federal
environment assessment. Once the agency has made its
investigation, the minister will decide on the proper course of
action.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me
say it is bloody well about time the government began to address
the question. I have to say that based on the Liberal record on
the environment Canadians know that the Liberal walk rarely
measures up to the Liberal talk.
I want to ask the federal government today a concrete and
specific question. Will it assure that the scope of the
environmental assessment will be comprehensive and, if the safety
of the water is at risk, will it stop the dump?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what has the government
done in the last seven years? The government has consistently
taken strong action on the environment.
We have enacted the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to
protect Canadians from toxins. We have negotiated strong
national standards for the provinces for clean air and clean
water. We are negotiating a tough new agreement with the United
States to reduce smog in cities like Toronto, Windsor and
Halifax. We have invested $850 million over the last seven years
to reduce the risk of climate change in Canada. We are
encouraging clean air technologies like the Ballard fuel cells.
* * *
1430
FUEL TAXES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
He said in Hansard yesterday respecting tax cuts on fuel
“We would only act in conjunction with the provinces”. Is that
still his position? If so, has he yet called the provinces to
initiate discussions on their joint action, or is he waiting for
them to call him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said earlier in the House and as the Prime
Minister has said, we are looking at several options.
That being said, yes, we have been in contact with a number of
the provinces. Officials have as well. Given the quote from Mr.
Palladini by the Prime Minister, it is pretty clear that a number
of provinces do not feel that cutting fuel taxes is the way to
go.
* * *
FISHERIES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
me ask a question about another crisis in the country.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would know that Mr. Rae has
said the two sides in the fishing dispute are too far apart for
mediation. Will the minister demonstrate clear leadership and
personally go back to Burnt Church to attempt to resolve this
issue?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the
hon. Bob Rae for his tremendous efforts in trying to bring the
two parties together. I am disappointed that Mr. Rae was unable
to bring resolution to this matter as we all had hoped.
Today I issued a variation order to close the lobster fishery in
the Miramichi. Because conservation is threatened, we want to
make sure we protect the lobster. I would urge the Burnt Church
community to abide by that order and pull all the traps so that
we protect the lobster fishery for all Canadians and for future
generations.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, while gas prices continue to go through the roof,
the Canadian loonie remains locked in the basement. It is now
trading at barely 67 cents U.S. Two years ago the finance
minister said that was because of record low commodity prices
which are now trading at record high levels.
Is the finance minister at all concerned that his high tax, high
debt policies are leading to continued diminishment in our
standard of living and buying power as Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know if he looked back over the
last 18 months that the Euro has lost close to 25% against the
U.S. dollar. The British pound has lost close to 15%. The
Australian dollar has lost close to 10% and New Zealand currency
has lost substantially. In fact the only currency in the last
year and a half that has gained against the U.S. dollar is the
Canadian dollar.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government the Canadian dollar has
gained all the way from over 70 cents U.S. to 67 cents U.S. I
guess that is the new Liberal math.
As the Canadian dollar continues to be weak against the U.S.
dollar, it penalizes our consumers, including gas consumers. Oil
prices are priced in U.S. currency. If we were to have a 75 cent
dollar, Canadian gas consumers would save three cents per litre
at the pump.
Why does the finance minister continue a high debt, high tax,
low dollar policy that penalizes Canadian gas consumers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we announced that we are paying the debt down
by $12 billion. That is $18 billion over three years. That is an
average of $6 billion a year. That is what members of the Reform
Party huffed and puffed and said they wanted. They wanted it; we
delivered it. They look pretty silly.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the government has been
telling us about Liberal compassion.
Where is that Liberal compassion when the Minister of Finance
boasts about having billions in surpluses, while he is cutting
seasonal workers off? They will not be getting EI benefits this
winter and next spring.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many ways that the government
helps Canadian workers. We help them get the tools and the
training they need to participate in the new economy. We help
them in their pursuit of lifelong learning. Indeed we help them
through the employment insurance program. As I have said on a
number of occasions in the House, we monitor that program on a
regular basis. If there is evidence that changes need to be
made, there will be.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only is last year's surplus four times
larger than the Minister of Finance had anticipated, but the
2000-2001 surplus could exceed $20 billion.
How can the Prime Minister explain to the people who marched on
the streets of Baie-Comeau and Chicoutimi this week that his
government will continue to cut employment insurance, when his
government has billions of dollars in surpluses?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the facts. Since
1993 when this government was elected, the unemployment level in
the province of Quebec has been reduced by 4.5%. Since that time
almost 400,000 Quebecers are working today that were not working.
Finally, in the past year the rate of job creation in the
province of Quebec has reached 3.2% which is higher than the
national average. These statistics are worth celebrating and we
will continue to do more.
* * *
FISHERIES
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the fisheries minister has completely lost control of
the crisis in Burnt Church. Worse, his inaction has led to
violence and confrontation.
Today the minister said “We have told them they have 24 hours
to remove their traps”. Canadians simply do not believe that 24
hours means 24 hours to the minister.
Why does he not enforce the law and get those traps out of the
water today?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows
that we have been enforcing the law. As I said yesterday, we
pulled up 2,700 traps, arrested individuals and seized vessels.
It is incumbent on every responsible government to take every
means possible to try to get a peaceful and co-operative
agreement to avoid conflict. That is exactly what we are doing.
Yes, I have shown restraint because we want a peaceful
resolution. We want a resolution that reduces conflict. Every
effort has been made to do that. In the final analysis, the rule
of law will prevail.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians, or anyone for that matter, just do not
believe when the minister makes a threat or an ultimatum in the
name of peace that it is ever going to happen. He waited for
others to suggest that Bob Rae go in and mediate. He hoped that
Bob could do what he himself would not do. Plan b just
walked away.
We know that there is only one commercial fishery, lobsters, in
Miramichi Bay and that fishery is only in the spring. Why has
the minister allowed any traps there now, let alone 24 hours from
now?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, right from the beginning of this
year we have had a federal representative who met with first
nations bands and worked with them individually on their needs.
Unfortunately, Burnt Church was not willing to sit at the
negotiating table.
I have personally been to the Miramichi. I met with the chief
and the band council members. Then my deputy minister went down
and met with them. Then Bob Rae, from a list provided from Burnt
Church, went down and tried to negotiate a deal.
Yesterday Bob Rae said that they had agreed to a substantial
reduction in the traps that were in the Miramichi. Progress was
being made. Unfortunately, that did not happen. For conservation
purposes, today I closed the lobster fishery in the Miramichi.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, high fuel
prices are certainly not hurting the federal government. Not
only is it collecting more GST, and more tax on oil company
profits, but it is also continuing to enjoy the sizeable
revenues from the excise tax.
I therefore ask the Minister of Finance whether the federal
government should not temporarily lift its 10 cent a litre excise
tax, given the supposedly unexpected surpluses the minister
announced yesterday?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member knows, lowering the excise tax would require
co-operation between the two levels of government. It must be
pointed out that the provinces are taking in much more in excise
taxes percentage-wise than we are. In Quebec, it is somewhere
around 15 cents.
So the question is which option to go for. And that is
something we are looking at.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just so
that the minister is clear on this, the excise tax is a federal
tax. In the provinces, it is a fuel tax.
If the Minister of Industry really wants to put a stop once and
for all to the part of gasoline price hikes attributable to a
lack of competition, would he be prepared to amend the
Competition Act so that three major refiner marketers do not
single-handedly control 75% of the market in Canada and hold us
hostage to gasoline price hikes?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member knows that we are doing a study of the changes that
may be necessary to the Competition Act.
But the member has
perhaps noticed that gasoline prices are a problem not just in
Canada but in Europe too. And our Competition Act carries no
weight in Europe.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the minister claims to be
shutting down the lobster fishery on Miramichi Bay for
conservation reasons. Yesterday he was offering fishermen on the
Miramichi $12,000 to turn a blind eye to illegal fishing on the
bay.
Rather than protecting the resource and shutting down the
fisheries, the minister chose what he thought was the path of
least resistance: hush money, paying fishermen to look the other
way while the lobster resource is under attack, while the
viability of their fishery is jeopardized and while illegal
fishing continues unabated. How can he justify this distasteful
offer?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his
facts all wrong.
Of course the mediator was there talking to all the parties
trying to bring them together. This was the proposal he was
talking about to all members there to try to get a common
peaceful resolution on this matter.
The hon. member should check his facts before he brings them
forward to the House. It has been the attempt of this government
to resolve it peacefully. For Canadians right across the country
the rule of law is fundamental, and we will ensure that we follow
the rule of law for all Canadians and will protect the resource
for all Canadians and future generations.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): I did check my facts, Mr. Speaker. There is no
doubt of the source of the offer. It was the minister's
mediator, the eminent Canadian.
A fisherman from Miramichi asked me last night “What kind of
country do we live in when our government would bribe its
citizens to look the other way while the law is being broken?”
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw the word
bribe.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with his cuts to the provinces, the Minister of Finance has put
enormous pressure on the health care system.
In his discussions with the provinces, the Prime Minister
indicated he did not have the money to index health care
programs.
How does the Prime Minister explain his saying he did not have
enough money to index the health care programs, when his Minister
of Finance is announcing surpluses of $12 billion, which were
confirmed by documents that had no doubt gone to press at the
time the discussions were held with the provinces, and may even
have been known to him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would simply provide you with a few figures. In 1999, Quebec
received $2.7 billion from the federal government as part of the
social transfer. In 2000, it received $600 million.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister signed an agreement with the
provinces, and Quebec will be getting an additional $5 billion.
In a 20 month period, Quebec will be receiving an additional
$8.5 billion from the federal government.
* * *
1445
[English]
LA FRANCOPHONIE GAMES
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last March the Government of Canada announced a contribution of
$12 million to the fourth games of la Francophonie in 2001 to be
held in Ottawa-Hull. The National Post, Diane Francis and
a few members of the Ontario legislature recently accused the
government of spending much more on these games than on any other
major sports event and also stated that these games showcase only
third rate athletes. As usual, they are more interested in
fiction than facts.
Could the minister responsible for the games of la
Francophonie—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual, journalist Diane Francis
and the provincial member in question have got things totally
twisted.
The Government of Canada's contribution to fourth Games of La
Francophonie were only one quarter of what it contributed to the
Pan-American Games in Winnipeg and one fifth of its investment in
the Commonwealth Games.
Secondly, to describe Donovan Bailey, who gained world renown at
the Jeux de la Francophonie in Paris, as a third rate athlete is
unfair. It is also an insult to Bruny Surin, who agreed to serve
as ambassador of the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries has no
credibility when he talks about closing the lobster fishery in
Miramichi. The fisheries department's own estimates show that
the Burnt Church lobster catch is already over four times what
was approved. The minister's regional director general has said,
and I quote, “Continued fishing will have a serious detrimental
effect on the stocks”.
The minister must uphold his oath of office. He must enforce
the law. When will he pull all the traps?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, due to
conservation concerns we have closed the lobster fishery at
Miramichi. I would urge the community of Burnt Church to abide
fully with that because I know they believe in protecting the
stock for their future generations and I know they want to abide
by the law. If they do that it will be the right thing. All
members of the House should urge them to fully abide by the law
and protect the resource because the rule of law is important to
Canadians.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's assurances,
there are more traps in the water today than there were
yesterday.
Yesterday the minister wrote to the chief at Burnt Church and
said “The fishing activity to date is detrimental to
conservation. The current situation cannot continue if
conservation and an orderly fishery are to be insured”.
There is no orderly fishery and no law and order. The illegal
fishing at Miramichi must stop. When will the minister pull not
just some but all the traps?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in that
I have written to the chief. There has been ongoing
communication for a very long time urging a negotiated agreement
just as 29 other first nations have done where we have an orderly
transition program for them to fully participate in the
commercial fishery.
The variation order to close the lobster fishery has been issued
and I know that they will want to fully comply with the law. I
would urge them once again to pull all the traps in the Miramichi
so that we can go on to the more constructive things we can do.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
spring the minister of agriculture guaranteed that all western
grain and oilseed farmers would enjoy a $5.92 reduction in their
freight rate bill this year but that is not what farmers are
telling us. They are saying that they are getting nowhere near
that kind of savings. Some are getting as little as 22 cents,
some zero and, in a few cases, because of a lack of real
competition amongst the railways, they are actually paying higher
costs than they were absorbing last year.
Having guaranteed $5.92 this past May, will the government be
making up any shortfall to the farmers who fall far short of this
$5.92?
1450
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that we talked about $178
million legislated by this parliament that will flow to the
pockets of producers right across the board. That works out to
the per capital tonnage amount that he mentioned.
Farmers will receive the benefit of this legislation. It is
forward looking. It is legislation that has had, by and large,
the support of all members of the House and the Senate. I do not
think the hon. member should start quibbling at this stage when
we have provided $178 million for western producers.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, some
quibble, 22 cents versus $5.92. He is still on numbers that do
not add up.
The minister indicated recently that to put us on parity with
U.S. support payments would require some $18 billion to $20
billion. Farm groups are saying that they do not need that much
of a commitment. In fact, $4 billion has been suggested by at
least one major organization.
Would the minister tell the House how he arrived at this large
figure because it is much higher than what he had said in the
past? I hope by inflating this number it is not an excuse to
ignore the plight of Canadian farmers in a desperate situation.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said when I gave those numbers was
that if we compare what the United States is doing, based on the
size of its industry and the size of our industry, that would be
the requirement here in Canada.
I recognize the fact that the industry and the producers have
said that is not the amount of money they desire and that they
understand the resource constraints that we have in this country.
I have said to them that we will continue, as we have shown in
the past, to do all we can to level the playing field between
Canada and the United States and that there is also a necessity
to level the playing field among provinces within Canada.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is planning an enforcement
action at Burnt Church. What steps has the minister taken to
ensure the safety and good order of all of the citizens living on
Miramichi Bay?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only for this minister but
for all ministers in the government, public safety is number one.
Whenever enforcement action is taken, we ensure that the safety
of our own officers as well as the public is our number one
priority and every opportunity is taken to make sure that we
avoid confrontation. This is important for myself as well as for
the solicitor general.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We have a very serious situation in Burnt Church. I cannot
imagine that anybody here would not agree. After speaking with
the RCMP this morning, there is a real chance of violence in that
region. It is clear that the Minister of DFO is not going to
Burnt Church and it is clear that he has failed.
I am asking on behalf of the native and non-native people living
in the Miramichi area, will the Prime Minister intervene and make
sure that this is settled in a humane, secure fashion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has shown a lot of flexibility so far. He
has tried everything possible to negotiate a peaceful resolution.
As there is no possibility to accommodate the situation at this
time, the minister was absolutely right to close the fishery in
Miramichi Bay. He is also absolutely right to make sure that
every fisherman in that area respects the law of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL POLICY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
increasingly, nations are becoming aware of the threat to their
culture, traditions and cultural expression. Canada is
certainly one of these, given the presence of the American
culture.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Canadian Heritage. What is this government doing to combat
this world-wide threat?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib:) Mr. Speaker, Canada succeeded in having
cultural diversity included in the international program.
Membership of the International Network on Cultural Policy,
created in Ottawa in 1998, has risen from the original 17 to 44
at the present time.
1455
The third meeting of the network will be held in Greece in late
September. There will be three themes: cultural heritage,
cultural identity and cultural diversity in a context of
globalization, and opportunities for national action.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is now time to turn our attention to protecting
the health of Canadians. Health Canada is finally recommending
that migrants be tested for the AIDS virus before granting them
entry into the country.
In 1994 my colleague for Calgary Northeast tabled a motion which
called for precisely that, mandatory testing for AIDS, and the
Liberal government voted it down.
Why has it taken the government so long to protect the health of
Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this matter was looked into more
than five years ago, in what was known as the Montebello process.
As the Immigration Act requires of the Minister of Health, a
technical opinion was issued to indicate that the safest approach
was to have people tested when a risk appeared likely. That is
the safest way when health is concerned.
Now, if there other points to consider, the Minister of
Immigration is notified and the last word is hers.
* * *
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Transport Canada has just made its decision: Canada will fly in
MOX plutonium from the Russian Federation.
How can the Prime Minister justify importing MOX over the
opposition of hundreds of Quebec municipalities, the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the
general public, and despite American studies which indicate that
shipping by air is the most risky means?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the rationale for the testing of MOX fuel, and it is the
testing of the fuel not a commercial program, is to try to make
this world safer and more secure from the nuclear threat of the
plutonium stockpiles in existence in the United States and
Russia.
Anything that happens in this country is fully consistent with
the laws of Canada, the Environmental Protection Act, the Nuclear
Safety and Control Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
Act, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is on the MOX imports as well.
Earlier today Transport Canada approved plans to fly weapons
grade plutonium from Russia to Chalk River. This decision throws
public safety and public opinion to the wind. There were months
of public consultations and thousands of letters from concerned
Canadians. The last of those letters and submissions arrived
yesterday and the decision was made this morning. This is an
unholy haste.
Will the transport minister overrule this decision and withdraw
approval for this reckless plan?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada approved the emergency response
assistance plan submitted by AECL on Thursday, September 21 in
accordance with the statutory provisions. I am quite satisfied
that my officials did their work and took into account the wider
public interest.
* * *
OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, a young and talented Canadian diver named Arturo
Miranda sits and waits anxiously in Sydney, Australia. He is
waiting and watching his Olympic dreams slip away. The reason
this is happening is that the government of Cuba is blocking his
right to compete in the games based on a technicality. The
heritage minister has been incapable of resolving this affair.
Given the Prime Minister's vaunted relationship with Fidel
Castro and that of the foreign minister, not to mention his
government's special relationship to Cuba, will he now use that
influence to solve this problem so that a young Canadian citizen
from Alberta can compete for his country in the Olympic Games?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of this problem but I will certainly look
into it to see if something can be done. I am happy that the
hon. member is praising us because we have good relations with
Cuba.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members
to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Sven-Roald Nysto, President
of the Sami Parliament of Norway.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw to the attention of hon.
members the presence in the gallery of the hon. Wayne Jim,
Minister of Government Services of Yukon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
FISHERIES
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, during question period the hon. member for Delta—South
Richmond made the point that the government, through its
mediator, had offered fishermen $12,000 to turn a blind eye to
the illegal fishing in Miramichi Bay. Then he used words which
you called unparliamentary.
I would like to bring attention to the Chair ruling of May 1,
1980 by Madam Sauvé when she was asked the question “If words
are directed toward the government and not toward an individual,
can he use words such as dishonest and shabbily?” She ruled in
that context that, yes, such words were parliamentary because it
was directed toward the government.
The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond accused the government
of this $12,000 payment or offer to fishermen in Miramichi Bay
was a bribe from the government. It is the government we accuse
of using a very poor and very—
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his
intervention. The use of the word bribe in the context that it
was used, in my interpretation at the time, was directed to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will review the blues. If I
was wrong, I was wrong. I have about two seconds to make a
decision up here.
I invite members to stay away from words like that. Surely,
with our very vast vocabulary we can use other words to bring
about our ideas.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The crisis at Burnt Church is requiring immediate focus from the
House, I would suggest. It is imminent that we act quickly.
I am asking for unanimous consent to put a motion to the House
that at 6.30 p.m. the House will proceed to a debate of which the
following motion would be presented by the hon. member for South
Shore. It would read: That this House urge the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to personally engage in immediate
negotiations at Burnt Church, New Brunswick with both native and
non-native fishermen; and that at 11.57 p.m., or earlier if there
was no debate, that the question then be put without further
debate or amendment.
I would suggest that this not be put forward as a way to circumvent
an earlier ruling, but there is further evidence to suggest that
tensions are escalating in that part of the country and that the
House, of all places, should be engaged in the active discussion
and debate to look for a resolution and a way to de-escalate and
take away the chance of violence or bloodshed in Burnt Church,
New Brunswick.
The Speaker: While I am waiting for the text of the
motion the hon. member read, I see that the government House
leader is seeking the floor. I will permit him to intervene.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, no consultation with the
House leader has taken place regarding doing that this evening.
That is not the normal way in which negotiations are held between
House leaders. Therefore, I am unable to give my consent at this
time.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I
believe you would find unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No.
251, standing in the name of the member for Kelowna, as well as
Motion No. 414, standing in the name of the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 251 and 414 withdrawn)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on the Thursday question, I would like to ask the
government House leader exactly what business he plans for the
next week or so. I noticed today during question period there
was a lot of interest in fuel tax relief. That is the motion of
the Canadian Alliance today.
Does House leader plan to bring a motion tomorrow to bring
immediate tax relief to all Canadians through reductions in gas
and fuel taxes? If he would like to do so, the Canadian Alliance
will certainly waive the 48 hour notice period.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is like we are having a
second question period sometimes on this Thursday question.
Perhaps we could agree that with the Thursday question we could
simply put the question and get on with it, rather than making
any kind of suggestions as to what might be.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the
new-found enthusiasm for the government amendment proposed to the
hon. member's motion for today.
Tomorrow we will consider the second reading of Bill C-41, the
veterans' legislation. On Monday we will commence the report
stage of Bill C-3, the youth justice bill. On Tuesday we will
consider report stage of Bill C-14 followed by third reading.
On each day I would propose as well, time permitting, the second
reading of Bill C-17, amendments to the criminal code. We would
then return for the completion of Bill C-3, hopefully at third
reading then next Thursday.
There is ongoing negotiation on Bill C-38 about which I cannot
report this minute but perhaps later on this day or at another
time.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am not obliged to urge the government to take a
particular position but rather to inquire about the status of
legislation the government has already committed to and that is
the corporate criminal responsibility legislation, otherwise
known as the Westray bill.
Does the government House leader have any idea when that might
be forthcoming?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about that
issue. I understand that there was a motion that was adopted at
some point, but I will inquire about the issue of the bill per se
and will report to the hon. member at the House leaders' meeting
on Tuesday.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FUEL TAX
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
1510
I am pleased to rise today on the opposition supply day motion.
I am going to read the motion so that everybody is absolutely
clear about what we are debating today. This motion was brought
forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River of the
Canadian Alliance. It states:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home
and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck
drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the
Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the
government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the
increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary deficit
elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998
recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on gasoline
pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.
I felt it important that we read this into the record again as
we start the afternoon session of this debate to ensure that
everybody knows what we are talking about.
I want to focus right now on the comments that are coming from
the Liberal government members. I am quite amazed with the
excuses they are coming up with. There are two that stand out
and I have heard them over and over again as I have followed this
debate.
The reason they are saying they are opposed to this is that they
are waiting for the provinces. That is the indication we are
getting right now and hopefully we can change their minds. The
other excuse is they cannot do anything with the taxes on
gasoline because the fuel companies would then gobble up that
difference by increasing the price and no savings would be passed
to the consumer.
I have to question who is running this country. Is it the
provinces and the oil companies or is it the government? That is
a very feeble excuse. Are they leaders or are they followers? I
am absolutely amazed that they say we have to take our cues from
the provinces. When it comes to anything else, like the cut in
transfers to the provinces of billions of dollars for health
care, there is no consultation with the provinces. The Liberals
run this country sometimes with an iron fist with zero
consultation.
When it comes to putting taxes up, they claim to want to have a
consultation process. What they really do is show up and tell us
what they are about to do. Now when there is an absolute cry, an
absolute need to do something on these fuel taxes, the government
wants to wash its hands of it and do absolutely nothing.
It is ironic that in this year alone the government is going to
collect some $13 billion in fuel taxes. When we look at its
record on what it has put into the highway infrastructure in this
country, last year I believe it was mere 4.1%. It was in the
millions when they are collecting billions and it goes right into
government revenues.
I had a call from a person last night. He has been following
this discussion in the media. He made a very interesting point.
It is widely known across the country that when we go to the
pumps to purchase gasoline, anywhere from 36% to 45% of that
price is taxes. In fact, members of the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation have been advocating two prices at the pumps, the
actual price of the gasoline and the actual tax, so people get to
see what they are paying in taxes. On average about 41% of the
price of gasoline is taxes.
The gentleman I spoke to made a very interesting comment. He
said that on every dollar he earned, he paid at least 40 cents in
income tax and probably a lot more. Let us be conservative and
40 cents in tax. That would leave him 60 cents. Before he even
gets to the pumps he only has 60 cents of that dollar he earned.
When he gets to the pumps of that 60 cents about 25 cents of that
is taxes.
From that dollar he ends up paying 65 cents in taxes. For every
dollar earned by that working Canadian he is paying 65 cents in
taxes. At least 40 cents in income taxes are taken off before he
even gets to take what is left to the pumps, which would be 60
cents, and of that another 25 cents goes in taxes. Clearly there
is a problem with taxes.
1515
Ironically the Liberal caucus had a committee that looked into
this issue in 1998. It made a number of recommendations to the
government. Was it listened to? No. Its recommendations fell
upon deaf ears, as have so many reports by members on all sides
including those on the backbenches of the government across from
me. They put work into these reports and they are absolutely
ignored. They are thrown on shelves to collect dust.
The government's own backbenchers agreed with the Canadian
Alliance that it was absolutely wrong and unacceptable for the
government to charge a tax on a tax. That is what the government
is doing. The federal government charges GST on its own excise
tax. Liberal backbenchers said that was wrong, with which we
agree 100%. In our supply day motion we give them credit for
coming forward to their government.
We included in the supply day motion the recommendation by the
Liberal caucus committee on gasoline pricing to remove the GST on
the excise tax. We give that committee credit for coming forward
in 1998. Yet will the government listen to the committee now? It
did not listen in 1998. From the debate I have heard so far
today there does not appear to be any interest in listening now.
I find it absolutely unbelievable when we look at the taxes the
government is collecting. We watched the Minister of Finance
announce a $12 billion surplus. Can we wrap our minds around $12
billion? Is it easy to say what $12 billion mean? That is $400
for every man, woman and child in the country. For a family of
four that is $1,600 the government has collected in excess taxes.
Even in the first quarter of this year alone the surplus is $11.4
billion. It is out of control.
What we have put forward with respect to gasoline taxes is a
start. Let us not make it too onerous. Let us eliminate the tax
on the tax. Let us get rid of that GST on the excise tax because
we all know it is wrong. It is not acceptable to start taxing
tax. That is wrong.
Let us eliminate the l.5 cent increase which the government put
on the excise tax specifically to reduce the deficit. We all
know the deficit is gone. When it put that tax increase on the
excise tax the government said it was specifically for that. It
is still there. There is no interest in removing these tax
increases.
I want to summarize. In the interest of the Canadian people we
have to look at what is best for the country. We are asking the
government to follow through. In the wording of the motion it
only has to do two things. There are many other things we could
look at down the road, but the first one would be not to tax a
tax. It should eliminate the GST on the excise tax and eliminate
the 1.5 cent increase on fuel.
Let us look at the other taxes as well. The government can do
that by responding to the motion, voting in favour of it and
bringing forward legislation. I know it talked about a motion.
It could include that discussion in the legislation it brings
forward and we could discuss it.
Government members should support this motion to show Canadians
that they are actually concerned. Then they would support not
only the Canadian Alliance but their own backbenchers.
1520
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comment about
a customer who bought gasoline at a gas station, and I have a
question for the hon. member.
In British Columbia, oil companies do not just indicate the
price of gas before taxes. Taxes are always included in the
price, as they are almost everywhere in Canada. But it would be
important to see the net price of a litre of gas, before taxes.
The hon. member mentioned taxes in Vancouver. Could he tell us
what these taxes are? Are there two, three or four taxes? What
are the taxes you were referring to and how many cents do they
amount to on a litre of gas?
Today, in the Abitibi region, a litre of regular gas retails for
81.9 cents, with 30.6 cents being taxes and 51 cents going to oil
companies.
I would like to know the member's response to my question about
the taxes charged on a litre of gas in British Columbia.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, back on Vancouver Island
the price of gasoline is in the high 70s and approaching 80 cents
per litre. Depending on where one goes it fluctuates a few
cents, but it is in the 78 to 79 cents per litre range. Around
35 cents of that amount is taxes: provincial taxes, the GST, the
GST on the excise tax, and the federal government excise tax.
The hon. member said that he would like consumers to see that
the price at the pumps is 45 cents and 35 cents is in taxes. That
would be a good thing.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, from time to time the hon.
member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can be a reasonable person, but
most reasonable people would agree that if the federal government
were to make any moves on excise taxes the provinces would be
expected to do something as well.
If we look at British Columbia, the gasoline tax is 11 cents a
litre. That compares with our 10 cent excise tax. The diesel is
11.5 cents and our diesel is 4 cents a litre. In addition there
is another 1.5 cents a litre that is applicable for transit in
the Victoria area.
If the federal government moved on excise taxes, realizing that
the provincial taxes should come down as well, would the hon.
member support a cut in the ferry services that serve the Gulf
Islands, his constituents, and the transit systems within
Victoria that his constituents use as well?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, again I find it ironic that
the government has suggested to cut services. It is an area of
provincial jurisdiction. I would not support decreasing services
when it is sitting on a $12 billion surplus.
It is absolutely shameful that the member would actually suggest
cutting bus service in Victoria and the ferry service to Gulf
Islands. That is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe that
he would suggest it.
With respect to the provincial taxes, I think they should come
down. Am I proud of the NDP Government of British Columbia?
Absolutely not. We have some of the highest provincial taxes
placed on fuels in the country. They need to come down. I would
like to see a new provincial government, but waiting for another
provincial government is absolutely wrong.
The hon. member should show some leadership and not be a
follower. If he wants to follow the NDP in British Columbia I am
afraid it would probably not be a very good route and he would be
very sorry that he did.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to address two issues
today. One of them is a four year old commitment by the Liberal
government across the way. The other is the question raised in
rhetoric by many Liberals also across the way of oil companies
versus the government. If time permits, I would also like to
address the question of provincial cuts versus federal cuts.
1525
I will read into the record a portion of a transcript of
committee evidence from the Standing Committee on Transport
hearing on December 4, 1996. Appearing before the committee was
the finance minister of the day who coincidentally is still
finance minister. The transcript starts with my portion where I
stated:
With regard to highways, one concern I always have at any
committee is that if you hold hearings and almost everybody says
the same thing, then, at least as a committee, we have an
obligation to report that and to focus some of our
recommendations based on that. The dedication of fuel tax is
just one of those things.
In addressing the Minister of Finance, I said:
You yourself said today that the federal government spends about
$300 million a year on highway infrastructure, but takes from my
province of British Columbia alone you take almost three times
that in federal fuel taxes. The provincial governments have a
role to play in that, but the role we have to look at is ours.
Now, I believe what you have said is correct. We can't just
suddenly say sorry, we're going to dump that, about $5 billion
altogether, into a dedicated fund. But we have to start. I
think it is the right way to go. If the economy were better,
then I would say yes, we have to transition fast. You're
correct, the economy is very fragile, so we have to transition
slow, but I still think it's the right way to go and we should
try to start something along that line.
Would you agree we should at least examine the possibilities of
starting something on that concept, even if out of the 10¢ it's
1¢ or 2¢?
The finance minister replied:
I must say I have probably a lot more difficulty with the concept
of dedicated taxes having been the Minister of Finance for three
years than I did when I was in opposition, because there is no
doubt a certain warping of the mind occurs when you get this job.
I responded by saying:
The minister continued:
—I think your question is a very valid one, and the way you put
it is very good. The fact is it is really not something we could
contemplate doing now, simply because I think the most important
thing, and I know you agree, is to solve our fundamental
financial problem and we really should not limit our flexibility
at this time.
Now, you're suggesting that what we might do, given that
problem, is to start very small and build on it, if I understand
what you have just said...I guess my answer to you...would be
that you put the question well. There will come a time when we
will have more flexibility and your suggestion is one we could
perhaps consider. But I must say we would have to be generating,
from my point of view, reasonably substantial surpluses before I
would want to entertain the concept. Let me be very clear to
you, because I think you've put the question in the proper tone,
and that's the way in which I would want to respond.
I will move ahead a little to where the finance minister said:
The reason my original answer to your question was that we might
be in a position—we're not in a position to examine it now, but
we might be in a position—to examine it at a time when we're
generating substantial surpluses is simply that you're not wrong
when you say, look, if you spend a dollar now you might well save
yourself $5 down the road. It's not that you're wrong in that at
all. It's just that this applies not only to highways; it
applies to a vast range of projects governments should really be
involved in. I would say to you that if you're going to adopt
that concept, we're going to get into a long line of priorities,
and we do not have the money at the present time to go that way.
What I would really say to you, however—and I think this is
going to be very important—is that there is going to be a second
stage of the financial debate in this country when we go beyond
the deficit to start talking about the debt-to-GDP ratio, the
debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product. At that
point the argument you're bringing forth is going to become very
important.
He ended by saying:
I'm sorry to take so long, Chairman, but I think (the hon.
member's) questions are very good. I guess it's a function of
timing.
That was 1996. We now have a huge surplus. I think that
function of timing has come. It is time for the government to
start considering removing some of that tax and dedicating a
portion of it to fix the highway infrastructure so that Canadians
will know that they are getting value for the money that is being
taken from them.
1530
I would also like to read from a recent report by Statistics
Canada that suggests the sole reason for gas price increases in
real dollars is a change in tax levels. The Statistics Canada
report adjusted 1957 gas prices to 1995 dollars which worked out
to 56.6 cents per litre, broken down as 39.9 cents for the gas
itself and 16.7 cents for taxes. That was in 1957. In 1995 the
actual non-adjusted cost of gas was 56.1 cents which broke down
as 29.8 cents for the gas and 26.3 cents for taxes. During the
period of the report, the gasoline price alone dropped by 25%
when the cost of taxes alone jumped by 57%. In 1957 the pump
price of gasoline included 29% in various taxes. By 1995 the pump
price of gasoline included 47% in taxes.
It is easy to blame the oil companies for the current price
increases. Big corporations in general and the oil companies in
particular are not very popular these days. The culprit in our
current price jump is a combination of international crude oil
prices and government taxes. Of those two, the one we can
attempt to do something about is taxes. We should not let the
government off the hook by laying the blame in the wrong place.
One hon. member across the way when questioning my colleague who
spoke just before me brought up the question of whether the
federal government should be dropping the price of its excise tax unless
the provinces agreed to do the same.
Might I point out that my province of British Columbia has some
pretty trying conditions to maintain our highways through the
mountains and all the valleys, across rivers and the many bridges
that we have. My province spends a substantial amount of that
highway tax on highways. The federal government spends $300
million nationally but it takes $1 billion from my province
alone.
To put out a suggestion that the federal government will only
cut its excise tax if our province also matches it is completely
out of line. Our province is already using that money for its
original intended purpose. The federal government is spending
less than 5% of its take on that same purpose.
In terms of environment versus conservation, there are those who
suggest that if we drop the price of gas, then the use of gas is
going to go up. In fact the Liberal government in response to
the Kyoto convention has floated out the notion of a 38 cent per
litre increase in the excise tax over a nine year period in order
to force people to conserve gasoline.
That is the thinking of someone from a high density urban centre
where there is all kinds of public transportation and different
means for people to get around. It is incredibly punitive on
people in rural areas from British Columbia to Newfoundland and
everywhere in between. It also shows very narrow thinking. It
totally ignores the problems of things that have been brought up
extensively today such as heating oil.
The government collects what was termed when it began a highway
tax. Then it put it on everything. Right now the government is
taxing low income people using heating fuel. More often than not
it is low income people who use that particular type of source,
not high income people.
If the government would start with getting rid of the special
excise tax that it put on to deal with the deficit we no longer
have and stop this insane nonsense of taxing its own tax, maybe
Canadian taxpayers would see a little relief at the pumps. The
hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge said in the past that
there is price fixing between the gas companies yet the
government wants to put out a requirement that those prices be
fixed before it acts.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend and as
always, I found his comments to be interesting. I actually do
not have a question for him. It is more of statement.
1535
Earlier today I inadvertently made the comment that in spite of
the hundreds of questions the Canadian Alliance and previously
the Reform Party had asked over the last year, I was not aware
that there was a single question asked in question period about
gas prices. I have to say I was incorrect. The research I have
gone through would indicate that there were two questions asked
over the last year out of almost 1,000. Just to make it
perfectly clear, there were two questions on gas prices out of
1,000.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to
the response from the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys. I am always amused to hear his comments in the
House.
What I find interesting is the facade he is putting out that
there is more relevance in the actions of any party and any
member in question period than there is in committee work. Most
people who have studied anything about politics know there is far
more done in committee. That is where most of the work of this
place is done. I have just finished reading a long portion of
one of many actions that we have taken in committee, yet he
queries why it was not raised in the circus called question
period.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
cannot believe what I have been hearing from my colleagues. One
member after another has been saying that the government is
collecting taxes from gasoline so it should spend that money on
roads.
Canada has a general revenue fund. The government collects
revenues through taxation of different things in society and
eventually it makes an assessment in terms of need. The money is
then spent accordingly. Is the member not aware of this?
Is the member suggesting that the Government of Canada should
introduce user fees and abolish all of the social programs? Can
he suggest how we would be able to support the health care
program or the education program or all of the other issues in
our society? Where would we get the money from? Can the member
tell us?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I really fear for the hon.
member who just spoke when he gets back to his caucus meeting and
points out to the finance minister that he did not understand
that there was a surplus in Canada.
Where is the government going to get the money? It just
finished acknowledging that for last year there is a $12 billion
surplus. It actually thought it would be $3 billion. The
government has ripped people off so much that it does not have $3
billion, it has $12 billion. What is more, the government has
collected more than half of that amount already just a short way
into this fiscal year. Where is the government going to get the
money? The government will get the money out of the pockets of
the taxpayer. It will get it out of the bank accounts of low
income people who use heating fuel in Canada.
In my province we pay a marginal rate of taxes of 54.4 cents.
That means when we get to the gas pumps we have 45 cents left out
of $1 and we get almost 50% of what we pay for gas with that 45
cent dollar taxed by the government. We are going to get to the
point where we will have to get money from some other source just
to pay our tax bill. If the government keeps going the way it is,
we are going to find situations where there will be more than
100% tax on some objects.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I notice there was no reference to the profits made by
oil companies in the motion tabled by the Alliance party. I also
notice that the Alliance is having a fundraiser in Toronto where
it is charging $25,000 a table. I assume some of the oil
companies will buy tables at that particular fundraiser.
The member was talking about grassroots Canadians and ordinary
people. I want to know how many ordinary people will buy these
tables at $25,000 a hit. That party does not represent ordinary
people. It represents the rich and wealthy and the privileged in
Canada.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I know that party cannot
relate to people with incomes at all, but I will have the hon.
member know that I have 24 no cost public meetings in my riding
every year. I would like to know how many public meetings he
holds in his.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, today's debate represents somewhat of a defining moment
in this parliament because something unique has happened here.
1540
I would like to go back to two months ago when the newly elected
leader of the Canadian Alliance was at a press conference across
the street. One journalist asked him what his number one
priority would be when parliament returned. The leader of the
Canadian Alliance said that the number one issue for him would be
parliamentary reform.
The very first motion that the Canadian Alliance put on the
floor of the House after the summer recess deals with a very
important issue, the reduction of fuel prices. As members of
parliament, all of us are seized with this issue and we are
looking at it in its complexity.
Something unique happened on our side of the House. The
backbench member of parliament for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and
many of his colleagues spent the last two years of their
parliamentary lives going across the country listening to
Canadians, to mom and pop gas station operators and the operators
of oil companies. They studied the issue, what is the problem
and how could we fix it. A report was produced. That report, as
most members in the House would admit, is one of the finest
pieces of work ever put out by a backbench team.
What happened in the House today is something I have never seen
in 12 years. It was not a minister of the Government of Canada
who led off with the government position today; it was the member
of parliament for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge who said “This is
our position”. Why I think this is somewhat of a defining
moment is that the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, who has
strong views on the issue, and I think few would challenge his
understanding of its complexity, put forward a constructive
amendment to the Canadian Alliance motion.
This is what the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge tried to
get accepted by the Canadian Alliance: “That given the record
increases in the price of gasoline, home and diesel fuel severely
hurting Canadian consumers, especially those with lower incomes,
this House calls upon the government to assist Canadians in
coping with the rising financial burden and this House strongly
urges provincial and territorial governments to consider
providing similar assistance”.
The Canadian Alliance rejected to allow that motion to come to
the floor. It rejected to allow members of parliament from all
parties to consider that. This is significant to me because I am
as passionately committed as anyone in the House to making the
roles of members of parliament more meaningful and I was hopeful
when the new leader of the Canadian Alliance said that his number
one priority was going to be parliamentary reform. Today we had
an example where parliamentary reform could have been dealt with
in a constructive way for all Canadians, especially lower income
Canadians and the Canadian Alliance walked away from it.
Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with my dear friend and
colleague from Ottawa Centre so please warn me when I have a
minute left.
1545
I appeal to the members of the Canadian Alliance that when their
leader states that his number one priority is parliamentary
reform and a government backbench team, led by the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, puts forward a constructive amendment
on behalf of all Canadians, to take that as an opportunity to
constructively work together on a complex issue that every single
member of parliament believes must be dealt with.
The single most important point that my colleague from
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge made today was that we should design a
plan where the altered formula of incomes or revenue streams do
not go into the treasuries of the oil companies but into the
pockets of consumers, especially low income consumers.
That amendment was repeatedly put on the floor today. In fact,
today during question period the Minister of Finance challenged
the Canadian Alliance to work with the government and accept the
member's amendment. He did not say that we would do it tomorrow
or next week. The Minister of Finance said that we would vote
today and that we would make it happen today.
Canadians listening to the debate today will judge fairly that
over the last two years it was not a minister or a big department
of government but a member of parliament with his colleagues who
developed knowledge, listened and put a report forward. The
government gave members of the Canadian Alliance an opportunity
today to come on board and work together on behalf of all
Canadians with lower incomes and they walked away from it.
The Canadian Alliance missed a great opportunity to follow
through on their so-called commitment to parliamentary reform.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, first, I want to point out that the Speaker ruled
that the amendment put forward by the member was inadmissible.
Second, the House leader of the Canadian Alliance through the
Speaker told the member that we would be prepared to waive the
period that was necessary before debating this sort of thing. We
also said that we would be happy if the member from Ajax would
talk to his own House leader and put it on the order paper for
tomorrow. We would be happy to do that. Let us do that. That
is the offer we are making to the member across the way.
Surely the member who just spoke has to acknowledge that is
exactly what happened and is happening. In fact, his whole
speech ignored that fact and he has misled Canadians about what
the Canadian Alliance was and is prepared to do.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Madam Speaker, I want you to ignore
the fact that the member for Medicine Hat just said that I misled
Canadians. I was in the House today sitting next to my
colleague, the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, and I can
tell you, Madam Speaker, that the motion was put on the floor
twice.
An hon. member: Three times.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Well I saw it twice with my own eyes
and twice it was rejected.
Let us forget about the incident this morning.
What is more important is that the Minister of Finance for Canada
during question period today asked the leader of the Canadian
Alliance to come on board and accept this amendment and he did
not act.
1550
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the member for Toronto—Danforth.
Today, we can see once again that Liberal members are living in
the past. They talk about what they should have done or about
what they did. But what are they doing right now about helping
Canadians cope with the gasoline prices they are now facing and
will continue to face?
Last year, in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the
Canadian government collected close to $52 million from
taxpayers, through its excise tax and GST.
What did the government do with that money? I was told by the
office of the Minister of Finance that the money was distributed
to the various departments. Today, through the Canadian Alliance
motion before us, we are asking this government to act and
actually do something for those people who are faced with a
serious problem that will get even worse.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Madam Speaker, I will say this
humbly, but the government of Quebec does not support the oil
companies. In fact, my understanding is that most of the members
of the Bloc Quebecois support the report. I just do not
understand why the hon. member is at odds with her own community.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In his response, the member for Toronto—Danforth involved the
provincial governments. The question—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of
order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member for
Toronto—Danforth.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Madam Speaker, I think I have really
said it all but I will say one more thing to all the members of
the opposition parties. The member of parliament for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge put an amendment on the floor today and
hopefully before the end of the day something miraculous will
happen and all members will come on side and the amendment will
be accepted, as the Minister of Finance has suggested.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
fairly disappointed by what I have heard today. I have been here
since 10 o'clock trying to hear a substantial debate about how we
are going to resolve this whole crisis of high gasoline prices in
Canada but all I have heard from the opposition throughout the
whole day is how we are going to solve this problem through a tax
reduction of 1.5 cents a litre. I must submit that is not the
answer.
My constituents are telling me that even if we reduced the tax
on gas by 1.5 cents a litre that they would still be paying 74
cents or 75 cents a litre, which is way too high. In that sense,
I have not heard one tangible proposal that would deal with that
specific problem.
The second problem is that the opposition wants the government
to reduce the tax when in fact if the government were to reduce
the tax there would be absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that
this tax reduction on gasoline would go into the pockets of
consumers, simply because history tells us otherwise.
Let us take the example of New Brunswick. Hon. members will be
both happy and disappointed to know that in New Brunswick, which
has the fourth lowest tax on gasoline anywhere in Canada at
approximately 10.7 cents per litre, the people pay the fourth
highest price for gasoline per litre across Canada.
The government of New Brunswick decided to reduce taxes in the
hope that it would benefit the consumers of New Brunswick but the
oil companies sucked up that reduction and pocketed it.
1555
Reducing taxes without talking to the consumers will not solve
the problem. So much for the theory of reducing the tax on
gasoline hoping that the consumer will get the benefit at the
mercy of the oil companies.
I have been involved with this case, like many of my colleagues
on this side of the House, for over 14 years, when gasoline
prices were not fashionable to talk about, and nothing has
changed. We still hear the same lines from the same players on
the international market, the major international oil producers.
When we ask them why we are paying so much for gasoline or why
gasoline prices are moving up and down, they give us three
arguments, the first being supply and demand. They tell us that
when there is a shortage of supply on the international market we
have a higher crude oil price and, as a result, we pay more at
the pump.
I did some research through my office and through the Library of
Parliament. We looked at the International Energy Agency, a very
respected international agency located in Europe that monitors
supply and demand internationally. What we found out was quite
interesting. The average supply of oil in 1997 was 74.4 million
barrels per day. The demand for oil was 73.4 million barrels per
day. To that extent, we had approximately one million barrels
per day more supply than demand. The average cost per barrel at
the time was $18.98. In Ontario we were paying 57.2 cents per
litre.
I will jump one year to give the House better statistics. In
1999 the international supply of oil was 74 million barrels per
day and demand was 75.2 million. Therefore we had more demand
than we had supply. Guess what? The price of oil per barrel on
the international scene was $17.79. Hey, the price per litre in
Ontario was still at 57.8 cents per litre.
If that is the case, could someone somewhere explain to me why
it is that in the second half of the year 2000, when the total
supply of oil on the international scene is greater than the
demand, in excess of approximately 2.1 million barrels a day,
that we are still crying wolf and saying there is a shortage of
supply when in fact we have a surplus in supply? There is a huge
supply of oil on the international scene and the oil producers
are part of an international conspiracy to shaft consumers not
only here in Canada but in North America, in Europe and all
around the world.
The gentleman who said it best is the president of OPEC.
Yesterday in one of the national papers he was reported as saying
“Rocketing world oil prices are being fueled by speculation and
are out of the oil cartel's control”.
1600
He is absolutely right. Simply put, if we were to look at the
oil cartels, OPEC has been pumping more oil on the international
scene than there is demand. There is enough oil in the
international market to flood rivers all over the world. There is
huge racketeering out there and a huge amount of speculation that
many of the international players are involved in it. It has
nothing to do with supply and demand.
The second one is the market forces. When asked why we are
paying so much for gasoline, they tell us it is because of market
forces, that if the market can take 80 cents per litre, they are
going to charge 80 cents per litre. How can they say it is about
market forces when everyone is charging the same? How can the
consumer have any choice whatsoever?
What about the poor little independent retailers in our
neighbourhoods, like in Quebec a few months ago, where the major
players move in and clean the butts of individuals so much so
that they sell below cost? How can that be market forces? Oh,
no. That is not market forces. The players who control the
market wanted to pump out, not in, the independents who are a lot
more efficient than the fat elephants that are trying to do
everything to stick it to the consumer.
We move on to the next one, the so-called players on the
international scene telling us that taxes are a problem here in
Canada. My colleagues have fallen into their trap. It reminds
me of a French story.
[Translation]
I am referring to the fable of the crow and the fox. I am sure
my colleagues know this story. The crow had a piece of cheese in
its beak. The fox regarded it and said “Ah, how beautiful you
are, such lovely eyes”. Suddenly, the crow opened its beak and
dropped the cheese into the mouth of the fox, which ate it. A
fine story.
[English]
My colleagues in the opposition are falling into the trap. It is
a problem that can only be resolved through co-operation between
the provincial governments and the federal government. This is
not a federal problem alone. It is a provincial responsibility.
Pricing is the responsibility of the provincial governments. They
have to show leadership. They have to respond to the call of the
federal government, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources. They have to
come to the table in order to talk about solutions.
They cannot sell us peanuts thinking that is going to fill up
our tummies. They are starving us. They have to move together
in order to respond to the needs of the consumers. Seniors, men
and women on fixed incomes will be more responsive to the
initiative of my colleague from Pickering who put a very
reasonable motion before parliament, and that is to put the money
in the pockets of the people rather than give it back to the oil
companies.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I find this quite interesting. We have put forward a
motion today to simply stop collecting a tax which was intended
to be collected while we had a deficit. All we are doing is
saying to the government that it should now stop collecting that
tax and it should stop collecting GST on taxes on fuel.
That little simple request is being countered by all sorts of
high powered arguments by the other side. They say no, they will
not do that. It is as if a youngster came to my house and said
“I want a bowl of soup because I am hungry” and I said “Well,
because you did not ask for the whole kettle, I am not going to
give you the bowl”.
I do not think the government recognizes what is happening here.
It talks about the hon. member from Pickering who has worked on
this problem for so many years. How ineffective. He has worked
for two years and the government has not listened.
1605
Now the government is blaming us because we are not allowing a
motion which simply says that the Minister of Finance should talk
to the provinces. Frankly there is not a thing we can do to
prevent the Minister of Finance from talking to the provinces.
Let him do it. He does not need our approval. He does not need
the approval of this parliament. The government has thrown in a
red herring in order not to deal with the real issue, which is
simply to vote in favour of stopping collecting the 1.5 cent per
litre surtax that the government imposed on us along with the
GST.
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I must admit I came to this
issue with an open mind. I wanted to be able to vote for the
motion but when I read it, one thing came to my mind: either
naivety or stupidity is involved. I think both of them were when
this motion was put before the House.
The Canadian Alliance is trying to get Canadians to believe that
by reducing the surtax by 1.5 cents a litre we are going to solve
the gasoline price crisis in Canada. This is misleading, nothing
more, nothing less.
I was interested in seeing the opposition come forward with
proposals, such as how the provincial government should set up
some mechanism. A good idea would be an ombudsman at the
provincial level to monitor the price of gasoline. Has that party
proposed it? Some sort of mechanism should be set up at the
provincial level so whenever there is an increase by 10% the oil
companies have to notify consumers. This is a provincial
responsibility. Has that party proposed this? No, none of that.
All that party has come forward with is rhetoric all day. It is
terrible. I wasted part of my day listening to nonsense.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre spoke
of the fable of the fox and the crow. I would like to speak of
this fable using another image.
In 1998, a Liberal committee was established with 47 Liberal
members. They behaved like the fox and wanted public opinion on
their side. They said, in a report, things such as “There is an
unreasonable industry concentration”. They also said that it
meant a saving for the major oil companies with the way the
competition was organized. Further on they said “The federal
Competition Act has no teeth and the Competition Bureau is
unlikely to uncover the practices”.
Today, the situation facing us is a short term one. There is
the problem of overpriced gasoline and there is pressure on
governments to lower taxes. There is also a long term problem in
this situation. The government in office was not elected
yesterday. It set up a committee that made recommendations in
1998. At that point, all the fox wanted from the crow, which
represented public opinion, was satisfaction, to try to put an
end to the story.
Was there no way to come up with real solutions and to implement
the recommendations of the committee without denigrating today
those trying to find solutions?
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I will simply reply that the
government has responded very positively to the recommendations
of the Liberal committee. It is in the process of a complete
review of the Competition Act. The Conference Board of Canada is
looking at these issues.
As for prices, I would simply say that they come under
provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. Unfortunately, a number
of members have failed to make the distinction between prices and
competition. Competition comes under federal jurisdiction, while
prices come under provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, there has been so much rhetoric flying around all day on
this issue over and above the incoherent rantings that we just
heard from the previous speaker. So much of it simply is not
true.
Liberal members are speaking out of so many corners of their
mouths that I do not know how anybody could ever figure out what
the Liberal position actually is.
Everybody understands when the NDP raves about the immorality of
profits in the petroleum industry. That is socialism and we can
understand that but the Liberals have been all over the map on
this issue and continue to be.
1610
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has flipped so many
times he must feel like a burned pancake on the way to the
breakfast table. The motion we brought forward to vote on comes
directly out of his task force on gasoline pricing. He is trying
to change the content of the motion so he will somehow be able to
support it. He has managed to change it instead of simply
supporting the context that he recommended to his government and
with which it has done nothing for a year and a half. That makes
no sense at all.
Everybody is blaming this whole issue on the evil oil cartel and
the big oil companies that are gouging the consumer and all the
rest of the things we have just heard. The previous member
talked about doing research in his office and finding evil people
hiding in places and ripping us off.
Looking back at the history of crude oil prices, in 1991 as a
result of the gulf war crisis crude oil prices spiked to a record
$41 a barrel. At that time the pre-tax cost of a litre of
gasoline was only 42 cents when crude oil hit $41 a barrel. Today
in 2000 with crude oil hitting $37 plus a barrel, gasoline prices
have gone through the roof but the pre-tax price of gasoline is
only 44 cents a litre.
No one can tell me that the gouging that is going on is by the
oil companies. The pre-tax price of oil indicates that it is not
the oil companies. It is the provincial and federal governments
and their taxes that are gouging the Canadian people on this
issue. There is no question about it. The information is there.
The facts are there. A good part of the problem—
Mr. Roy Cullen: How about the fact that the federal tax
has not changed in the last four years?
Mr. David Chatters: Madam Speaker, the member said “What
about the fact that the federal taxes have not changed in four
years”. That is absolute rubbish. He knows better than that.
He knows that the GST on gasoline increases every time the price
of gasoline increases so the federal portion of the tax on
gasoline goes up every time the price of gasoline goes up. It
has done that all along.
The miserable failure of the government's economic policies and
the supported weakness in the Canadian dollar are creating a huge
problem in the energy industry that is yet to come home to roost.
Sooner or later it will do that simply because refineries in this
country have to buy their crude oil in American dollars and sell
their product in Canadian dollars. With the Canadian dollar
situated where it is, the margins in the refining industry are so
fine that there has not been an oil refinery built in this
country in 30 years.
Part of the problem that is driving the high price of oil, as
the member we heard earlier suggested, is that while actual
production is outstripping demand, the price of gasoline is not
dropping because the lack of profitability in the refining
industry has meant that there have been no new refineries built
in 30 years and we do not have the refining capacity to catch up
with demand. That is a fact. It is as clear as can be if
anybody wants to look at it.
Earlier an NDP member suggested that energy is the lifeblood of
Canada's economy and I certainly would agree with that. How in
the world could we expect to have enough of this energy to
sustain the lifeblood of the economy if we refused to allow the
industry to be profitable, to expand and to build refineries and
to find more oil and invest in the industry as they are doing?
1615
In my riding alone the private sector has announced $35 billion
of investment in the industry to ensure that the lifeblood of the
Canadian economy is there 10 or 15 years down the road. I do not
think that is a bad thing.
I think of the Liberal government and the division within the
caucus with small groups of backbenchers running off with the
minister's blessing to hold up a strawman to show consumers that
they are really concerned about prices at the pump. I think of
them making recommendations and the minister not having any
intention of following up on them. I think of the socialist part
of the caucus, or the environmental extremist part of the caucus,
demanding higher prices at the pumps in the interest of reducing
consumption, conserving energy and saving the environment.
There is no question in my mind that the price of energy will
continue to rise. It is a finite resource and as the resource
becomes scarcer and the demand becomes greater the price will
rise. It is unavoidable. I will be splitting my time with my
colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill.
The Liberal caucus is not telling consumers what is the real
agenda. I am looking forward to going out and fighting the next
election based on the government's plan to implement the Kyoto
protocol. The Liberals are not saying it, but the David Suzuki
Foundation, Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute are all telling
us that it will not be that bad, that it will only mean a 3% to
5% reduction in GDP if we implement the Kyoto protocol.
I am looking forward to going out and fighting an election on
the government's promise not of zero growth in the economy or
zero growth in the GDP but a 3% to 5% drop in the country's GDP.
That will be a lot of fun.
The public should know that. The determination of the
environment minister to implement sulphur levels in gasoline is
totally out of sync in Canada with the United States agenda. Here
in Canada we will be creating a speciality market that will
cost consumers dearly at the pumps, simply because of the
minister's decision not to follow the timetable of the Americans
in reducing sulphur in gasoline.
There is certainly nothing wrong with the proposal to reduce
sulphur. It is commendable, but if we do not stay in sync with
the United States we will be a speciality market in Canada. One
only has to look at what happened in the United States when
California implemented stringent environmental regulations on
gasoline compared to the rest of the country and created a
specialty market in one state. Its price skyrocketed above those
in the rest of the United States. The same will happen when the
government implements its sulphur levels in gasoline, but it is
not telling consumers that. It is telling them that it is very
concerned with the price of gasoline at the pumps and that it
will step forward and save the consumer in Canada.
The government is not being open and honest with Canadian
consumers. It is throwing up strawmen to deflect its real
position on energy prices and where it is going. I think it is
time it came clean with Canadians. I am looking forward to the
election campaign so that we might be able to do that.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
the member spent most of his speech shamelessly shilling for the
corporations. He tried to convince Canadians that the
corporations get by on a razor thin profit margin and struggle
along with their oil and gas industry. I guess if one is trying
to sell tickets to dinners at $25,000 per table one would pretty
well have to butter up the executives of the oil companies. Who
else would spend $25,000 to attend a Reform Party dinner?
1620
Let us look at the actual facts. Let us look at some of the
profits of these major oil companies, many of which I am sure are
in the riding the member represents. Husky Energy in the last
quarter made profits of $198 million, an increase of 2,302% over
the previous year, and the hon. member is telling us they are not
making a profit.
Let us look at Petro-Canada with $439 million in the last
quarter with an increase over the previous year of 314%. Suncor
Energy made a $619 million profit in a quarter, not per year,
which is an increase of 156% over one year previously.
The hon. member is telling us that they are not gouging us at
the pumps with profit margins like that. It is beyond
credibility. Canadians do not believe it. Nobody buys it except
for the guy wearing rose coloured glasses who is speaking for the
corporations and trying to be a champion and an apologist to the
oil companies. It is really grating for me to sit here and
listen.
Mr. David Chatters: Madam Speaker, I am glad it is
grating on this member because his comments have been grating on
me all day.
I am not ashamed to stand and defend a corporation making a
profit. A year and a half ago the price of crude oil was $10.50,
which was below the cost of production. Today the oil companies
are making a healthy profit. I do not think that is immoral.
Those profits are driven by the marketplace. If consumers were
not demanding that volume of energy, the energy prices would not
be there. The price of crude oil is set on the open market
through a bidding process. If the demand is there the price will
be there.
Certainly, when the Liberals talk about a made in Canada energy
program, that old chestnut will not sell in Canada anywhere. They
tried that under the Trudeau regime and it did not work. Those
members rave about the evil, gouging oil companies and today the
government announces a stamp honouring Petro-Canada. The
hypocrisy around here just staggers me.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am extremely disappointed in the performance of the Canadian
Alliance member.
I thought that the motion introduced in the House this afternoon
was so that taxpayers would benefit from what reformers were
proposing.
I note that the member, in his speech, says that it is the oil
companies that should have all this money and then make even
bigger profits.
I am truly disappointed and I would like the Canadian Alliance
member to tell me what place there is for consumers in all this.
Where do they come in, the people who are paying 79.9 cents a
litre for gasoline, the people who are going to be paying
astronomical amounts for heating oil next fall? Is he there to
defend ordinary folks or the oil companies? I am extremely
disappointed.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters: Madam Speaker, there has not been one
shred of evidence presented here all day to indicate that the
benefit would not be passed along to the consumer if the
government followed our proposal and reduced the tax on gasoline
by some $1.5 billion and therefore challenged the provinces to do
the same, amounting to between a six and seven cent reduction in
the cost of gasoline at the pump. Historically and every shred
of evidence out there shows that it would and that consumers
would benefit by the government reducing those taxes.
Governments traditionally have taxed gasoline as a luxury. For
40 years governments at all levels have had a need for income so
they raised the taxes on cigarettes, booze and gasoline. They
have done it over and over again. It is time to recognize what
gasoline and energy are, to drop the tax and to pass the savings
on to the people at the pumps.
1625
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to our supply
day motion today which reads as follows:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home
and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck
drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the
Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the
government to give immediate relief on fuel taxes, including
repealing the increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a
temporary deficit elimination measure in 1995 and implementing
the 1998 recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on
gasoline pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the
GST.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why government members
who made these recommendations only two short years ago are
bleating about their opposition to this motion. We are simply
giving the House a chance to implement what the Liberal committee
recommended.
In fact the Liberal committee consisted of 47 Liberal MPs. That
is about a third of the Liberal caucus. They did not even have
to worry about any opposition or any other input from other
parties because they did not let other parties on their Liberal
committee.
In spite of that, 47 Liberal MPs who heard over 1,000 people in
their committee work two years ago recommended very clearly that
the double taxation be removed from the price of gasoline, that
is the GST duplication, and that the 1.5 cents per litre put on
in 1995 to reduce the deficit be eliminated because it has worked
and reduced the deficit.
The Liberals proposed this motion two years ago. Now we have
the bizarre spectacle of those same individuals who loudly
recommended that the motion be passed opposing it in the House.
Why? We are not sure.
Is it a bad motion because the Alliance has put it forward? Was
it a good recommendation when 47 Liberal MPs brought it forward
in 1998? Today, when the Alliance is agreeing that it should be
done because consumers are hurting, the Liberals will not agree
to it.
Who is serving the interest of Canadians in the House? Is the
interest of Canadians even uppermost in the minds of those
members of the House? Is it sheer partisanship? Canadians are
hurting and worried about how they will fill their home fuel oil
tanks this winter. That does not matter to them. What matters
is that they do not want to get together with the opposition. I
would tell Liberal members opposite to grow up. We are here to
serve Canadians. We are not here to serve just partisan
interests.
We have brought forward a motion which is exactly the same as
the one that 47 Liberal members travelling across the country
came back with and recommended to their government. We are
recommending the same thing. We are agreeing with the Liberals.
We are saying that it should be implemented today. Let us vote
for this motion. Let us get on with it. Let us help Canadians.
Let us ease some of the burden. Yet we find somehow that
ridiculous and specious reasons are put forward as to why all of
a sudden their own recommendation does not have any merit. That
is simply ridiculous.
I have heard the most bizarre reasons in the debate, one of them
being that if we lower taxes it will not help consumers because
the people who supply the product will simply raise the cost of
the product. By that logic, we should raise taxes sky high to
make sure that government gets all the money from products. By
that logic the higher the taxes, the lower the actual price and
profit to the producer.
NDP members are saying “God forbid that producers should get
any money. Let us tax higher. Let us not cut taxes”. By that
logic, why do we not add a 10 cents per gallon tax on fuel?
Anyone can see that is an illogical position to take. Let us not
go there.
Let us go where Canadian people want us to go. That is to give
them some hope, some relief and some means of paying the price of
fuel that they desperately need. Canadians need fuel to heat
their homes. This is not a luxury. This is a cold country. We
need to tell Canadians that we will do what we can to make sure
they have a reasonable chance of meeting the necessary costs.
1630
People need fuel for transportation, whether it is for their own
transportation or for car pooling or for taking the bus or for
sending their goods by truck or for any kind of transportation
that takes fuel. This is not rocket science. We are glad we do
not have the horse and buggy economy anymore.
Fuel must be paid. If the government is taking the lion's share
of the cost of this commodity, then ordinary regular Canadians
trying to live their lives, heat their homes and carry on the
ordinary commerce of their society are going to suffer.
I quote from an editorial from the Calgary Herald on June
13 which says:
Between 1996 and 1999, even before adjusting for inflation, the
base price of gas declined from 30.2 to 28.6 cents per litre. By
contrast, the government take in fuel taxes almost doubled—from
17.6 to 29 cents per litre.
Who is hurting Canadians? The government has imposed tax after
tax on Canadians. The error of its ways has been recognized. A
recommendation has been brought forward that that be reversed,
that there be no tax on tax and that the temporary tax to
eliminate the deficit be eliminated. Now we find that these
common sense measures, these measures that would bring relief to
every Canadian in this country cannot be supported.
I would say to every Canadian watching this debate who has a
Liberal member of parliament representing them—and I use that
term very loosely—to phone their member of parliament and ask
them why they want to keep a temporary tax when the purpose of
the tax has been fulfilled. Ask them why they would have a tax
on top of tax. Ask them why they will not follow the
recommendation of 47 of their own MPs and give Canadians the
relief they want and need for peace of mind as winter approaches.
Ask them if there will be some help from the people being paid to
represent them. I ask Canadians to put these questions to their
Liberal members of parliament.
If an election is called, I ask that someone get up at every
single forum and take their Liberal candidate to task. Ask them
why they want to keep a tax that they themselves said was
temporary and now ought to be eliminated. Canadians should ask
Liberal candidates about double taxing them.
I say to all members of the House that we put partisanship
aside. Let us put our pet projects aside, our pet peeves against
big corporations and all the things that have muddied the waters
of this debate. Let us simply stand in our place when the time
comes to vote on this motion and say to Canadians that yes, we
will eliminate a temporary tax which is no longer necessary and
whose purpose has been served and that we will no longer tax
Canadians on tax. Canadians might actually applaud that.
I certainly hope that Canadians who see their member of
parliament vote against such a common sense, reasonable,
rational, helpful measure will punish those representatives who
have kicked them in the teeth once again when it was totally
unnecessary.
1635
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I cannot speak right now about what the punishment is
going to be for various members of parliament, but I can assure
Canadians this evening that when it comes to this issue, this
party, unlike that party, knows it implicitly. More importantly,
it does not play the kind of hair splitting recommendations where
members selectively pick certain parts of this wonderful
document. They have given credit to one simple area.
On the question of the resolution, the member across has
conspicuously forgotten that as part of the condition of that
recommendation, it recommended that if the GST was removed from
other taxes, the federal government should undertake measures to
ensure the resulting savings were passed on to consumers and not
merely absorbed by the oil industry. They cannot talk out of
both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they want the
resolution. On the other hand they do not want to accept the
mechanism, which is to give it directly to Canadians.
That member, her party and her leader today had an opportunity
to give the tax back to Canadians, assuming of course it was
going to bring down the level of gasoline and somehow remove the
hardship on Canadians. I know Canadians understand this, that
they are johnnies-come-lately on that side. They are shamelessly
sitting here and trying to pass off their defence of an industry
that for the past three years has been making excessive profits,
cutting back production and creating all sorts of disruptions in
a country where we have paid through our taxes to make sure that
industry received more benefits than others.
I suggest they start talking about the oil patch, the difficulty
Canadians are facing and understand how dangerous the resolution
is without the amendment and give Canadians an opportunity to
receive those taxes, not the oil industry.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I feel sincere pity
for this member who chaired a committee of 47 of his colleagues
unsullied by any common sense from the opposition. Now he has to
twist himself inside out to oppose recommendations which he
himself brought forth. Surely that is a sad indictment of
Liberal politics when a fine member of parliament has to twist
and turn to repudiate his own findings. This is sad.
I am glad that my appeal to Canadians to take their Liberal
members of parliament to task on this issue has struck a nerve.
The only thing that will bring sanity back to the policies of the
government is if they feel some electoral heat.
It is simply ridiculous to suggest that somebody who made a
recommendation to repeal a tax, which was temporary and whose
purpose has been served, and who spoke out against tax on tax
should now speak out of both sides of his mouth and oppose the
very measure that would have brought that forward.
If anything is more dangerous than a member of parliament doing
that I would like to know.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This hon. member has in some respects attempted to try to
put words in my mouth in terms of what I have said. For the
record, this is clearly—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid this is a
point of debate.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I would just say
this. I know sometimes in the heat of debate and totally
appalled at the hypocrisy of other members sometimes we get
carried away.
Again, we need to focus on what is right and best for Canadians.
What is right and best for Canadians is that we do what we can to
alleviate the stress and the hardship that they are not only
feeling now but will increasingly feel as winter continues and as
their fuel costs rise. Let us put all of this aside and simply
help Canadians. That is why we are here.
1640
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
I am pleased to offer my comments on the motion before us today.
I, too, am very concerned by the increase in price for gasoline,
diesel and home heating fuel. This affects all of us as
individuals, as businesses and as consumers.
As the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has outlined so
very well, our fellow government caucus members saw a need to
study the whole issue of gasoline pricing and this included
taxation. We issued a report in June 1998. As one of the
co-chairs of that committee, I was and am certainly proud of our
report.
This was a group of MPs who were concerned enough to go out and
gather material that may have helped explain price fluctuations
in Canada. We travelled to dozens of communities, speaking not
only with members of the gas-buying public, but with
representatives of the oil companies, independent retailers and
trucking firms.
One of our committee's recommendations stated that double
taxation, with GST on top of the retail price before and after
provincial and federal excise taxes, must end, conditional on a
guarantee that the tax decrease would be passed on to consumers
and not absorbed by oil companies.
The 1.5 cents per litre deficit cutting tax we suggested also
must be removed. These are but two of the Liberal committee's 29
recommendations.
This motion specifically refers to taxation and that, I agree,
is an important element, but not the only one when it comes to
price. There are other issues at play here that must also be
addressed, such as competition in the industry, appropriate laws
that prevent predatory pricing.
For example, the general mandate of the Liberal committee on
gasoline pricing was to examine all aspects of the oil industry
that had a direct impact on the pricing of gasoline in Canada.
We examined such issues as operations and procedures in the oil
industry, wholesale and retail selling, refining, gasoline
exports, federal-provincial legislation and consumer protection.
As hon. members know, the Conference Board of Canada is
currently undertaking a study of the pricing situation as well to
give Canadians a solid and forthright accounting of the
situation.
With regard to a tax cut on gasoline, we must ensure it is done
in concert with the provinces. We must also guarantee that the
price will not be taken up by the large oil companies.
I note that the official opposition is not calling for an
inquiry into the domination of 85% of the gasoline market by only
four refiner-marketers. It is not calling for a study of the
fact that all wholesale prices are identical or that
refiner-marketers' domination allows control of retail and
wholesale pricing or that there have been no new entrants into
the market, while independents are going out of business and the
retail margins are uneconomic for even the most efficient
independent operator.
Today's motion emphasizes the tax portion only. Perhaps this
provides good optics, but we in government are responsible for
good public policy. I want to emphasize, however, that I support
the elimination of the 1.5 cent per litre excise tax that was
added in 1995 as a deficit cutting measure.
Let us look at some measures of how to help low income people
buy home heating oil this winter. I believe we must be creative
and help where we can in the days ahead. The Minister of
Finance, it is rumoured, may move in the weeks ahead on this
aspect. As well, the minister has stated that the issue of the
GST being charged both on the wholesale price and retail price is
eminently worthy of further examination.
I have heard from my constituents in the trucking industry about
the rise in diesel fuel costs. I recognize that truckers are an
important part of our economy. I know the trucking industry is
aware that the rack price for diesel is up about 105% from a year
ago. The rack price is the wholesale price a refiner charges for
fuel sold directly to trucking companies.
In the same time period, the rack price of gasoline is up 65%.
This will impact not only on truckers' wallets, but also on those
of all consumers.
1645
School bus fleet owners have contracts in my riding of
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Based on a 50 cents per litre gasoline
cost, they are losing money.
Farmers are also being hit by higher prices. It is costing them
$20 an acre more to put in a crop of corn because fuel costs
increased by 97% between May 1999 and March 2000. In good
farming years that $20 an acre was often all that was left over.
Predictions of a colder winter than usual will certainly
increase the use of home heating oil and natural gas. This past
February the sudden cold snap along the eastern shores of Canada
meant that the demand for middle distillates increased. Home
heating oil was one. As people turn up the heat in their homes,
some of the crude that would go to diesel is diverted to heating
oil. Gas retailers will tell us that there is less profit and
volume in diesel and that the only significant user of diesel is
the trucking industry.
At the same time it should be understood that the increase in
the price of diesel fuel in Canada is almost totally attributable
to the rise in the world crude oil price, which has more than
doubled over the past. Of all the increases in the pump price of
diesel, only about a half cent per litre is related to federal
taxes, namely the GST.
However, GST revenues have not increased dramatically because
most diesel is used by businesses that recover their GST through
the input tax credit mechanism. For example, in January the GST
input tax credit effectively offset the pump price for diesel.
The same applies for businesses using gasoline where the GST has
resulted in a one cent per litre increase at the pumps. Again,
most commercial users recover the GST they pay through the input
tax credit.
Canada has the lowest excise tax on diesel fuel in the G-7 at 4
cents per litre and the second lowest excise tax on gasoline at
10 cents per litre. The federal excise taxes on gas and diesel
fuels are fixed. They do not fluctuate with price changes. That
is important to note. Even when the excise tax is combined with
the GST, total federal taxes on diesel are par with the United
States.
We must address the issue of competitiveness at the federal
level. This motion disregards and overlooks the larger
perspective. Taxation on gasoline is but one element of a much
greater examination of public policy. Governments have a
responsibility to use the means at their disposal to ensure that
consumers are protected and true competition exists. Our caucus
committee firmly recommended that the preservation of true
competition is the most important aspect in the protection of the
interests of the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, in listening to the hon. member, I
could not help but note that she said “We in government are
responsible”. Never have truer words been spoken. From what we
have heard, the government's big concern, if there is a tax
reduction, is where it will go, to the consumer or to the rich oil
companies.
I want to remind the government of the figures that I used in my
speech earlier on. These are the facts. Over an 18 year period
the price of the gas component of gas taxes has gone down 25% in
real dollars. The price of the excise tax component, or the
total tax component of the price of gas, not just federal but all
governments, has gone up 57%. These are not Canadian Alliance
facts, they are Statistics Canada facts. When the member says
“We in government are responsible”, those facts certainly
support what she says.
I would also like the member to comment on the fact that not
only has the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, who is
sitting beside her, been on a task force, but so has the hon.
member for Ottawa Centre, who spoke earlier. He was on a 1990
all-Liberal task force while in opposition studying municipal
infrastructure. That task force recommended that there be a
dedicated commitment of fuel tax revenues to highway
infrastructure, a commitment that suddenly slipped out of the
Liberals' minds when they became the government.
1650
Therefore, the real question is not whether can we trust the oil
companies but whether we can trust the government.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that
in the debate today we are debating whether the taxes have gone
up or whether the cost of crude oil has gone up.
The member mentioned the taxes and whether governments will
follow through, provincial or federal. I would like to share an
example with my hon. colleague. Not too long ago we had the AIDA
program. The federal government reviewed the criteria and felt
that additional dollars were available and that a negative margin
should be covered. It moved unilaterally in Ontario because
Ontario was not fixed to go ahead.
This is the kind of rhetoric we hear when the national
government wishes to move ahead and the provincial government
does not follow.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, the hon. member
has given us an argument in explanation of the government's
refusal to lower the excise tax by 10 cents a litre. We are
told “The government is prepared to do this, but only if the
provinces are also prepared to discuss doing so, and to do it”.
I cannot see how this argument, which strikes me as more of a
pretext, relating to the absence or presence of provincial
co-operation would ensure that this tax would no longer serve to
add to the profit margin of the companies.
The federal government says “If we proceed unilaterally, we fear
the benefits will end up in the companies' coffers”. But is
there not the same risk if it is done along with the provinces?
In my opinion, it is not because the provinces are involved that
this obstacle, the risk that the profits will end up in the
companies' coffers, will be avoided.
How can the hon. member explain this logic? It strikes me as
more of a pretext used by a government that is actually thinking
“If I am going to go short of revenue, the provinces have to as
well”. This is bad logic.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Madam Speaker, I guess my response
will go back in the form of a question. Is this hon. member
really saying or can he suggest to us that the province of Quebec
will be there for the consumers like the Liberal Government of
Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is an honour for me to speak on this issue. I have discussed
the cost of gasoline in my region, a vast region in Quebec, on a
number of occasions over the past few months.
I find the opposition motion rather timid. The Canadian
Alliance is saying that taxes should be cut by 50%. We all
agree that taxes should be lowered. It is important to lower
taxes in order to help families, especially in vast regions such
as that of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
They forgot to do one thing that I have been doing for several
months, and that is to speak about it in the House of Commons,
to table bills and motions.
On February 29, I tabled a motion—it will not happen every four
years because it was on February 29, it will happen every year—in
which I said:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make
sure that all service stations display the base price per litre
of gasoline or diesel at the pump, free of the federal and
provincial taxes.
On February 16, I gave a speech on the price of gasoline.
On April 12, I tabled Bill C-476, an act respecting the posting
of fuel prices by retailers, without taxes. What counts is the
consumer filling up at the station. One day, Camil Aubé of
Val-d'Or said to me “Guy, that costs too much. Lower the
taxes”.
He was right, and what counts is for consumers to have their
say. It is the most important point in today's debate.
1655
As I rise today in the House, there are people who are at home,
listening to us. What is the price of a litre of gas? The
government is being criticized because of the taxes, but not the
oil companies.
Let me give you an idea of what makes up the price of a litre of
gas in Val-d'Or, in the Sullivan area, and explain how things
work.
First, the consumer filling up this evening in Val-d'Or, Sullivan
or Dubuisson will pay 81.9 cents a litre. The federal excise tax
is 10 cents, and the provincial road tax 10.55 cents. Back home,
we do not have to pay the Montreal tax, which is 1.5 cents. We
do not have that tax.
There is also the GST, which is 4.8 cents, 5.33 cents. This
means that, out of the 81.9 cents, there is 30.68 cents for
taxes and 51.22 cents for fuel.
Why do we not post a price of 51.22 cents on the signs? Prince
Edward Island lowered its taxes, but the very next day the oil
companies raised the price of oil.
We should post the gross price, because when consumers walk into
a store, they know that, if an item costs $17, it means $17 plus
taxes. Why not do the same thing with oil companies and majors?
Let me give another example using this price of 81.9 cents a
litre. Let me tell you how much retailers operating in Abitibi,
where gasoline sells for 81.9 cents a litre, pay for each litre
of the gasoline delivered to them.
It costs 67.22 cents, including 10 cents for excise tax and
10.55 cents for Quebec's road tax.
Does the Canadian Alliance not know that every year the oil
companies give bonuses to all gas stations: Petro Canada, Esso,
Ultramar or Shell? If a retailer sells 1.5 million litres of
gasoline at his station, he will have a nice little Christmas
present of 1.2 cents for every litre sold over 1.5 million. If
he does not sell 1.5 million, he will receive 1 cent for what he
sold during the whole year.
In addition, I have here a confidential invoice from a retailer
in my region. It shows that Petro Canada charges an amount for
participating in the RRP. It comes to 14 cents and something,
fourteen tenths of a cent, but RRP. Is this Shell's or Petro
Canada's “régime de retraite des patrons” or employers' pension
fund? We do not know. I am keen to find out.
Nunavik is a large area of Canada.
It is the only riding in Canada with villages and communities
above the 60th parallel. This evening, as we speak, a litre of
gas costs $1.10. Of that, 30.4 cents is for taxes and the oil
companies get 79.6 cents.
I spoke about the oil companies this afternoon, with Charlie
Alaku from Kangiqsujuag, Adamie Alayco from Akulivik, Magie
Emudluk from George River, and Pita Aatami. This is what is too
bad and what the Alliance does not mention in its motion. The
oil companies have to be put on the spot. We have to tell them:
“Wake up. Advertise exactly what you are charging for a litre
of gasoline”. We will look after the taxes. Quebec, Ontario
the provinces or the government will look after the taxes. But
we have to wake the oil companies up. They are ashamed to
advertise the real price of gasoline.
In any event, I received many letters.
I have one from the Minister of Finance in which he writes “I
would like to begin by pointing out that there is no federal
excise tax on fuel oil for home heating”.
Do people realize how much profit the provinces are making at
this time on oil, gas and fuel? Fifteen billion dollars. How
much for Canada? Perhaps $4 or $5 billion. I have a precise
figure here, which I will give. In 1998-99, Canada made
$4.267 billion on gas, and $437 million on diesel fuel.
Looking at the 2000-01 budget for the province of Quebec, last
year it got $1.559 billion in fuel tax.
1700
What is important, at any rate, is that the federal government
made $4.5 billion and the provinces $15 billion. I am not
complaining about the provinces, but I am saying that we pay one
way or the other. We pay for gas, and we pay taxes as well. Yet
why do the damned oil companies not display the price without
tax? They are afraid to. The chairmen of their boards are
afraid to tell people what the price of a litre of gas is, and I
cannot understand this.
I have letters here from Petro-Canada, stating that the price is
confidential. I have one from the Office de la protection du
consommateur du Québec. I have filed a complaint against
Petro-Canada in fact.
It rejected my complaint in February saying “No, we will send
you to Revenu Québec”.
Revenue Québec wrote me, and this is
what is interesting, that “We know that this business practice
is common among retailers selling gasoline in Quebec and that
they do not indicate the gasoline tax separately on any document
of sale. In this regard, the Quebec department of revenue is
flexible and does not require retailers to comply with the
provisions of section 12 if they wish to sell gasoline”. Take
note: governments give orders but do not apply them.
I come back to the oil companies. They are listening to us
today. Their political attachés are sitting and listening to
us. They are right to listen, because I am angry with them, I
am hopping mad and consumers are too. Every president of every
company is listening, their political attachés and their
secretaries.
I say to them “Wake up. Display the price per litre of gasoline
before taxes”. That way, we will have respect for the companies
and we will know how much money they make. But they better wake
up. This is important. They better wake up for consumers.
This is not the fault of governments. Government deserves
respect, but I oppose oil companies that do not display the
before tax price per litre of gasoline.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the Liberal Party member. I think he has
just given us all the solutions his government ought to put
forward but fails to put forward. It has the power to take
action but does not. Why? The member has said that the
government has powers it is not using. I have a question for
him. I belong to a coalition which is defending consumers
against gasoline price increases. We have been bringing
pressure to bear for a year and a half now. We have boycotted
Petro-Canada and now it is Ultramar. People in my riding no
longer go to Ultramar and they did the same with Petro-Canada. I
ask my colleague this: If tomorrow morning we were to tell the
Canadian government to suspend its excise tax and its GST and to
tax the oil companies' profits, would he agree?
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very
interesting comment. We are here to find solutions. Today I
looked at the price of gas at the Canadian Tire on Talbot. It
is 79.4 cents a litre. It is important to talk about the oil
companies. Petro-Canada has a sign posted near one of its pumps
pointing out that taxes account for 51%, but does not indicate
whether this 51% is being levied by the provinces or the
Canadian government. This is misleading advertising on
Petro-Canada's part.
I come back to the hon. member's question. It is a very good
one and it is together that we are going to find solutions. We
must. Right now, Canada's Minister of Finance is trying to find
solutions. It is also important that they come not just from
him but from all provincial finance ministers as well as those
in the territories and Nunavut.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech by the Liberal member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, in which he referred to a notice of
motion that he presented to the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources, on February 29, 2000.
1705
That motion was relatively timid, particularly since I had
tabled one on February 10, 2000, which went a lot further. That
motion read in part:
That document was tabled on February 10. It listed very specific
measures, but the Liberal majority rejected it. Today, the
member said that the Canadian Alliance motion was timid. It is
timid, but it is based on important values.
Some people pledged to increase the tax to fight the deficit.
There is no longer any deficit. We have a surplus. Now, we must
remove that tax.
Then there is the issue of double taxation. This is also an
important principle. Even if the Canadian Alliance motion is
timid, the fact is that it is a wake up call for the government.
The motion of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is a big
to-do about nothing. It is like the elephant labouring to bring
forth a mouse.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the hon. member for Sherbrooke did not understand. We
have no elephants in my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, just
caribou and moose, and that is important.
There is one thing the hon. member has not understood. At
present, the price of gas in Sherbrooke is 83.9 cents a liter.
It is 81.9 cents in Abitibi. This evening I am addressing the
truckers in Montreal, those who are at home tonight. In
Montreal, Lucien Bouchard's provincial tax is 15.2 cents. How
can it be that diesel is 16.2 cents, or one cent more, whereas
we are collecting 10 cents everywhere on gas and 4 cents on
diesel.
It is a cent more for truckers on Montreal Island, who pay more
than all others. I agree, we must find solutions together.
That is how we are going to work. One day we will win out, and
we will be winning for the consumer, ourselves included.
I have appreciated their speeches. They have put as much effort
into it as we, and sometimes the message does not get across.
The important thing, it is true, is that we work together as a
family, but one day the government is going to have to get our
message, and the provinces as well.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I
have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been
received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
September 21, 2000
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles
Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 21st day of September, 2000 at 6.00 p.m., for
the purpose of giving royal assent to a certain bill.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FUEL TAXES
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating a supply motion by the official
opposition. The official opposition gets to pick the topic of
debate about seven to nine times a year and only some of those
are votable. We take supply day motions very seriously. We put
a lot of thought into them and we try to come up with something
we feel would be a help to Canadians. Today we have seen
something happen that concerns me a bit.
1710
This is our day to pick a topic for debate, to pick the wording,
to put it on the floor of the House for all sides to have a
chance to go at it.
This morning after our first two speakers spoke, the government
tried to implement an amendment but we had already made an
amendment to the motion, so it could not be done. The government
asked for unanimous consent. This is our day. This is our
chance, one of very few. The government can pick the agenda
every other day of the year, but on this day let us have ours. To
try to confuse the issue by doing what it did today is not being
straightforward with Canadians.
The people who have been phoning my office complaining about the
price of gas and the tax on gas are farmers, people on fixed
incomes, seniors, single parents and families struggling to get
by. They are looking for a break from government and members of
parliament and here we are going around and around over some
foolish issue that is not getting to the gist of the problem.
People have been watching this debate today hoping something
will come out of it to help them out at the end of the month.
What have they learned? What have they seen? I do not think
they appreciate very much what they have seen here today.
Our party is asking for two simple things. One is to take off a
temporary tax that was put on to eliminate the deficit. Thanks
to the same hardworking Canadians who phone my office asking for
a tax break, that deficit has been eliminated. Why is the tax
still there when there is a $12 billion surplus? Why is the tax
there when the revenue from tax on gasoline this year is going to
be $13 billion? We are talking about billions of dollars flowing
around and we cannot give hardworking Canadians a 1.5 cent per
litre tax break on a tax that when implemented was to be
temporary. This I am sure does not add up in their minds.
The other thing we are asking to be done today is that the
compounding tax on a tax on a tax, the GST on the tax portion of
gas, be moved down so it is only put on the portion of the gas
from supply and production. Do not be compounding tax. In the
early days when the government tried to sell us the GST back in
our other world, we said no. The government said it would not be
compounded and here it is.
Those are the two things we are asking for today. I have no
idea where all this other stuff came into the debate today. That
is the gist of our motion. We were hoping for support from all
sides of the House for Canadians who get up every day and wonder
where the heck they are going to get an extra $10 a month to fill
their tanks.
With regard to gasoline, we are talking about diesel fuel that
truckers use to haul the supplies around the country, the
supplies that feed us, clothe us and house us. Every time the
price of fuel goes up, every commodity that travels on a train,
in an airplane or on anything that burns fuel goes up in price.
Would it not be nice if we could take the temporary tax off and
give consumers a break, but here we go around and around in some
wrangling way to try to confuse the issue.
I give full credit to the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
He is a member of the House for whom I have a lot of respect. A
lot of people on all sides of the House have a lot of respect for
him because of the stance he is taking. He has taken on a lot of
issues. This is a real good piece of work that he and his
colleagues have done. After what I have seen today I am starting
to question that kind of action on a simple straightforward
motion such as we brought forward today.
A year ago in a minority report that we attached to the report
on the safety net programs for farmers that the agriculture
committee was looking at, we asked the government to lower the
input cost to farmers because again there is a compounding
effect. It raised the price of all the products produced. It
raised the price of shipping grain, shipping the products to
market, the retail aspect of it and moving them around the
country. We asked if the government could do that to help lower
fuel costs to help reduce farmers' cost.
Yesterday I read an article that was in the Western
Producer. Statistics Canada said that in total 26,200 fewer
people are working in the agricultural industry in western Canada
on the prairies this fall than there were last fall. Why is
that? That should be of no surprise to anybody. The farm
community is hurting and it is not only the farmers. I am
talking about the farm community and the industries in the cities
that support the agriculture industry. For that to get shovelled
by is wrong.
1715
We have been telling the government there is a crisis in the
agricultural community that it has to address. It has to lower
the input cost to producers. This is just one example of what
the fuel tax is doing. The government has not done that.
Some 26,200 fewer people are involved in farming this fall than
last fall. That is a crime. I am a little embarrassed to say
today that I was involved in the House when all this wrangling
was going on, when Canadians were looking for a solution and did
not get one.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the
order made on Wednesday, September 20, the recorded division on
the amendment stands deferred until Tuesday, September 26, at the
expiry of the time provided for government orders.
It being 5.18 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-318, an act to require the establishment of national training
and certification standards for trades that receive
apprenticeship training, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long road to get to the
point where we could bring this issue to the floor of the House
of Commons.
In a nutshell, let me just explain the principle. We have a
situation in the country where apprenticeship training does not
rise to the same standards that we see in other countries around
the world. I will go into some details to give a comparison, for
example with Germany.
Yet we have young people right across Canada who are looking for
opportunities that may not follow in what is perhaps some of the
more popular areas today such as IT, high technology or something
of that nature.
They are interested in working in construction, in building
trades, at being plumbers and at being carpenters. They are
working with their hands. They also require a great deal of
technological training today, unlike our forefathers from several
years ago when the latest technology was not available.
1720
I think there is a fundamental problem in our society that led
me some three and a half years ago when I arrived on Parliament
Hill to draft a private member's bill. It was not easy, I might
add, to get the bureaucracy in Ottawa to even agree to draft it.
I will go into the reasons for that in a moment.
I wanted to draft a private member's bill telling young people
that if they became apprentices, if they received a ticket for
whatever trade they wished to pursue in the province of Ontario,
and if they received an opportunity to work in that trade in the
provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta or Newfoundland,
they would be able to do that. Their apprenticeship ticket or
licence would be recognized equally in every province, territory,
region, municipality, village and community in Canada.
Sadly that is not the case today. It came as a great surprise
to me to find out that we did not have the necessary procedures
in place to allow for the mobility of our young people to ply
their given trade across the country. I did some research. I
met with people in the trade labour movement, particularly in the
building and construction trades, to find out why this was.
I was informed that we have a system called the red seal system
for registering trades. There is a copy of it here. It is
fairly extensive. It covers 44 trades across the country. The
principle is that if one receives a red seal designation it
should therefore qualify one as an apprentice anywhere in Canada.
One of the fundamental problems, and I think this goes to the
heart of our constitution, is that not all provinces and
territories recognize all 44 of these trades with the red seal
designation.
Certainly some of the more obvious ones, mechanics and cooks or
jobs of that nature, are recognized in most of the provinces but
many are not. I would also submit to the House that there could
be more than 44 trades involved in apprenticeship training across
the country.
I was surprised when I arrived here to see the resistance from
the bureaucracy. I asked what the problem was and was told that
it was not federal jurisdiction. I asked the bureaucracy to help
me understand. I argued about it. I understood that we had
entered into training agreements and labour agreements with
provinces and were at that time currently negotiating with the
province of Ontario. We had agreements on the table with other
provinces, but I am not talking about delivering the service of
apprenticeship training. I am not talking about the actual
physical educational process that might take place in a
combination of learning on the job in the workplace and then
attending a community college in my province or some other
learning institution in other provinces.
I do not want to interfere in that. I happen to believe that
the delivery of education is better handled by the provincial
governments in co-operation with the school boards and with other
training associations.
We may get involved, and do indeed with HRDC funding, in many of
these areas where we will provide some money for these training
institutions and directly channel that money to the young people
who are taking the training. We do that all the time. In fact,
we have seen hysteria in this place by members opposite about
some of the funding from HRDC that has gone out to help these
young people. That hysteria has caused a great deal of
difficulty for those young people.
1725
I do not want to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. There
are those who support my bill, and I am going to share with the
House who some of those people are. In addition to some members
here, the critic from the NDP party from Winnipeg has been a
great supporter and a believer in it. It is supported by other
people in most of the provinces, if not all, in many of the
ridings and communities represented by members on both sides of
the House. I normally get a little partisan, but this is not a
partisan issue. This is about our young people.
I cannot for the life of me understand why my own government, if
it is opposed to, or the people opposite would be opposed to
putting in place national standards for a young person who
registers for a program or gets a job. My own son is 25 years
old. He is a bright young guy. He takes after his mother
obviously. He decided he wanted to be an apprentice electrician.
He obtained a job. He enrolled at community college for the
educational portion of it. Should he be able to work anywhere in
the country? He is a Canadian citizen born in this country,
educated in this country. He received an apprenticeship licence
in this country but he cannot go to Quebec or he cannot go to
Newfoundland because his ticket does not allow him that mobility.
Frankly, not allowing that runs contrary to the social union
contract which was signed by every province save the province of
Quebec. Let us think about that. The social union contract
called for mobility in educational activities across Canada. It
was signed by all the provinces except the province of Quebec. We
understand the reluctance of Quebec to sign on to anything that
would promote national unity or any kind of national activity.
That is no surprise. I am not surprised that the Bloc Quebecois
would be opposed to this initiative in this private bill.
At first I was a little surprised to learn that Canadian
Alliance members were opposed to it, but then I guess I
understand that their vision of this country is to devolve all
authority and all responsibility down to the provincial level. To
use the term used by our Prime Minister, he said that they wanted
to be a head waiter for the provinces, that that is the role the
federal government would fulfil.
Members of the Canadian Alliance would oppose this kind of
national initiative because it runs contrary to their support for
devolution of authority and power and the absolute dismantlement
of the federal government because of their provincial views, very
narrow views I might add.
I ask members to think about who has supported this bill. This
bill has changed titles because of the recess of this place, but
it is the same bill with a different number. It received support
from business, received support from organized labour, received
support from the educational community, and received support from
numerous colleagues in this place. It is a bill that has a
vision attached to it that would benefit all young people.
Too often in our generation, those of us in this place, we think
in terms of our sons and daughters becoming doctors and lawyers,
becoming experts in certain fields of technology. What will
happen when the day comes when we can no longer get the workers
we need to build the infrastructure, the workers we need to build
the communities, the roads, the highways, the sewers, the
waterpipes, the bricklayers? In fact I have had an experience
where a constituent of mine was attempting to get some
bricklayers and he could not get them. The union could not
provide them. Do members know where he had to go to find them?
It was not to Newfoundland, not to Nova Scotia. He had to go to
Portugal.
Does it make sense if we have an opportunity to provide training
and apprenticeships for our young people in Canada to learn how
to become bricklayers, to make the kind of wonderful living that
a good quality, well trained bricklayer can make, for us to be
looking to Portugal to import workers?
1730
Obviously there are situations, and the trade labour movement
will support this, where one-off projects require us to use our
immigration system to go out around the world to find particular
workers so that we can build a particular project that will
indeed save, keep and create jobs for Canadians. These are
temporary worker permits and they are issued all the time.
It would not happen overnight, but one of the ways we could
solve these shortages would be to encourage our young people to
become apprentices, to make them proud to become bricklayers,
carpenters, electricians and plumbers. Why should they not be?
What honourable professions those are. This place should reflect
society and frankly, society has lost sight of the true honour of
working in those professions.
Let me share with hon. members a letter from the Canadian Labour
Force Development Board supporting the original bill. This is
from Brian Skrogs, business co-chair, and Joe Maloney, labour
co-chair. This is a business-labour coalition, both sides of the
spectrum. In a letter to me they said “It is our pleasure to
inform you that at our meeting of June 10, 1998 there was
unanimous support for supporting the bill”.
It is bipartisan unanimous support from business and labour.
That is a national organization. It understands. It does not
have parochial views. It is not concerned about constitutional
matters. It does not care about jurisdiction and who does what.
It cares about having good quality opportunities available that
will create the mobility right across the land of having young
Canadians do apprenticeship work in every community.
Another letter is from the Building and Construction Trades
Department, affiliated with the AFL-CIO which is a huge
organization. In a letter that went out to all members of
parliament, it stated “We would urge the government to adopt
this bill as government legislation. Further we would ask all
members to support this bill, either as a private members' bill
or as a government bill”.
The Building and Construction Trades Department has offices here
in Ottawa and it represents people right across the country.
Once again it is not concerned about jurisdiction. What it wants
to see is some national standards.
Let me add that what is most interesting is that we agreed in
negotiations on the bill that we would adopt the highest
standards in the land which I believe are from Alberta. We would
adopt the Alberta standards as national standards. I am not
being parochial and saying that it has to be Ontario's way. I
want the best. I want the best standards that are available to
help our young people.
There is a letter urging that the government and all members
support the bill from the Bridge Structural Ornamental and
Reinforcing Ironworkers. It is an international union. This
letter is to the federal minister of labour at the time from its
international headquarters in New York City. It states:
Approximately three years ago at the first ministers meeting it
was agreed that they would relax certain interprovincial trade
barriers, one of which was the mobility of labour. However we
now find ourselves in a virtual gridlock relevant to labour
mobility due to the fact that certain provinces have red seal
standards while others do not. Therefore, I would once again
respectfully request that you endorse the bill.
I have dozens of letters from unions and business groups in
every province right across Canada. I have letters from
Newfoundland, New Brunswick and from Ontario in abundance. One is
from the United Transportation Union and states “I am pleased
that somebody has finally found the wherewithal to introduce a
bill that makes such plain sense”. And it does make plain common
sense.
I know there is opposition to the bill. I am pleading with
those who have decided not to support the bill to reconsider
that.
I appreciate those who are supporting it. This is not
partisanship. This is not about nation building. This is not
about separatism or a national debate on Quebec. This is about
our young people, about their future and their opportunities to
pursue apprenticeship programs that will be recognized and
effective from sea to sea to sea.
1735
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and respond to the member
opposite.
First I would like to back up and describe what apprenticeship
really means. Actually there is some interesting history.
The apprenticeship system for training trades workers is
historic. For centuries skilled trades people had an obligation
to teach their craft to the young. After an apprentice had
satisfactorily completed the full term of training and had
demonstrated his ability, he became a journeyman. A journeyman
means he could travel around from one job to another; hence the
journeyman trade. This is what we are talking about here.
My background is somewhat interesting. I went to Vancouver
technical school. I am disappointed that they have moved away
from this but in those days, most of the school was trades. Heavy
duty mechanics, auto mechanics, printing, sheet metal, carpentry
were all started in grade eight. In grade eight students made a
decision. They could go through a university course which was
fine, but many of the students did not want to do that and they
went into the trades. When they came out of grade 12, they were
well on their way to being journeymen. They substantially
shortened the timeframe and the young men and women were well
trained and well on their way.
I am really disappointed that our education system has gone away
from that. I think we are missing a fair bit of the boat by
trying to push everyone into the same mould and send everyone off
to university when in fact we need plumbers, we need people to
build our houses, we need skilled operators of various equipment.
In my background in forestry, I spent 25 years in the woods with
large logging equipment. A grapple yarder can cost over $1
million alone. An off-highway truck carries 100 tonnes of logs.
One can understand the size of this equipment. We had an
excellent apprentice training system in our heavy duty shop.
I am not unfamiliar with the apprenticeship programs, but that
is straying from the bill a bit. We are not talking about
apprenticeships because we all recognize that a good
apprenticeship program is valuable. What we are talking about is
certification and who is going to run the boat.
I understand why the member was having some difficulty
introducing the bill. Clearly it is provincial jurisdiction.
That is where we are having some difficulty with it. It is an
overlap that is already covered by the provinces. It is not only
trades, it is doctors and dentists. I am a professional
forester. It is foresters. Provinces cover education.
Provinces cover certification. Why would we need a national
standards program when we already have in place provincial laws
that deal with apprenticeships?
I agree that there needs to be more interaction between industry
and the provinces. The red seal where people can travel from one
province to another needs to be improved. I recognize that.
However I and my party do not think the answer is a national
standards program for apprentices.
On that basis we reject the provisions in the bill because it is
clearly duplication. In effect it is almost another way of the
big federal government wanting to edge in on the provinces'
authorities. That is the reason we have some difficulty with the
bill. It is not apprenticeship at all. That is not the issue.
The issue is certification and who is going to run it. Therefore
we will not be supporting the bill.
1740
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I somewhat have the impression that
I am repeating myself by speaking to this bill, Bill C-318, the
purpose of which is to establish apprentice training and
certification standards that will be recognized Canada-wide.
We must remember there was an epic battle in Quebec in order to
reach an agreement on manpower, so that Quebec, and not the
separatists or the sovereignists, but all of Quebec in total
agreement including the provincial Liberals, the Action
démocratique du Québec and, obviously, the Parti Quebecois,
which forms the government of Quebec, along with all the social
stakeholders, to enable Quebec to recover jurisdiction over it.
Today, with respect to Bill C-318, I am a bit surprised that we
have to have this debate once again.
We must remember—and this is the same example we had in health
care—that the government of Quebec had to fight for more than a
year to obtain recognition of the jurisdictions in health care
so that, in the end, with the support of Ontario, the federal
government would agree to sign an agreement respecting their
jurisdiction over health care.
Today, on the subject of manpower training, recognition of
training, this looks like a repeat to us, as if the Liberals are
afflicted with the malady of always wanting to meddle in
provincial jurisdiction.
When the member says that it is not a national issue, I say to
him that it is at least a jurisdictional issue and a matter of
efficiency.
The provinces already have responsibilities in the area of
training. In Quebec we have already come a long way on this.
When the bill speaks of setting up a national apprenticeship
organization with a mandate to set training and qualification
standards for the trades they apply to, it is clear that this is
duplication of the work that can be done in the individual
provinces.
In this regard, additional bureaucracy will be created. Just
imagine. We all know about the efficiency of government
bureaucracy.
In the area of human resources development, we saw how effective
the federal government could be. We saw how, when it comes to
taking concrete and day to day measures, this government could
end up making a mess, being terribly inefficient and totally
missing the mark.
Why should we add another area where federal public servants
would evaluate how apprenticeship training is carried out in a
province, and end up before the courts seeking legal opinions on
jurisdictional issues, when everything is clear? As the member
pointed out, already, in some areas, the provinces can
voluntarily adhere to standards that are recognized from province
to province. So why add an area in which the federal government
has no expertise, no jurisdiction and no knowledge?
If the member feels that it is absolutely necessary for the
federal government to be responsible for these things, he should
seek a constitutional change so that the whole issue of manpower
training and education would fall under federal jurisdiction. But
Quebec would never agree to that of course. The jurisdiction over
education is one of the main reasons why Quebec entered the
Canadian confederation in 1867. It was a sine qua non condition
to going ahead and signing that pact.
Since then, we have realized that this jurisdiction over
education should be extended, to allow us to take effective
action in the whole area of manpower.
There is absolutely no question of backtracking now. Three years
after Quebec took over manpower training, after a more difficult
beginning but where there is now practical, functional
interaction between the parties to the satisfaction of local
communities, it would be very inappropriate to now go back to a
system where the federal government decides on the relevance of
training given in Quebec or Manitoba.
The member seems to be confusing “national” with “federal”.
The federal parliament is not the boss.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, some members of the House
should wait their turn to speak, so that I can use my time more
effectively.
1745
I will conclude by saying that this bill, which came about
because of the goodwill of a member who thought that there must
be a simpler way to do things, has not taken into account the
context of jurisdiction, of how things operate in Canada, and
still seems to view the provinces as branch offices of the
federal government. This they are not—they are their own
entities, with jurisdictions that must be respected.
If the Canadian government does indeed have major problems in
this area, if it needs major structural changes in order to be
able to fulfill its international role as a federal government
when signing international agreements, then I have one that can
be concluded rapidly: that the federal government, Canada and any
provinces prepared to do so conclude an agreement, while Quebec
as a sovereign country may assume its full responsibilities and
be a presence on the international scene like the Canadian
government, for those agreements desired by the people of English
Canada.
As long as we are living in the Canadian system as it exists at
present, with responsibilities given to each province, it would
be totally inappropriate, insufficient and the source of major
duplication, to be putting money into such a duplicated system.
It is certain that there is a huge surplus on the federal level,
and perhaps they are looking for ways to use it without having to
give it back to the taxpayers. There is nothing better for
raising a government's profile than having money available.
In the present case, however, it would be doing a disservice to both
Quebecers and Canadians to impose such a double structure on
them. I hope this idea will die on the order paper today and
that we will have the assurance in future that such backward
thinking will be not repeated, with its reference to a philosophy
far different than the one that has guided manpower agreements,
that is devolution.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
there is not much in this world that I know a lot about, frankly,
but this is one subject on which I actually do have great
personal knowledge.
I am a journeyman carpenter myself and for many years I
represented carpenters as a union leader and I did get to deal
with the issue of labour market training a great deal. I can
honestly say that the very worthwhile bill put forward by the
member for Mississauga West absolutely meets a need in industry
that was plain and obvious to me, and to anyone who has ever
actually had experience in the industry that I represented.
One of the members from the Alliance said that apprenticeship
was an ancient tradition, and he is right, but it goes back even
farther than he said. It can be traced back to the ancient
Babylonian code of Hanurabi, which was the first written
reference of a need or an obligation for skilled workers to pass
on their skills to the next generation.
I do not think anybody who I have heard speak so far has any
problem with the model of apprenticeship. In fact, most people
spoke glowingly about what a suitable method it was for the
communication of craft trade skills and what a necessary aspect
it was of any human resources or labour market strategy.
Where we find faults and what the industry has been telling us
for years is that labour market training and the apprenticeship
systems in this country are like a patchwork quilt. Virtually
every province has its own way of doing things, its own
curriculum, its own entrance requirements and its own
certification methodology. As a result, as the member for
Mississauga pointed out, mobility has really been threatened.
A carpenter who took his or her apprenticeship training in Nova
Scotia cannot just move to Alberta when there is a boom and work
there because it is a different set of skills. The employers do
not know what they are getting as there is no standardized
curriculum. Even more important, the customers of the
construction industry service do not know what kind of a quality
job they will get because there is no standardization.
For years now within the building trade but also beyond, for
instance, in the auto industry, the piping trades, any place that
has apprenticeship training as an aspect of the work environment,
there has been a call for national standards, to somehow pull all
these diverse groups working in isolation across the country
together under one kind of central committee, a central umbrella.
We can call it what we want. I see that the hon. member, in his
bill, calls it NATO, national apprenticeship and training
organization. We used to throw around the term NATAC, national
apprenticeship and training advisory committee. Whatever we want
to call it, it should be a forum where business, labour and
government could sit down, compare notes, develop standardized
curricula and a standardized set of rules for the delivery of
training without interfering in the provincial jurisdiction.
1750
We have been aware that this would be a sore point, especially
with the province of Quebec. We knew that we would meet
resistance there, but no one is talking about the federal
government or any national agency interfering with the delivery
of the service. All we are asking for is a consultation forum
where a group in the province of Quebec, for instance the CCQ,
the Commission de la construction de Québec, would be represented
on this national organization. They would say “In our province,
our entrance requirement is that one has to have grade 10. It is
a four year program and the curriculum looks like this. How does
that compare with your program in Manitoba?”. If there are any
problems then those two would have to be aligned to guarantee the
ease of mobility so that Canadian workers could work anywhere in
Canada and Canadian industry could be assured that they were
getting a known commodity when they hire, and I will use the
example of a carpenter because that is my trade.
Apprenticeship as an education model is so well-suited for even
today's new industries, even the high tech field, because the
people who are involved are not really students. They have an
attachment to the workforce. They actually have a job so they
are earning while they learn. It is a model that we believe
should be expanded far beyond the 44 current trades in Canada.
One hon. member mentioned Germany. The country of Germany has
440 apprenticeable trades. People can apprentice in almost any
discipline they can think of. The regimen is outlined in a clear
way. They would get a certification so that they could actually
call themselves a skilled x, y, or z, whatever
occupation they happen to apprentice in.
We believe that having these national apprenticeship and
training advisory committees, or NATO committees, in each of the
apprenticeable trades would not only serve the needs of industry
in providing highly skilled workers of a predictable known
quantifiable level of training, but it would also help to promote
and expand the whole concept of apprenticeship in a much wider
way than currently is enjoyed.
I am terribly disappointed that the government has not seen fit
to adopt this idea. We have a minister of human resources but we
really do not have a national human resources strategy because we
have offloaded that to the provinces. Some people say that is a
good thing and some people are not as pleased with that, but at
least the federal government should still see that it has a role
in ensuring that the delivery of training, which has been signed
over to the provinces through various labour training agreements,
is at least being taught with a certain set of standards so that
they would know they are getting proper value for their
investment into labour market training if for no other reason.
I believe the government has missed the boat. I believe it is
not only not listening to the member who put the bill forward, it
is not listening to industry. It is not listening to key
industrial sectors that very much want this. This idea did not
just come out the blue. The member did not just wake up one
morning and say “I think we should do this”. We are making an
effort to meet a demand by the building trades industry, which is
the largest single employer in the country. The construction
industry and certainly the auto industry, any of the industries
that have sectoral councils or are dealing with labour market
training other than post-secondary education, are very interested
in this model.
When I raise the sectoral council, I believe there is a
precedent for the federal government to have a role in setting
national standards and that is the model right there. In the
auto industry, for instance, there is CARS, which is a tripartite
group made up of labour, business and management. They get
together and not only set curriculum, they can talk about other
things. They can talk about forecasting the labour market needs
in that sector and what the intake should be of new people into
those skilled trades to meet their anticipated needs. It brings
together the actual stakeholders in the training around one
central table.
1755
It would not be a costly factor either. In our dialogue with
industry most industries have pretty much accepted that they will
have to dig into their pockets to fund this sort of thing sooner
or later. There was not much opposition to some kind of a
training levy being put forward to actually run the nuts and
bolts.
All the federal government would really have to do is create the
environment. The funding source could be some kind of a joint
labour-management contribution in some models. That is what we
did in our union. Every hour that a carpenter worked he paid 10
cents into a labour market training fund which was matched by the
employer. We would then use that money for the training of our
members.
In the province of Quebec they have things figured out in a
better way with their 1 per cent training levy which employers
willingly pay so that they can count on a high level of labour
market training for the workers they very much need.
There is a precedent for this type of thing with the sectoral
council. There is a need and a demand, as clearly articulated by
industry sectors. The government has missed the boat in choosing
not to support this very worthwhile bill.
If we did have the type of national standards that we are
talking about, perhaps more young people would be motivated to go
into the skilled trades, the apprenticeship trades. As was
pointed out, there can be very high paying, satisfying careers in
the skilled trades.
We often get this blue collar stigma where people are not
willing or this kind of a feeling that one only goes into the
trades if one drops out of mainstream education. There are
satisfying careers, highly skilled workers in these fields and
great entrepreneurial opportunities that come out of the skilled
trades. Once one achieves a certain level of proficiency as a
bricklayer or as a carpenter one can hang out a shingle and hire
two or three friends, and all of a sudden we have another small
business starting.
For these and all the other good reasons this bill should have
been deemed votable. It should have been passed and in fact it
should have been picked up by the government and introduced as a
government side bill. My compliments to the member for
Mississauga West for bringing forth this important issue for
debate, if for nothing else.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to speak to this bill today.
It is always enlightening to sit in the House and hear the
different points of view.
Actually the hon. member for Mississauga West has almost started
a mini constitutional debate here with this issue. We can see
from the philosophical positions of the speakers how they accept
or reject this approach. In general, if one agrees with a strong
central government with national standards for everything like
health care, education and training, then one would support this
bill. Personally I do not see how we cannot support the bill.
However, if one does not agree with a strong central government
and believes that we should have a country with an array of
strong provincial governments, with no real strong central
government, I suppose one could oppose it. I would certainly
support it and I admire the energy and initiative of the hon.
member in bringing it forth.
I happen to live at the intersection of three provinces: Prince
Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I have always been
involved with the trades one way or another. I will list some of
them: plumbing, electrical, welders, carpenters, mechanics, body
shop repair and parts. These are all trades that require
apprenticeships or some form of training. The standards for
these three provinces change so that there is no mobility from
one province to another in a very small area. We are talking of
the radius of maybe 100 kilometres at the most where the three
provinces intersect and the rules change. The rules are
different for each trade. A set of national standards as
proposed by this bill makes imminent sense to me. It would
certainly help in my specific area.
If one wants to employ or train someone in the trades, the
present system is to begin most likely through the community
college in a town called Springhill, Nova Scotia, or there is
another community college in New Brunswick, the Moncton Community
College. Again, two provinces, two sets of standards and a
different level of education from both of them. The trades
people graduate. They have their diploma, but still they are
trained in different ways with different standards. Again this
bill would address that.
I personally believe that a bill such as this one would help in
a lot more ways than just uniform standards. As the last speaker
mentioned, he said it would motivate other standards in these
fields. I think that is true. If these trades had national
standards they would achieve a better level of recognition and
legitimacy for a lot of people who might not think it is a good
place to go or might not be inclined to go in the direction of a
trade when all the pressure is on to go into high tech, IT
technology training and things like that, or to go on to
university.
Maybe they would rather do a trade but because of the image it
has or may have in their own mind they may not want to do it.
However, if it has national recognition and national standards
they would be more inclined to do it.
1800
Such a program would enhance the community college system. This
is a very important and is a critical element of the educational
process. Not everybody will be a computer whiz or go into the
high tech industry. The community college systems, in my
opinion, have always been deprived of the recognition they
deserve and the money they deserve. All the focus has been on
university and other high tech forms of education. Community
colleges really play a key role. They are the forum of education
that best trains people for a specific job. I have often felt
they are underutilized and under recognized.
Also, such a set of standards would raise the level of standards
itself. As the member said, they would accept the highest
standard in the land for each trade. How could we go wrong with
that? There has to be good positive results from this.
Certainly, just the fact that we could have uniform standards
across the country is good. We are famous in Atlantic Canada
for exporting our most valuable asset. Atlantic Canadians are
going to other parts of the country because job opportunities in
Atlantic Canada are not like they are in some other areas.
National standards would expedite that process but it would also
expedite the process for them coming back at a later date, which
is what we all want.
In general, this is a very practical and good bill. I totally
support the bill because of my personal hands-on experience in
everything the bill stands for. I believe the bill should
receive approval and I am sorry it is not votable. If it was I
would be voting for it and I am sure my party would be as well.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, allow me
first to praise the work of the hon. member for Mississauga West
on the subject of apprenticeship and training, because his
efforts were motivated entirely by his interest in ensuring the
preparation of qualified workers and an effective apprenticeship
system established for industry workers and the economy of
Canada.
Skilled workers are in demand. Canadian workers must be able to
take advantage of these opportunities. We cannot ignore that. In
addition, workers must have access to these jobs, regardless of
where they are located in Canada.
The Government of Canada on the other hand has a responsibility
to contribute to the supply and the mobility of skilled workers
so that Canadians may play their part in a growing economy. This
must not, however, prevent us from taking into account the
political realities of our federal system.
Allow me to reiterate the remarks recently made by the Prime
Minister in Berlin. He said that the Canadian model is based on
the recognition of diversity, on a mix of cultures, on a
partnership of people and government, and that the system creates
a balance between individual freedoms and economic prosperity and
shared risks and benefits.
This balance must not be forgotten in the consideration of this
bill and more particularly in the search for a better way to
achieve the objective of this bill, namely the ongoing training
of Canadian workers.
This explains our discussions with our provincial and
territorial counterparts and consultation of employers, union
groups, educators and community organizations.
We are discussing with them ways of contributing to increasing
the number of Canadians in apprenticeship or training programs.
1805
In 1998, the government launched the Canadian opportunities
strategy to give access to knowledge and skill training to a
larger number of Canadians.
Moreover, in the October 1999 throne speech, the government
pledged to establish a national plan on skills and learning for
the 21st century.
In fact, our government pledged to ensure that skills
development keeps pace with the evolving economy, to make it
easier for Canadians to finance lifelong learning and to provide
a single window of information to Canadians about skills
requirements and training opportunities.
Our challenge is to determine the best way to help Canadians
make a decision about the skills that will be useful to them.
The Government of Canada, along with the ministers responsible
for the labour market in the provinces and territories, is
looking for ways to help Canadians acquire skills.
We must help Canadians increase their literacy level,
particularly those who could be left on the sidelines in the new
economy.
But what is the best way to proceed? What are the specific needs
of these people? How can we give them access to the tools that
will allow them to fully participate in the economic and social
life of our country?
Our partners' involvement is essential, since they have
responsibilities relating to education, and since they set the
rules governing trades and professions.
In many ways, Human Resources Development Canada is a catalyst
in the area of manpower mobility.
The implementation, by July 1, 2001, of the chapter on manpower
mobility in the Internal Trade Agreement is undoubtedly our
primary concern with the provinces and territories. That
agreement will promote the freer movement of persons, goods and
services across Canada.
As regards manpower mobility—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed a bill, to which
the concurrence of this House is desired.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Madam Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to the
Governor General of Canada that this honourable House attend him
immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1820
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have the honour to inform
the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the
Honourable Deputy to the Governor General was pleased to give,
in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act—Chapter No. 27.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-318,
an act to require the establishment of national training and
certification standards for trades that receive apprenticeship
training, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate
government members on the passage of Bill C-37.
I will now continue my speech on Bill C-318, an act to require
the establishment of national training and certification
standards.
The agreement is aimed at facilitating worker mobility by
enabling any worker entitled to ply his trade or profession in
any province or territory, to apply for a job in that trade or
profession in another part of the country.
Essentially, this agreement consists in acknowledging that the
co-operation of all governments is the best way of accomplishing
the objectives set in the Internal Trade Agreement. Through the
Forum of Labour Market Ministers, Human Resources Development
Canada is working with the provinces and territories to
implement the provisions of the agreement that address work
force mobility.
In our unique federal system, apprenticeship has developed under
conditions specific to each province or territory, reflecting
our major geographical and climatic differences.
Canadians should in fact be able to take advantage of all
opportunities offered, regardless of where they live. The most
indicative measure in this regard was the establishment,
recently, of the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum, which brings
together the principle spokespersons of the training community in
the country.
The primary objective of the forum is to promote cohesion and
co-operation among the interested parties. It includes
representatives from business, manpower, the teaching and
training sector, organizations promoting equal opportunity on the
labour market, the Canadian Council of Directors of
Apprenticeship, the Interprovincial Alliance of Apprenticeship
Board Chairs and, obviously, Human Resources Development Canada.
The general mission of the forum is to set out the bases of an
apprenticeship training system in order to establish a skilled
and mobile workforce.
This group represents a new stage in the evolution of
apprenticeship. In fact, provincial and territorial
jurisdictions over apprenticeship are not only respected, but
extended to the benefit of all Canadians, and especially young
people looking for a profession.
I am happy to add that Human Resources Development Canada is
providing a three year budget of $1.9 million to this group to
defray operating costs. This, in my opinion, is a valuable
investment in our future labour force.
Other quality forums continue to receive funds from us, for
example the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship,
which manages the red seal program.
The interprovincial red seal program defines national
performance standards for 44 trades in Canada and interprovincial
certification. The term “interprovincial” is important, because it
means that these workers will be able to practice their trade anywhere in
Canada.
The Government of Canada is also working closely with employer
groups and sector councils to identify labour force shortages
and find ways to remedy them. In Canada, some 20 sector
councils are continuing their efforts with a view to training
the current labour force and preparing future workers in their
particular sectors.
We are very confident about the upcoming announcement of the
creation of a national council in the construction sector, which
should be a strong motivation for people in the industry.
1825
It is clear that the hon. member wishes to contribute to an
inclusive and prosperous Canada.
Unfortunately, as I have shown, there is a strong risk that the
wording of this bill would lead to duplication of existing
measures.
The best approach is to work with the provinces and territories
to achieve the goal we all share, which is to do what is
necessary to make Canada's labour force the best in the world.
I hope that the member will join with us in these efforts.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I recognize the hon.
member for Mississauga West for his right of reply.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, let me say first a profound thank you to all the members
from all parties who stayed here late, through the royal assent
journey down the hall and then back here, to discuss what I think
we all agree is an extremely important issue. We may not agree
on how we are going to implement apprenticeship training across
the country, who is going to do it or what the standards will be,
but certainly I did not hear anyone from any party stand up and
make derogatory comments toward apprenticeship training programs.
We know there is tremendous benefit to be had for our young
people.
I also recognize that with my private members' bill having been
deemed non-votable at committee some months ago, there is a
tendency to assume that this is a bit of a waste of time. I do
not think it is because it is important that members in this
place put forward their views and their parties' views. I heard
three truly national parties, the New Democrats, the Progressive
Conservatives and of course my party talking about national
programs. I heard what I would call two regional or provincial
parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the CA talking about protecting
the interests of the provinces.
I am not against protecting the interests of the provinces and
working with the provinces, as the parliamentary secretary has
called for, to deliver training programs. I just fail to
understand, and will look for other ways to skin the cat if you
will, why anyone who has any kind of a national vision would
object to providing standards that are accepted right across the
country.
We would recognize high school diplomas across Canada. We
certainly recognize university degrees across Canada. We
certainly recognize skilled medical trainees across Canada. Why
we would not recognize apprenticeship in the same way as we
recognize those perhaps sends a message as to how our society
feels, tragically and unfortunately, toward those particular
trades. I hope that is not true, because we should value those
trades and the young people who make decisions to build careers.
I want to finish by touching on one aspect which my hon. friend
from Winnipeg mentioned and that is the entrepreneurial
opportunities that are failing to be recognized. I have worked
with young entrepreneurs for the past year and a half in
developing a task force report to implement programs within our
government that will help young people build their own careers
and businesses. As my hon. friend pointed out, what better way
to create new businesses and new opportunities than to help
people get the technological skills needed to build the
infrastructure, the buildings and roads, the cities and
communities, the community centres and everything else to help
people build careers for themselves. They will create jobs. They
will build families and generate children within those families
who will go on in careers and apprenticeship training as well in
the building trades.
I still believe, notwithstanding that my bill is not votable and
that it effectively dies on the order paper, it is an extremely
important debate that we have had here. I thank all members who
participated for putting forward their vision on this very
important issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the bill has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)