37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 015
CONTENTS
Friday, February 16, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1005
1010
1015
| Mr. John Duncan |
1020
1025
1030
1035
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1040
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL MICROBIOLOGY LABORATORY
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| NATIONAL FLAG DAY
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
1100
| REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| SHIRLEY HARRISON
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| LABOUR
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1105
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| MONTGOMERY LEGION
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| JEFF SPENCER
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1125
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEATING FUEL REBATE
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1130
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| WATER CONTAMINATION
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1135
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| WATER CONTAMINATION
|
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. James Moore |
1140
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. James Moore |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
| Hon. David Anderson |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mrs. Raymonde Folco |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1150
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1155
| CANADIAN MINT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. James Moore |
1200
| Hon. John Manley |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| EXPORTS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-269. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1210
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Second reading
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1255
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1300
1305
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1310
1315
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1320
1325
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 015
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 16, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Natural Resources)
moved that Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the
Minister of Natural Resources who unfortunately cannot be with
us.
Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act. This is the same bill as Bill C-39 which
received second reading last fall but died on the order paper.
At that time, three out of four of the opposition parties in the
House agreed to support that bill. I do hope that we will have
their support for the bill today.
Members will recall that when the bill was first introduced, it
was done extremely capably by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Natural Resources, the member for
Timiskaming—Cochrane. He spoke eloquently of the merits of the
bill and of our natural resource sector. He pointed out that
resource industries are not relics of the past. They are
important engines of economic growth in Canada.
Energy, mining, forestry, geomatics and related industries
currently account for 11% of our gross domestic product and 22%
of new capital investment. They employ directly 780,000
Canadians and drive the economies of over 600 of our communities
from coast to coast.
In 1998 the resource sector exported $97 billion worth of goods
and services. Our resource sectors are in fact dynamic and vital
elements of not the old economy but the knowledge based economy
of the 21st century.
Resource companies are not in competition with high tech
businesses. They are high tech businesses. They are investing
$35 billion a year in leading edge technologies and other
capital. Their productivity is growing three times faster than
the rest of the economy.
[Translation]
Several factors explain the excellent performance of the
resource industry in the world economy. The policies based on
economic tendencies and markets which successive Liberal
governments have implemented are good examples of this.
1005
That being said, this kind of work is never finished, and our
constant challenge is to ensure that the Canadian resource
industry remains competitive and continues to support our
economic prosperity. We must keep fine tuning our legislative
and strategic framework so that companies in the resource
industry have the leeway and capacity they need to make
strategic decisions and secure a better position on the Canadian
and world markets.
[English]
That is the rationale for the bill. The legislative amendments
being proposed today are intended to allow two of our major
performers in the natural resources sector, Cameco Corporation
and Petro-Canada, to continue their record of economic growth and
environmental stewardship.
I would like to quickly review the history behind these proposed
amendments.
At one time both Cameco and Petro-Canada were crown corporations
wholly owned by taxpayers. By 1995, however, the Government of
Canada had sold all of its shares in Cameco, which is the
dominant company in Canada's world leading uranium industry. As
for Petro-Canada, although the government currently owns 18% of
its shares, it does not influence the management of the company.
At the time of privatization, certain ownership restrictions
were placed on both these companies. These restrictions were
implemented at that time for good reasons, but circumstances have
changed within the continuing evolution of global energy markets.
The bottom line today is that some of these ownership
restrictions have outlived their usefulness and are actually
preventing these companies from taking advantage of new business
opportunities.
[Translation]
Changes are needed, obviously. Restrictions on ownership
provided in the two statutes do not give these companies the
freedom enjoyed by their competitors to be able to grow and face
competition on the world market. If Cameco and Petro-Canada are
to continue performing well as private businesses, we have to
ensure that the rules of the game are the same for everybody.
The government also intends to ensure that these two
corporations continue to make their decisions in Canada, with
due consideration for Canadian interests.
[English]
To accomplish that, the bill will modify or remove certain
restrictions that are limiting the ability of Cameco and
Petro-Canada to attract new investment capital to forge new
strategic alliances.
Specifically, the bill amends the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act to increase the limit on individual ownership
of shares from 10% to 20%. It will also eliminate the 25% limit
on the quantity of shares that could be collectively owned by
non-residents of Canada. In other words, we are removing the
restrictions on foreign ownership of Petro-Canada.
As for Cameco, we continue to believe in the need for some
restrictions on foreign ownership. The bill therefore proposes
to increase the limit on individual non-resident share ownership
from 5% to a maximum of 15%. Similarly, the cap on total
non-resident ownership of Cameco will increase from 20% to 25% of
the company's shares. The current ownership limit for individual
Canadians, which is 25%, will remain in place.
[Translation]
At the same time, the bill insists that these two corporations
remain in Canada and be managed in Canada.
1010
[English]
To further ensure that Cameco remains under Canadian control,
the legislation will continue to require that the company's head
office be located in Saskatchewan and that the majority of its
directors be Canadian residents.
The legislation also requires that Petro-Canada's head office be
located in Calgary and that the majority of its directors also be
Canadian residents. The 20% limit on individual ownership of
voting shares of Petro-Canada will prevent a takeover by a large
multinational.
Finally, Petro-Canada has reoriented its major activities so
that they are truly Canadian. They are concentrating on the east
coast offshore and on the oil sands.
Bill C-3 will prevent Petro-Canada from disposing of all or
substantially all of its commercial or production assets. The
goal is to give Petro-Canada far greater freedom in administering
its portfolio of assets, at the same time ensuring that it cannot
dispose of these assets through a wind up.
The outstanding Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources made it clear in the previous debate that the
sole intent of these changes is to give Cameco and Petro-Canada
increased agility and better global positioning. It does not
reflect a major shift in energy policy. These changes confirm
our commitment to allow market forces to work, but within
reasonable and responsible limits.
Officials of both companies have strongly supported these
changes, showing that they are not trying to entrench their
management positions as some might have otherwise suspected.
In closing, I should like to address briefly two of the other
issues that were raised in debate when this matter came before
parliament last spring.
First, let me reassure members that the proposed amendments will
have no impact on the price of refined petroleum products.
Gasoline and diesel oil prices in Canada rise and fall with crude
oil prices, which in turn are set by supply and demand in a
global market. They are not set by ownership rules applying to
any one company in the Canadian petroleum industry.
Second, let me assure members that Bill C-3 does not affect
Canada's commitment to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons
or to nuclear security.
As I outlined earlier in my remarks, these amendments have been
supported and endorsed in principle by a big majority of the
House, with most hon. members recognizing that these changes will
be good for the two companies, will be good for investors and
will be good for all Canadians.
In this spirit, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly this
morning and I commend the bill to all members of the House,
asking humbly that it receive quick passage at second reading and
go to committee for full discussion.
1015
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are speaking on Bill C-3 this
morning, which pertains to the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and also to the Petro-Canada
Public Participation Act. The enactment relates to the mandatory
provisions in the articles of Cameco Corporation and
Petro-Canada. Cameco was formerly Eldorado Nuclear Limited, to
which many Canadians can relate.
This enactment provides that the articles of Cameco Corporation
will have to contain a 15% individual non-resident share
ownership limit for voting shares as well as a cap of 25% on
aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights. The
enactment also provides that the articles of Petro-Canada will
have to be amended to allow for a 20% individual share ownership
limit, while the aggregate non-resident share ownership limits
will be eliminated.
In addition, the prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal
of all or substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and
downstream assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on
the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of its
assets, without distinguishing between upstream and downstream
sectors of activity.
That is a pretty concise legislative summary.
I think what is important to many Canadians is that, one, we are
dealing with two assets that Canadians, either historically or
today, have considered strategic assets. One of course is
uranium and that is why we had special rules for Eldorado
Nuclear. The other is the grand experiment known as
Petro-Canada, which was brought in by the Trudeau government in
1975. This all became part of the national energy program of the
early 1980s, so as a consequence it has been very controversial.
We have heard much discussion recently about the possibility
that Petro-Canada could be on the chopping block in terms of the
remaining ownership of shares held by the Government of Canada.
That is in the amount of 49.4 million shares. As of a week ago,
at an ownership or market price of $36.70, the shares would be
valued at approximately $1.8 billion.
The question is, is this the platform to sell off the remaining
shares in Petro-Canada? Bottom line, that would still not recoup
the government's investment in Petro-Canada, but I think many
Canadians, the international community and certainly the business
community would be satisfied if the government was finally out of
this business.
It is important if we are going to take that step that the
government does the right thing in terms of what it does with
those moneys that would be accrued at that time. My personal
view is that seeing as how the taxpayer subsidized this and it
has contributed to our previous deficits and our debt and is
currently the subject of interest payments coming from all of us,
the moneys should go to debt retirement automatically, without
debate.
As for Cameco, this bill ensures that foreign ownership is
capped, thereby eliminating the risk of foreign ownership of
uranium resources.
1020
On this question I believe Canadians think very differently than
they do about our oil, gas and other resources. The main reason
is the fact that uranium, obviously, is involved in nuclear
energy and nuclear fuel. That whole area is one that we want to
tightly regulate and highly regulate, which is appropriate. There
is a big difference. If we look at the oil and gas sector, for
example, when this whole national energy program was put into
place Canadians were told by the government that we had less than
20 years' worth of recoverable oil reserves and that a high
gasoline tax burden was justified in order to conserve for future
energy needs.
Canada is in a unique position. We know now that was an
incorrect statement. We now know that in northern Alberta alone
we have 400 years' worth of recoverable oil reserves in the tar
sands, which will obviously supply our needs well into the
future, and that changes everything. We are very skeptical about
the need for government to retain any ownership in Petro-Canada
for any purpose.
In 1991 the government decided that Canada no longer needed a
crown corporation in the energy business and began the
privatization process. We all know that. That is why current
ownership is at 18%, not something much higher. In the end it
became clear that after fluctuations in the markets, business
setbacks and the ever present political struggles, Petro-Canada
ended up basically as an oil company, much like any other in
Canada except that the taxpayer still owned 18% of the company
and was the single largest holder of the stock. No one but the
government could own more than 10%.
In 1994 we questioned why the government would not sell off its
national oil company while the industry was strong to recoup some
of the billions of taxpayer dollars that were used to create
Petro-Canada in the first place. In 1994 we asked the government
why it would not do something significant and use the revenue
from the sale of Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt burden. We
know there was a crushing debt burden in 1994. It is still a
crushing debt burden, but it was much worse in 1994 because we
were still incurring annual deficits at that time.
In 1995 a Liberal budget promised to totally privatize
Petro-Canada. We can see how reliable Liberal budget promises or
even red book promises are. Indeed, that is something we should
consider deeply, particularly after the events of this week which
saw the government say that if its members voted for a red book
promise it would be a confidence motion and the government could
fall if its own members voted to keep a government promise. This
turns parliament and parliamentary principle upside down.
The fact remains that Petro-Canada cost Canadians over $5
billion.
Petro-Canada has never provided a benefit to Canadians that could
not have been provided by the private sector, and when it was
finally privatized, guess what? Petro-Canada started making a
profit and competing effectively.
1025
Governments since Petro-Canada was established have never had
the courage to admit to Canadians that they will be able to
recover less than $2 billion, 40% of the original cost of
Petro-Canada. If Bill C-3 is indeed, as we think it is, the
first step in the process of the government selling off its
remaining shares of Petro-Canada, my only response can be that it
is finally time, long past time.
I am curious about why we are getting this bill now.
Petro-Canada's share prices have moved up in anticipation of the
government selling off its shares. The shares have gone up by at
least 50% this year and there is potential for the price to go
higher. Also, with the bill in place, foreign ownership
restrictions are removed, which will allow for an expanded market
and that theoretically should expand the price once again.
As a business proposition this was a poor one. We are
recovering less than 40% of what we put into the exercise and
that is with rather inflated dollar revenues and non-inflated
costs. This has basically been a disastrous business
transaction. Since taxpayer dollars originally paid for
Petro-Canada, I have already explained that the best way to go
would be to put it into debt reduction.
There are other things that might be considered, such as our
looming crisis in transportation needs and the need for
transportation improvements. Or we could actually be really
revolutionary. I know when it comes to these kinds of
initiatives that the government has great difficulty prying its
fingers away from these revenues, but we could be really
revolutionary and use these moneys to cut taxes. However, that
is a rather clear cut, simple, direct way to deal with the
problem, so as a consequence it may not occur.
The bill does some things I can support. Referring to
Petro-Canada, it does move toward opening up ownership of the
company to national and international interests while still
ensuring that the majority of the company is Canadian. The
legislation clearly states that resident Canadians must still
make up the majority of the board of directors. It also
stipulates that the head office will remain in Calgary. The
Canadian Alliance supports the removal of restrictions on
Canadian businesses to allow for both domestic and foreign
investing. We expect to see that Petro-Canada, once it is no
longer manipulated by the government, will continue to show
profits and growth.
Of course the legislation does not just address issues
surrounding Petro-Canada. It addresses issues relating to the
sale of shares in Cameco, Canada's largest uranium producer.
1030
Canada's Kyoto commitments have increased the need for Canada to
find green energy. One option of course is nuclear energy. That
needs to be examined. At this point today I do not want to get
into a debate about the merits or lack thereof of nuclear energy.
However, the fact remains that uranium is a resource that, should
nuclear energy be a factor in the world's efforts to reduce CO2
levels, will become a very important resource.
We all intrinsically know this. Nuclear energy has become a
very controversial way of providing for our energy needs, but we
have some nations in the world that are almost singularly reliant
upon nuclear energy. We do not think about that from time to
time.
France, for example, in the European community is over 70%
dependent upon nuclear energy for its needs. That has all
occurred over a long period of time. It continues to be the way
that it functions. Its operations have never created an incident
that has been worthy of international comment. That is a
wonderful track record. We need to keep our minds open and our
options open in terms of that whole field of endeavour.
The bill regarding Cameco raises foreign and individual
ownership limits. Individual non-resident ownership increases
from 5% to 15%. The limit on the total amount of non-resident
ownership of shares increases from 20% to 25%.
I am pleased to see that the legislation is still mindful of the
possible consequences of high levels of foreign ownership of our
uranium resources. The lower limits on Cameco shares reflect
across the board government restrictions on foreign activity in
uranium mining.
While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian businesses
having the opportunity to succeed, we must also be conscious of
the need to keep such a potentially volatile resource within
Canadian control. The bill in effect allows for greater
flexibility in the selling of shares in Canadian companies. We
can certainly support that effort.
As I have already stated, if the legislation leads to the
government finally selling off its remaining shares of
Petro-Canada, it would be legislation that is long overdue. We
will just have to see what initiative will come next from the
government.
At this point in time the government and many parts of the
public have long since forgotten what the original purpose of
Petro-Canada, emanating from the government of the day, was
actually supposed to be. Unfortunately, many taxpayers have also
forgotten how much money was sunk into this enterprise, never
ever to be recovered.
1035
Our policy document in regard to this whole initiative says:
We will foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of
consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad,
including the elimination of inter-provincial trade barriers. We
will withdraw government from areas of the economy where the
private sector could deliver the same services more efficiently
and will end the unfair practice of providing subsidies to
industries, businesses and special interest groups.
There is a lot of wisdom in that statement. If the government
of the day had subscribed to that policy statement we would not
have sunk money into a sinkhole. We would not be looking at a
multibillion dollar loss at a time when the country had a debt.
That added to our debt and contributed to our interest payments
today.
Even today with all the health care debate that we are going
through on an almost daily basis, we are paying twice as much
federally to service interest on the debt as we are in
contributing to health care transfers to the provinces. That is
a very strong indictment of mismanagement of the first order and
just displays what a country Canada could have been if we would
have had appropriate fiscal management throughout the years.
The people know it. That is why they endorsed this policy when
it was created. As a matter of fact they were instrumental in
creating this policy.
We are in favour of privatizing Petro-Canada. This bill does
set the stage for doing that. The legislation ensures that
foreign ownership of uranium resources will be monitored and
capped. It is important for us to make sure that our support of
free market competition and access does not however give away our
uranium resources to foreign ownership. I want to be very clear
on that and I think I have been consistent throughout my
statements today that that is a direction we are simply not
coming from.
I recognize that I have not used up all the valuable time of the
House but I certainly put across the points that I wanted to get
across today on Bill C-3.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I
proceed, I request unanimous consent of the House to share
my time with my colleague from Lotbinière-L'Érable.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, it is
with rather mixed emotions that I rise this morning to speak to
Bill C-3. There are so many important issues that should be
discussed with some urgency in the House that I do not see the
point in debating the bill before us today, because it will not
change much of anything for Canadians, in my opinion.
There certainly is a problem in the oil industry throughout
Canada, but the government is ignoring it and keeps on
introducing bills that do not do anything to solve the problem.
It is as if the government were telling us that it wants to keep
the House busy.
Bill C-3 is entitled an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act
1040
In short, this enactment relates to the mandatory provisions in
the articles of Eldorado Nuclear Limited—now Cameco
Corporation—and Petro-Canada. It provides that the articles of
Cameco Corporation will have to contain a 15% individual
non-resident share ownership limit for voting shares as well as a
cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights of 25%.
It also provides that the articles of Petro-Canada will have to
be amended to allow for a 20% individual share ownership limit,
while the aggregate non-resident share ownership limit will be
eliminated.
The prohibition of the sale, transfer or disposal of all or
substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and downstream
assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on the sale,
transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of its assets,
without distinguishing between the upstream and downstream
sectors of activity.
Today, I will be focusing mainly on the provisions concerning
Petro-Canada, but I still want to say a few words about Cameco.
In the press release announcing the proposed changes to the
legislation, the minister made the following statement, to
reassure the public, I guess:
These amendments conform to the Government of Canada's policy on
non-resident ownership in the uranium mining sector and do not
impair Canada's ability to fulfill its commitment to nuclear
non-proliferation.
We could carry on for hours and hours about the issue of nuclear
non-proliferation. I have the honour of having the Minister of
the Environment in front of me this morning. The Minister of the
Environment is currently promoting nuclear energy at the
international level while industries throughout the world are
opting for new approaches. I find that rather bizarre.
Actually, it is not that bizarre when one is aware that the
Canadian government is trying to sell its Candu reactors to
underdeveloped countries, just to make money.
We went through the same thing last autumn, during the previous
parliament, when a very hot topic, the transportation of MOX,
gave rise to heated debate throughout the country.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all the residents of
the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the hundreds of thousands of people
who opposed the movement of MOX from Russia and the United
States for testing in a nuclear plant. In his last report, dated
December 2000, the auditor general says these nuclear plants are
now very dangerous because they have not been well maintained.
Huge investments are needed to make them properly operational.
During the debate on this, the Minister of Natural Resources,
the hon. member for Wascana, consistently refused to hear the
voice of the ordinary people, despite what was stated in the
Baird commission report. In this report it was said that
before moving forward in such an important area there had to be
public consultations.
I think this week we have had yet another example of the kind of
government we have.
In its 1993 red book, the Liberal Party had solemnly committed
to appointing an ethics counsellor who would be accountable to
parliament. This week, representatives of that party broke their
promise.
1045
They are not here to protect the environment for the future;
they are here to work on a piecemeal, short-sighted basis.
I am concerned, and I think the MOX issue is a good example. I
can tell the House that we will not give up, that we will
scrutinize what the hon. member for Wascana says and does to
ensure that he does what he said he would do when answering the
questions I asked him during last parliament.
I wonder about the relevance of the government's approach.
Is it really necessary to seek more foreign capital for the
extraction of uranium? I hope the minister will adequately
answer our questions in committee. However, I would be remiss
if I did not mention that the head office of Cameco is located
in the minister's province, Saskatchewan.
Petro-Canada has its head office in Alberta because it used to be
a crown corporation. Now, the federal government owns
approximately one fifth of its shares. In our opinion, this
corporation already belongs to foreign interests. Therefore,
even if the individual share ownership limit is increased from
10% to 20%, this will not impact on the problem of competition
in the gasoline market.
It is amazing to see this bill being presented when the
Conference Board is currently conducting a review of this whole
issue. Would it not have been preferable to wait for the
conclusions of that review before making any changes in the
share ownership of Petro-Canada?
The report from that review, commissioned by the Minister of
Industry during the last parliament, should be tabled soon. It
was to be submitted at the beginning of January 2001, but we
have not seen it yet. The review will cost nearly three
quarters of a million dollars.
In my opinion it would have been better to wait for that report
before making any commitments. Studies are now underway which
might give us another standpoint on whatever is happening in the
gas industry, on the issue of competition in that industry and
on whatever is being said across the country.
Also surprising is the fact that Petro-Canada contributed a
little over $5,000 to the campaign fund of the Liberal Party of
Canada in 1999. I would like to give our viewers some
information regarding other contributions made that same year.
The Alberta Energy Company contributed $17,233 to the Liberal
Party campaign fund; Amoco Canada, $14,433; Canadian Occidental
Petroleum, $52,676; Golf Canada Resources, $7,233; and Imperial
Oil, $25,000.
I suppose that when the CEOs of these companies ask for changes
to the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, close attention is
paid to what they have to say. All roads lead to the campaign
fund of our friends across the way.
As for the review being carried out by the Conference Board, I
want to remind the House that a parliamentary committee examined
Petro-Canada and the fuel industry in 1998.
In one of its recommendations, the committee warned against a
possible merger of Petro-Canada and another oil company. This is
another fine example of the Prime Minister ignoring the work of
his own members. Despite all the work that was done, he is
trying to hide the fuel issue by commissioning the Conference
Board to conduct a review.
The federal government is not only collecting fuel taxes, it is
grabbing part of the huge profits being registered by the oil
companies this year. Petro-Canada's profits increased by $195
million during the second quarter of the year 2000. That is a
304% increase. To increase its tax revenues, the government will
stop at nothing.
During the next campaign, the Liberal Party theme could very
well be “We want nothing but your good, and your goods”.
1050
Increasing the foreign ownership limit to 20% will not allow an
individual to take control of Petro-Canada. However, 20% of the
shares of a company can give someone a lot of power.
We, in the Bloc, think that competition is one of the major
problems in this industry. The federal government identified a
dangerous level of concentration in the industry, but it decided
against doing anything until the problem reached crisis
proportions since the winter of 2000.
The Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for some time that the
federal government make sure there is more competition in the
Canadian oil industry. Three refiner-marketers control 75% of the
wholesale trade in Canada, which is reason enough to wonder if
there is any real competition in this industry.
The Competition Act should be amended to guarantee competitive
prices for consumers. The House committee that has been poring
over this legislation for a year has clearly indicated that the
Competition Bureau had a very hard time enforcing the law.
There are two things that could be done immediately in this
regard: first, there could be changes made to the onus of proof
with respect to anticompetitive behaviour and, second, the
Competition Bureau could be given the authority to initiate
investigations.
Despite what the government says about Canada's refineries,
right now Esso, Shell, Petro-Canada and Ultramar have a monopoly
on distribution. The four oil companies serving the Canadian
market posted a record overall net profit of close to
$2.5 billion in the first nine months of 2000. It is a bonanza
for shareholders.
Petro-Canada alone made record profits of $893 million in the last
year, almost three times more than the preceding high of
$306 million reached in 1997.
There is other problem with the federal government's attitude
with respect to fuel price hikes. Only 17% of federal taxes on
fuel are invested in the transportation infrastructure on a
Canada-wide scale.
The federal government then feels it has to set up
infrastructure programs in order to gain more visibility.
The member from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area who sits
across the way was a Progressive Conservative, then an
Independent and is now the Liberal member for Chicoutimi—Le
Fjord. He says that he is a regionalist.
I have a brief comment for him. The federal government
collected $35 million in fuel excise taxes in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean in 1997-98. Our return on this was 0.8%,
because all the federal government reinvested was $287,000 on
highway 175. What happened to the other $34.3 million?
The member is still staying that Quebec does not look after the
regions.
I am going to give an idea of what is being said. The Quebec
government collected $37 million and reinvested $30 million for
highways in my region alone. That is an 80% return.
The cat is now coming out of the bag. As we say back home, the
truth will come out, and it will, faster and faster. We will discuss
the real issues. Right now, this government is taking money from
the pockets of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers and using it to pay
off its debts. That money is being used to pay for something
other than what it is collected for.
1055
I find it hard to see the relevance of this bill. I am not
opposed to it and nor is the Bloc Quebecois. But I wonder why
the government is introducing this bill now. Is it because some
foreign investor who is anxious to invest in Petro-Canada and
contribute to the Liberal Party's campaign fund needs a higher
ceiling for foreign ownership?
I suppose the Minister of Natural Resources will be able to
explain to us in committee why this bill is being introduced now
and why the government does not deal instead with the issue of
competition in the gasoline market across Canada.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lotbinière—L'Érable can begin
his speech if he wishes to do so, but unfortunately I will have
to interrupt him very shortly, because we are about to proceed
to statements by members. The hon. member has one minute if he
wishes to begin.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to postpone my
speech until after statements by members and oral question
period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL MICROBIOLOGY LABORATORY
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last three weeks the National Microbiology
Laboratory, Health Canada, situated at the Canadian Science
Centre for Animal and Human Health in Winnipeg, has been called
upon to respond to three separate incidents: two involving
testing a potentially lethal material and the third to provide
urgent diagnostics on a Congolese woman suspected of having viral
hemorrhagic fever. In all instances the staff responded in a
competent, timely and highly professional manner.
The Canadian Science Centre for Animal and Human Health is a
maximum containment, state of the art facility which houses what
many believe to be the premier level four containment laboratory
in the world. It was built to enable Canada to respond to
current and emerging infectious disease threats which seem to be
on the rise. It is heartening to see that the staff of the
facility have responded so capably to these major challenges.
Events of the past week have reinforced the wisdom of the
investment in the laboratory and have shown that it can be
considered to be on equal footing with other maximum containment
labs in the world.
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, now that the finance minister has
announced some teeny tiny tax cuts, the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency is trying to fill those little holes. It has
harassed employers who are now ferreting out taxable benefits.
B.C. Ferries has implemented new parking rules as a result. I
will quote from a bulletin to its employees:
The terminal managers will record the period of time you
parked...You will accumulate a taxable benefit for each day
worked based on the daily parking rate of ten cents...based on a
personal tax rate of 40%, the cost to you is eighty cents per
month...Please note: Employee parking lots will be monitored by
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
This reads like a Monty Python skit. Total revenue will be
exceeded by new administration costs. Is it any wonder people
think the bureaucracy has gone mad?
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL FLAG DAY
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was
National Flag of Canada Day. Thirty-six years ago, many of us
were assembled in schoolyards to proudly witness one of the key
events in the history of our country. Even the cold wintry day
could not dampen our enthusiasm in hearing the story of the
creation of a distinctive symbol that was soon to become
recognized and respected throughout the world.
1100
For months, debate and controversy had surrounded the creation
of our flag. Hundreds of design submissions, hundreds of
speeches in parliament, but all focused on one common goal,
finding an emblem for the Canadian people that would represent
justice, peace and equality for all.
We attained that objective. Whether it flies over our efforts
to build a country or our assistance to another country in time
of need, our flag inspires respect and harmony. We can feel
justifiable attachment and pride in the flag of Canada, for it
is the symbol of a united society.
* * *
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
January 26, the Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of
State for Economic Development Agency of Canada announced a
contribution of $10 million for the establishment of
a national downhill ski training and competition centre at Le
Massif de Petite-Rivière-Saint-François.
Completion of this project should in fact lead to the creation
of 75 seasonal jobs with the resort corporation, as well as to
additional economic spinoffs of more than $16 million over four
years.
We feel it is important to point out that this initiative by the
Government of Canada is part of its strategy to provide all
regions of Quebec with the opportunity to fully develop their
economic potential.
The government is proud to associate itself with this project
which will enhance the ski area's international reputation.
* * *
[English]
SHIRLEY HARRISON
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the outstanding volunteer efforts of Ms.
Shirley Harrison.
Ms. Harrison went on assignment to Russia to assist a fashion
house to become more competitive. She provided vital guidance on
marketing strategies, recommending a company logo, fashion shows
and brochures, not to mention her key role in drafting a
marketing plan so the company owner could upgrade his store.
Finally, Ms. Harrison proposed administrative changes to
delegate responsibilities to the employees so as to provide some
relief for the company owner.
Ms. Harrison's work will have a tremendous impact in alleviating
the stresses and challenges associated with running a company in
Russia. Her wealth of experience and generous volunteer spirit
demonstrates the best of Canadian values. Ms. Harrison is an
exemplary grassroots ambassador.
I am sure all of my colleagues, as well as Shirley's many
friends and family, join me in commending her for her impressive
contributions and accomplishments in Russia.
Way to go, Shirley.
* * *
LABOUR
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear pattern in the
way the government handles labour disputes falling under federal
jurisdiction: wait for a problem to occur, wait for some real
damage to be done and then legislate an end to the strike.
In 1994 longshoremen at the Port of Vancouver went on strike.
They lost wages, the port lost business and farmers thousands of
miles away came one step closer to losing their farms.
In 1997 Canada Post went on strike, with the same results for
the employer and employees, and thousands of small businesses
suffered major losses as the Christmas shopping season
approached.
In both of these examples and in many others, the dispute was
ended by legislation after the damage had been done. The losses
suffered by everyone were for nothing. This year we are facing
the possibility of more disruptions at our ports, with both the
national railways, with the air traffic controllers, among
others.
Does the Minister of Labour have any proactive ideas to end this
lose-lose situation or does she simply plan to allow Canadians to
continue to suffer because of her failure to act?
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
you may know, in December 1995 parliament officially designated
February as Black History Month.
[Translation]
Black History Month provides an opportunity to recognize and
celebrate the importance the history of Blacks in North America.
[English]
In Canada, Black History Month gained acceptance in the late
1960s and has become an annual event across the country,
particularly in major urban cities.
The federal government's commitment to the recognition and
education of Black History Month is the Mathieu Da Costa Awards
Program. Mathieu Da Costa was the first of many persons of
African origin who have made important contributions to the
building of Canada. The program encourages Canadian students to
research, discover and celebrate the contributions of Canadians
of ethnic and racial minorities who have contributed to the
building of Canadian society and allows them to develop a more
inclusive notion of Canadian citizenship and identity.
[Translation]
I encourage all of you take part in the events and activities of
Black History Month and to recognize the extraordinary
contribution Black people have made and continue to make in
building Canadian society.
* * *
1105
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
globalization is a very covert phenomenon. The person surfing
the Internet, the pensioner examining the state of his pension
fund, the farmer milking his cows and selling the milk are all
affected by various aspects of globalization.
The issues are determined around international tables. Only
sovereign states sit at these tables. Quebec, a mere province
of Canada, does not exist for the world. The country of Quebec
would.
The Summit of the Americas to establish a free trade area for
the entire hemisphere will be held in Quebec's capital city.
The Premier of Quebec, the Premier of all Quebecers, has not
received any sort of an invitation to this summit, which
nevertheless will be held in Quebec's capital city.
The federal government is trying to minimize the Quebec nation.
While Quebec's economic future will in part be decided at this
summit, Quebec itself will be absent.
One day, Quebecers will truly host the whole world in the
country of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, oil
development in the Sudan may not be a cause of one of the most
deadly killing fields in the world, where two million have died
and four million have been internally displaced, but it is
certainly a catalyst, if not a condition, for its continuance and
the obstacle to any peace.
Indeed, Sudan has not only used its oil revenue to double its
military expenditures in the last two years while using scorched
earth warfare to secure the oil fields, but it has breached its
promise to Canada and the international community to increase
vital investments in agriculture and food security. Rather, the
warfare exposes its people to more depopulation, more human
misery and more killing, including the warnings from the United
Nations of a war induced famine and a genocide warning from the
Committee on Conscience of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
Canada must use its good offices to press the Sudanese
government to cease and desist from its scorched earth policy, to
negotiate peace in good faith, and to provide its people with
food rather than target them with oil generated weapons.
We in this place must explore the legislative means—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today in Washington state hundreds and perhaps even
thousands of Canadians will be gathering at a public hearing
where the decision on granting a permit for the Sumas 2 power
plant will be announced.
This power plant will be built within a stone's throw of the
Canadian border, spewing its pollution into the air and drifting
north into the Fraser Valley of B.C.
Because of the geography of the area, which is surrounded by
mountains, and the prevailing wind patterns, the poisonous
particulate will hang over the residents of our communities.
My constituents oppose the project because of emissions into the
air shed, electrical transmission lines and polluted waste water.
This power plant would also violate the spirit of the 1991
air shed agreement signed between our two countries.
The environment minister has dropped the ball on this file and
has even said “How can Canada ask America not to build Sumas2?”
It is obvious that our environment minister does not care about
clean air in my community. However, I will stand up for my
constituents against Sumas 2 at hearings next week, along with my
Alliance colleagues, to counteract the minister's muted silence.
* * *
MONTGOMERY LEGION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Montgomery Legion in my riding will be hosting a charity auction
this Thursday, February 22, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in support of
the branch.
For many years Montgomery Legion has been at the heart of my
community and an active supporter of local charities. Now the
Montgomery Legion needs the assistance of the local community to
carry on. I am extending an open invitation to join me and my
highly talented staff for this very special event.
All those in attendance will have the additional pleasure of
having dinner cooked by me, proof that elected representatives
can serve their constituents in more than one way.
I ask everyone to please show their support for the Montgomery
Legion on February 22. They can buy tickets by calling 233-7292.
For $10 they can have a wonderful chicken served à la Mac.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Innu of Labrador are not registered as Indians under the Indian
Act and consequently are not allowed access to the range of
programs and other services generally afforded first nations.
In September 2000 the minister agreed to seek cabinet approval
for the registration of the Innu under the Indian Act.
The minister's colleague, the former premier of Newfoundland,
now the minister of everything, actually called upon the federal
government to grant the Innu status. He said:
The Innu communities of Labrador need the tools that can only be
made available to them if they have First Nations status.
The failure of the Government of Canada to recognize the
constitutional status of the Innu constitutes a breach of its
fiduciary obligation to the Innu as an aboriginal people.
The Innu have been waiting for equal treatment since 1949. How
much longer must they wait?
1110
I take this opportunity to call upon the government to move
quickly to grant the Innu of Labrador first nation status as an
integral important first step in healing these troubled
communities.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Auditor General of Canada is very critical of the federal
government's misappropriation of the surplus in the EI fund, and
I quote:
The Canada Employment Insurance Commission has not explained how
it sets premium rates under the Employment Insurance Act. These
rates have resulted in the rise of the Employment Insurance
Account's accumulated surplus.
Although it is notional in nature, the accumulated surplus
balance has increased by $7.2 billion for the year to
$28.2 billion at 31 March 2000. This is almost twice the maximum
amount considered sufficient by the Chief Actuary.
Clearly, this shows that the federal government has used
employment insurance premiums to pay down its deficit on the
backs of the unemployed, workers and employers. Now it
wants to use Bill C-2 to legalize this misappropriation of
funds.
Seasonal workers in Quebec and in Canada are entitled to ask the
federal government for what is owed them and in fact is theirs.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week in
the House, the Minister of Justice reintroduced her youth
criminal justice bill.
Bill C-7 provides for a fairer and more effective system by
setting out to prevent youth crime, ensure the reintegration of
youth into society and provide for consequences that offer
positive outlooks for young people who commit offences.
Above all, this bill offers the required flexibility so that
Quebec and the other provinces can continue to pursue the
approach they feel is effective for them.
I therefore urge all members of the House to support Bill C-7
and to help develop and maintain the best possible youth
criminal justice system.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
concern has been expressed about the state of the snow crab
stocks in Newfoundland. Last year when such concern was
expressed the minister made an across the board cut. This year
he has committed to zone by zone management.
Zones 8A and 6C have managed their stocks extremely well. In
fact, experimental fisheries have shown that returns are four to
five times the acceptable rate.
We are asking the minister to make sure this year that instead
of being cut these areas are rewarded. It is also about time
that fisher persons in that area are given licences to fish crab
rather than having the permit system under which they presently
operate.
* * *
JEFF SPENCER
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 6, 2001, acting Captain Jeff “Spinner” Spencer, of the
Toronto Fire Services, lost his long and courageous battle with
brain cancer, a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board recognized
occupational induced illness.
Mr. Spencer, a resident of Whitby, was 45 years old and had over
20 years of service on the job at the time of his death. He
leaves behind his wife and three children, as well as many other
family members, co-workers and friends.
Mr. Spencer was diagnosed with primary malignant brain cancer
just after completing his 20th year as a firefighter in the
Toronto Fire Services. Since 1999 there have been over 10 cases
of firefighters with brain cancer reported and the number
continues to grow.
Firefighters are exposed to a number of substances dangerous to
their health in carrying out their duties. The mixture of these
substances in unknown quantities presents a serious health hazard
to firefighters.
I take this opportunity to extend my sincerest sympathies to the
Spencer family for their loss. I hope this loss brings attention
to the numerous hazards faced by firefighters every day and
inspires people to do their part for the Fire Fighters Cancer
Research Fund.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to the
continuing tragedies that are occurring on that portion of the
Trans-Canada Highway No. 17 that runs through my riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Since the House has been in session no fewer than three needless
deaths have occurred. Highway 17's reputation as a killer
highway has been established over the years.
How many deaths need to occur before some action is taken to fix
the problem?
1115
The people of Renfrew county have been waiting for over 30 years
for highway 17 to be upgraded from two to four lanes. The recent
decision of the federal government to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars during the last election on highways east of the
Ottawa River has those of us living west of the Ottawa River
wondering how many deaths must occur before the government takes
notice.
It is time to end the reputation of highway 17 as a killer
highway. I appeal to the government to show fairness when it
comes to the safety of Canadians.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there are growing concerns that Canada might be headed
into some kind of economic downturn. Just a month after a
predicted strong growth, Nortel has just announced 6,000 more
layoffs. Meanwhile, the markets are adjusting to an economic
slowdown, as is the U.S. government.
This government on the other hand refuses to re-examine its
course. Why will the finance minister not table an updated
budget?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly experts say that the Canadian and U.S.
economies are headed for a slowdown. However, there are no
indications that there will be a recession. The experts all say
that we are well positioned to offset the slowdown.
The budget update of the Minister of Finance last fall
confirming $100 billion in tax cuts I think will be very useful
in helping us offset any possible slowdown.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the chairman of the U.S. federal reserve is not famous
for being reactionary but he is arguing that government action is
needed to stave off a downturn. He is arguing for deeper tax
cuts.
This government's mini budget was based on a booming outlook but
things are much different now than they were four and a half
months ago.
Why will the finance minister not send a positive message to the
markets, table a new budget and deliver deeper tax cuts to
Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure
you and Canadians that we remain on track for our budget
projections. Yes, there is turbulence out there and Canadians
know very well that we face many international challenges right
now.
We are being very vigilant. We are watching this very closely.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that should it be necessary we
will come before the House and take whatever actions may be
necessary.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is like closing the barn door after the horse is
already out.
Canadians are very concerned when the minister announces to the
House, like he just has, that the government is concerned about
the future but will not act until we are actually in the trough
of some kind of economic downturn. At that point it is too late.
My question again to the minister is, why is the government so
stubborn on this issue? We are talking about the prospect of
jobs and prosperity for Canadians. In the face of that, why will
the government not be responsible and bring down a budget
immediately?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, we are monitoring this issue very closely and we remain
on target to meet our budget projections of last October.
I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at this very
closely and we are being very vigilant. Should the necessity for
changes occur we will certainly come before the House.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government cannot afford to pretend that our economy
chugs along in isolation. When the giant next door moves, we
will feel it.
The Americans are about to deliver a massive tax cut that will
increase the gap between us and them. Canadians will become even
more uncompetitive compared with our American counterparts.
Why will the Minister of Finance not bring in a new budget which
reflects the changing economic conditions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from what I have read and seen in the news reports about
the U.S. economy, the tax cut that it is talking about will not
be legislated or come into effect for months or years from the
time it will be first proposed.
1120
On the other hand, the tax cuts announced by the Minister of
Finance in his budget update are in play now and are already
having a positive effect in offsetting a possible slowdown, in my
view. This will continue to be the case. The Americans in my
view are just catching up with what we are already doing.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that does not explain why Canada's productivity is 20
points behind the United States and still losing ground.
The minister's pride should not get in the way of updating the
budget just because we are suggesting it on this side of the
House. That will happen sooner or later. Maybe it should be
sooner.
The 10,000 jobs at Nortel are not theoretical, those jobs were
lost. That is continuing to happen. It is very real to the
families affected.
The Minister of Finance is not exercising his responsibility by
pretending that everything is fine. It is not fine. Why is the
Minister of Finance opposed to updating his plans in the face of
the new economic circumstances?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
simple. We are monitoring this very closely.
Let me just say what the Deputy Prime Minister just said. We
got the jump on the Americans with the tax cuts in our October
budget. We brought in $100 billion of tax cuts over five years,
a stimulus from the federal sector alone this year of $17.3
billion. When we combine that with provincial tax cuts, it
amounts to about 2.3% of gross domestic product.
That is the stimulus we have put in—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs affirmed that few
countries in the world redistributed so much wealth regionally.
As he was saying that, a poll appearing today in L'Actualité
revealed that 76% of Quebecers feel Ottawa does not assume its
fair share of health spending in Quebec.
Since the surpluses predicted for this year are nearly double
the amounts estimated by the Minister of Finance, is it not time
the federal government carried out its responsibilities and
increased transfers for health care and for education, where the
need is vital?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
The Prime Minister has a habit of saying that Canadians share
two convictions: the first is that theirs is the best country in
the world and the second is that their province does not receive
its fair share.
The fact of the matter is that, year after year, Statistics
Canada reveals that Quebecers contribute about 21% of federal
revenues and receive some 24% or 25% of federal spending, which
corresponds to the fact that Quebec is somewhat below the
Canadian average in terms of its wealth. This is the
redistribution I was referring to.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every time
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs responds, it is clear
he is out of synch and out of touch with what is actually going
on.
Does the minister realize that, while the federal government
contributed 50% of the funding of shared cost social programs
when they were established, its contribution now represents only
15%, although people's needs have grown spectacularly? Does he
realize this?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it must be remembered that tax points were transferred
to the provinces in 1977, so they are used by the provinces for
basic programs such as health care.
Therefore, it would be an error to not take into account the
increased value of these tax points in an attempt to evaluate
the federal government's cost in helping the provinces with
health care, for example.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, four
years from now, in 2005, federal transfers for health, education
and income security will be $500 million lower than what they
were in 1993, before the drastic cuts made by the Liberal
government.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that,
since federal surpluses are accumulating at an alarming rate
while health care and education needs are rapidly growing, it is
time the federal government transfer new tax points to the
Quebec government, as unanimously requested by all the parties
in the National Assembly?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that
Quebec has the same kind of fiscal resources as the federal
government. As the minister just said, with the transfers, the
provinces' revenues are now greater than those of the federal
government.
1125
What we did on September 11 was to increase health transfers. I
must say that equalization payments received by Quebec remain
the highest in Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
secretary of state is like his Prime Minister: he is always
patronizing, he refuses to answer questions properly and he does
not care about the public interest.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a
great academic. Instead of lecturing Albertans, will the
minister recognize that, by trying to impose its views, its laws
and its standards to provinces in their jurisdictions, it is the
federal government that resorts to blackmail, not separatists?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is important to note that the Bloc Quebecois member is
confirming the value of living in a federal system, and
receiving, in Quebec as in all of Canada, cash transfers and tax
points.
I thank the hon. member for praising our federal system.
* * *
[English]
HEATING FUEL REBATE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
overnight temperature in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut was minus 38,
minus 68 with the wind chill. Yet the price of home heating oil
is so high people are having their fuel delivery cut off because
they cannot pay their bills. People are having to pay cash up
front to get oil to heat their homes.
Short of throwing money away in a home heating rebate program
that does not work, what is the government's plan to give some
relief to all those Canadians going broke trying to heat their
homes?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem that
the gentleman speaks of is one that we anticipated when we saw
fuel prices going up last year. We knew we had to act but
according to two principles. First, it had to be delivered
quickly for the relief to come. Next summer would just not do.
Second, the relief should not go to all Canadians, just to those
who needed it most. That is why we used the only mechanism
available to us, the GST tax credit rebate. That is why the
cheques went out on January 29 to 11 million Canadians.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there is a growing outrage out there that people who do not even
pay heating bills are getting the rebate, and people who need
help desperately are not getting anything at all.
The government has thrown $1.3 billion away in a rebate program
that does not work, and winter is not over yet. What if anything
can the government say now to all those people who did not
qualify for any rebate. What is the national energy strategy of
this government, wait for spring?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment
remains the same: to help those who need it most. This is why
cheques have gone out to 11 million Canadians, those of low and
middle income. They were the ones who needed the help the most,
and this is the way we have delivered it.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture.
Health Canada officials have publicly stated that there is no
scientific justification for the ban of Brazilian beef and, guess
what, Canadian scientists are not alone. The minister's U.S.
counterpart, the U.S. agriculture secretary, Ann Veneman,
announced to CNN on February 8 that there is no need to pull
Brazilian beef products.
The minister is not only jeopardizing $210 million of product
exports from Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, he is also hanging
the political minister for Saskatchewan, the minister of natural
resources.
Will the minister stand before Canadians and say that he knows
this ban is not about health but about trade and apologize to
Brazil for damaging our relationship?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I will stand before
Canadians and say that this is about health.
We have come to the knowledge that over 5,000 head of cattle
were imported into Brazil in the 1990s from countries in the
European Union where there is known BSE. Until we are
comfortable with the tracing of that and that the end product
from those animals has not, will not and is not in the food
chain, the ban will remain. It is about food safety.
I am really disappointed that the hon. member is not concerned
about the food and the safety of Canadians.
1130
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is worried about
importations to Brazil from Europe, yet the Minister of Industry
continues to ban Brazilian beef.
Could the minister of agriculture tell Canadians how many
products are coming into Canada that utilize European beef, beef
extract or beef byproducts from Europe? How many of those
products are coming into Canada today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts
straight. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that banned
the imports. It is the Department of Health that had the recall
on products. Canada does not import meat or meat products from
any country that is known to have BE.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER CONTAMINATION
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
for some time now, families in Shannon, near Quebec City, have
been having serious water contamination problems.
This morning, on the front page of the daily Le Soleil, these
families could read that the Department of National Defence has
had a report since 1998 detailing water problems in this area.
And since 1998, nothing was done by the department.
Why has the department kept this report secret?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when we received the report in 1998 we immediately
passed it on to the minister of the environment of the province
of Quebec. We knew there could be some problems on the base at
that time. We have since taken action to study that further and
are now taking corrective action.
We appropriately advised the minister of the environment whose
ministry was responsible for this matter and for the
municipalities that might have be involved, or might be involved,
in April 1998.
[Translation]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this answer will bring little comfort to families in
Shannon.
The Liberal government is quick to criticize others, but slow to
recognize its own mistakes.
[English]
Could the minister at least tell us what are the possible
dangers for the population of Shannon and what measures the
minister intends to put in place proactively in order to ensure
the health and security of the people of that town?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not yet known what is the source of the
problem in the town. There is also an adjacent property that
could be the source of that contamination. We certainly brought
that to the attention of the ministry of the environment of
Quebec.
We will be doing everything we can to alleviate this problem. We
have spent substantial sums of money to deal with this matter in
terms of study and in terms of clean up. We will continue to
take our responsibilities quite seriously. The ministry of the
environment for the province of Quebec also has to do so in
relation to the municipality.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
government is busy implementing its tax strangulation policy
toward Quebec, it is at the same time continuing its costly and
pointless duplication.
Since 1997, the Liberal government has spent $15 billion in
areas that fall under Quebec jurisdiction.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to
Quebecers why he would rather spend $15 billion on duplication
than merely transfer that money to Quebec, particularly in the
areas of health and education?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no pointless duplication. What there is,
is a collaborative effort with the governments of the provinces.
We have greatly enhanced our capacity to work with them, while
respecting the respective areas of jurisdiction of each level of
government.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government is so obsessed by visibility that it has spent $500
million—half a billion dollars—in Quebec alone on propaganda since 1995.
Three-quarters of Quebecers would prefer it to do its part in
funding health services.
Can the minister explain to Quebecers why his government has
placed priority on propagandizing instead of transferring this
money which could meet Quebecers' true priorities: health and
education?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we worked very hard with the provinces to reach an
agreement last September 11. That agreement was signed by all
provincial premiers, and representatives of the three
territories, as well as the Prime Minister of Canada.
In this agreement, the provinces said “No money, no plan”. We
said “No plan, no money”. Now we have money and a plan, and we
are going to work together.
* * *
1135
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians from different regions across the
country feel disconnected from their federal government. There
are two ways to deal with this regional discontent. One way is
to address their genuine grievances and build bridges across the
country. A second way is to ignore their legitimate concerns and
attack them personally.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs please explain
how ignoring the legitimate concerns of Canadians from various
regions and attacking people personally will help resolve our
regional problems and build a better nation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would be much more helpful if the hon. member
were able to quote from my speech or tell me what he likes or
dislikes about it, instead of invent things that I never said. It
is not helpful in the House.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister exactly what
I do not like in his speech. The minister used his speech at the
University of Toronto to attack two prominent western Canadians.
This is a simply a continuation of the Liberal Party's practice
of demonizing those who disagree with its uncooperative,
unimaginative, centralist approach to governing Canada.
Will the minister please explain how attacking a former prime
minister and the present leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
helps the cause of Canadian unity?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is speaking
about, but if he is referring to what I asked his leader, I have
an obligation to quote what I said:
Canadians are entitled to hear Mr. Day (the Leader of the
Opposition) make his simple statement: “Nothing in Canada today
justifies secession: not in Quebec, not in the West, not anywhere
else in Canada.
I also said:
He needs always to make a crystal clear distinction between his
ideas for improving the country, including the West's place in
Canada, and separatist blackmail.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER CONTAMINATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after the water problem in the Sept-Îles beaches area, a second
case of contaminated drinking water has come to light. In the
first case raised by the member for Manicouagan, the federal
Department of Transport was involved. This time, responsibility
lies with the Department of National Defence, in Shannon, a
community in the Quebec City area.
We now know that authorities on the Valcartier military base
kept news of the water's contamination from the residents of
Shannon.
How can the Minister of National Defence justify his refusal to
share the information he had with the municipalities concerned,
as recommended by a report submitted to his own department? The
blame should not be shifted to others.
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to the earlier question,
we did take the responsible position, finding contamination on
our property. We found it in the well. We do not know that the
source is on our property. It could be on another property. We
have in fact been spending a fair bit of money to try to
determine the source.
Meanwhile, we provided information to the ministry of the
environment of Quebec. It is its responsibility to then deal
with the municipalities as indeed the minister has most recent
announcement in which he offered filtration systems to the people
who live in the community of Shannon. We will continue to
co-operate with all parties involved in this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this new cover-up puts us in mind of certain military
investigations in the past, where the truth was buried. In this
case the residents of Shannon could see their health endangered,
to the complete lack of concern of the Liberal member for
Portneuf.
What about the fine promises of the election campaign, the idea
that the mere election of a Liberal member was supposed to be
the solution to all the ills of the planet?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should well ask his question
of the government of Quebec.
They seem to have an embarrassment about asking their own
provincial government about these matters. They were advised in
April 1998. Why did they not engage the municipalities more in
that period of time to get this problem cleaned up?
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will
spend 62 hours in Hong Kong, the only part of the People's
Republic of China with any real experience in democracy. The
Prime Minister will not be meeting with Martin Lee, the leader of
Hong Kong's largest party and one of Asia's leading Democrats.
The Prime Minister said that he could not find a way to fit him
into his schedule.
If the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that he is
promoting democracy and justice in China, how could he explain
snubbing Martin Lee?
1140
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member shares with all members of the
House the pride that we feel in the Prime Minister's clear
statements on human rights in China. As one example I give this
quotation from his speech in Shanghai where he said:
True friends are never shy about exchanging views on important
issues. And so, as a friend, I must tell you that Canadians are
concerned when they hear reports from China of interference in
the right of free expression.
That is the kind of message that Canadians expected the Prime
Minister to deliver in China, and he has done so.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, economics is one thing and
human rights is another.
Mr. Lee is the leader of the democratic party, one of the most
important in Hong Kong. He is internationally known as a staunch
defender and advocate of democratic rights and is a past winner
of the democracy award of the U.S. national endowment for
democracy.
How could the Prime Minister overlook such an important
democratic ally? What message does this snub send to friends of
democracy and human rights in China?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised that in the preamble to the member's
question he does not recognize that human rights and economic
rights are very closely linked.
It is the mentality that is necessary to overcome in order to
encourage investment, the mentality that expropriates without
compensation, the mentality that does not respect the rule of law
and the transparent regulatory system, which is the same
mentality that leads to abuses of human rights.
That is why economic interests and human rights interests are so
closely aligned. That is why the human security agenda is so
closely linked to the economic interests of Canada.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
this question on behalf of the member for Ottawa—Vanier and
my colleagues in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
On January 27 Madam Catherine MacLean was killed and another
woman, Madame Catherine Doré, was severely injured in a tragic
car accident involving a Russian diplomat. At the time the
Minister of Foreign Affairs assured the House that the Russian
government indicated that it would take appropriate measures
against the individual.
Could the minister give us an update today in terms of what has
taken place with this issue so far?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received notice today that the general procurator of
the Russian Federation has examined the materials that were
delivered to him concerning the accident on January 27 and,
having done so, has taken the decision to open a criminal case
under article 264, part II of the criminal code of the Russian
Federation.
We welcome this decision. It is an important step which
demonstrates the commitment that was given to us previously by
the foreign affairs minister and by the Russian ambassador to
Canada to proceed with this matter. However, we will not be
satisfied until we see justice finally done in this case.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was
clearly and correctly demonstrated yesterday that Canada has a
very different view of the death penalty than the United States.
Nevertheless, the states of New York and Connecticut assert that
Ontario coal fired power plants are guilty of exporting death
through deadly contaminants to residents of those two states.
Last month the environment minister indicated that he would ask
the Canadian environmental review agency to review this issue.
Will the minister update the House today on the status of this
review?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, in late December I
signed an agreement with my counterpart in the United States
government with respect to air quality in the eastern half of
North America.
We will be reducing smog causing chemicals going into the air in
the province of Ontario by some 70% during the smog season of
April through September. The United States will be reducing its
emissions some 50% year round.
I can assure him that the letters of the attorneys general of
both Connecticut and New York are under advisement. The question
is indeed whether the requests they have made for an inquiry will
illicit new material or whether it will simply point out what we
already know, which is the basis of the decision taken.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
attorney general in the United States suggests that even with
scrubbers and other anti-pollution devices that are to be
installed in some of the power plants in Ontario by 2004, this
will not in and of itself be sufficient to reduce the nitrogen
oxide emissions and the acidic rain, et cetera, that are spewing
into the Adirondacks and that area.
Could the minister comment on that, given what he has said in
his previous answer?
1145
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, certainly I could comment on that. The American
authorities are putting forward information which was made
available to them, I understand, in part from Environment Canada.
We agree that the proposal of Ontario will be inadequate to meet
our goals. We are now discussing with the province of Ontario
ways to upgrade its proposals to make sure we do in fact meet the
targets I outlined in my answer to the previous question.
We are very pleased that we have American states working with
us. I remind hon. members that 50% of the air quality damage
done in Ontario comes from the United States in the first place.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week came the revelation that the
Minister of Justice was flirting with the notion of setting up
and privatizing the ill-conceived and problem plagued gun
registry.
Now facing non-compliance and non-enforcement from frontline
police officers, could the minister confirm that she has recently
created a stand alone police force called the national weapons
enforcement support team, NWEST, to be headed by Bob Frolic,
which has been mandated with the sole purpose of enforcement of
the new gun registry?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have not set up a new police force. The enforcement of the
gun regulations will be done by the regular RCMP and provincial
police authorities.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday I raised concerns about the fact that under the summer
student placement program this year municipalities are being
treated like the private sector and must contribute 50% of the
wages.
Many municipalities cannot do that. Could the minister review
the regulations to make it possible for municipalities to hire
students this year in worthwhile employment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the best way of
helping our young people is to encourage them to stay in
school—and that is one of our goals—and to acquire the training
they need to build a career.
That is why we have invested over $1.2 billion annually in
assistance to young people as part of the youth employment
strategy, including Youth Service Canada.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that
the government paid the AMA native health agency in Manitoba
twice for medicines and dental services it had not even delivered
once. This means that children have gone without dental care and
families have gone without the prescriptions they need.
The auditor general has been reporting about these problems for
the past four years. When will the minister be part of the
solution instead of being part of the problem?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Health is carrying on a special audit
into this matter. I understand that the AMA agency is
co-operating.
We look forward to the results of the audit, and in the light of
those results the department and government will take any and all
necessary action.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the Eskasoni
Band of Nova Scotia was $13 million in debt. Today that band is
more than $35 million in debt, thanks to the federal government's
third party management.
I think it is a perversion of logic to call that successful.
Third party managers do not get to the root of the problem;
forensic audits do. When will the minister institute forensic
audits whenever financial problems are so obvious?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the
opposition, because it has asked this question a couple of times,
that this minister and this department do not have the authority
to implement forensic audits. That is done by the RCMP or the
proper policing authority.
If there are allegations or misrepresentation of funds in any
way, those allegations should be brought forward to the police
authorities and they will take the action as it relates to
forensic audits.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Canadian Human Rights Commission tabled a special report on pay
equity, criticizing the current formula, which is based on the
lodging of complaints.
This formula subjects the process to judicial control, as we
have seen from the behaviour of the federal government, which,
for 13 years, used the courts to avoid its statutory
obligations.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. When will there be
proactive legislation on pay equity favourable to women based on
the law in Quebec, among others?
1150
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1999,
the Government of Canada announced a review of section 11 of the
Human Rights Act.
The review responds to numerous concerns about the current pay
equity regime and how it is administered. The minister remains
very committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal
value. I look forward to contributing to the review and the
support of the Minister of Justice.
In addition, the government is currently examining options for
implementing a gender neutral job classification system.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 200,000 public
servants waited over 13 years to see justice done and through,
for more than 20 years, the application of a vague and ill
defined law.
And yet the Liberal government voted in favour of a Bloc
Quebecois motion on economic equality for women.
When will this government finally introduce proactive
legislation to correct the inequity women still face?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last October, the Minister of Justice and I appointed
R. E. Bilson, the dean of the faculty of law at the University
of Saskatchewan, to chair a task force to review federal
legislation on pay equity and present a report in the fall of
2002.
* * *
[English]
COAST GUARD
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the west coast has one of the most heavily travelled
marine corridors in Canada, making the waters near Vancouver one
of our busiest rescue centres. Now the government is planning to
abandon coast guard search and rescue diving activity even though
the team has saved lives and has a spotless safety record.
The coast guard has primary responsibility for marine rescue.
Why exactly is the minister cutting important search and rescue
capabilities on the west coast?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important question and I
thank him for it. I will take the question as notice and will
get back to him with a full response as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this story has been on the west coast
news for the last five nights running. The government should be
embarrassed that it has to take the question under advisement.
The value of these divers is recognized by the RCMP and by other
police forces in the lower mainland that call on them for
underwater rescue. Their diving capabilities have saved lives
and are essential for any aircraft mishap in the waters off
Vancouver airport.
Will the minister stop this wrongheaded, bureaucratic initiative
now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member again has asked an important question.
When these types of specific questions are of interest to
members, if they would give us notice ahead of time we would have
the answer in the House. Under our system we have questions
without notice. I just point that out as a matter of fact.
I again thank my hon. friend for the question. We will get back
to him in writing before the end of the day, or we can respond to
the question again on Monday. We do treat the matter seriously.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in Montreal four individuals were convicted under Canada's
anti-gang law. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Justice inform the House of the government's commitment to the
fight against organized crime?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is very pleased that section 467.1 of the criminal
code is being used by prosecutors with success. The section of
the code established the offence of participation in a criminal
organization and was introduced by the government.
The Minister of Justice is continuing to work to break the back
of organized crime. We have undertaken talks with our provincial
partners and with law enforcement agencies, and we anticipate
introducing new legislation which will fight organized crime.
* * *
1155
CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
several years ago the government approved the building of a coin
plating facility at the Canadian Mint in Winnipeg. This was in
direct competition with a business in my riding. I warned that
the world demand was inadequate to support this facility, but the
government bullied forward anyway.
The demand is not there. Forty-five mint employees have now
been laid off. Today is the last day for 26 of them. Another 30
jobs are at risk.
How could the government and the mint so badly misread world
markets and make the mistake of getting into the coin plating
business?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we supported the
mint project. We believed that the mint project was appropriate
and we continue to work with the mint.
Actually the situation is only temporary, but the demand is
there not only in Canada but around the world. I am sure that in
the near future the situation will be the way it was before.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in a February 8 press release the director of the mint
said the facility could not sustain the rapid growth of the last
two years and that there was a fall off in demand in the foreign
market. We told them this two years ago, but they would not
listen.
Here now is a very important question. Will the government get
out and stay out of competing with private businesses in the
country?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important
not only for the Government of Canada but for Canadians that we
have a minting capacity. This is what we did at the plant in
Winnipeg. We brought it up to speed with high technology so that
we could save natural resource products.
In terms of receiving orders from other countries, we continue
to work with other countries. As I said, this situation is only
temporary.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec courts
just sentenced several bikers for being members of a gang. The
crown attorneys involved in that case said that the act is very
complex and requires superhuman efforts to achieve its purpose.
Will the Minister of Justice agree with the Quebec Minister of
Public Security that a new act on organized crime to make it a
criminal offence to belong to a gang is justified?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I already mentioned to the member for Yukon, in recent months
we have consulted with our counterparts in the various provinces
and with law enforcement agencies to discuss measures to combat
organized crime.
We anticipate that measures will be introduced shortly to give
our police and our prosecutors the necessary tools to fight this
phenomenon.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been seven months since the federal government opened
Canada's long awaited DNA databank.
Could the solicitor general tell the House when Canadians can
expect to see results from its operations and how the DNA
databank will help improve public safety?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that in the
interests of public safety and ensuring our communities are safe
and secure, and with great vision and foresight I might add on
the part of our government, we have had tremendous success with
the national DNA bank.
For example, last week the solicitor general announced that
there were 11 matches. We have had a number of links between
crime scenes and convicted offenders. The bottom line is that
this has been a tremendous asset for safety and security in our
communities and for all Canadians.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister
said that human rights is intrinsically linked with trade. While
that is true, since 1994 and the first team Canada trade mission
to China, our trade deficit with China has increased over 300%
and human rights abuses in China have become worse, with
persecution against the Falun Gong.
He is bragging about this team Canada trade mission to China,
but what he is failing to tell the House is that corporate
welfare agreements to build the Three Gorges dam is not an avenue
to better human rights treatment of the people of China.
Could the foreign affairs minister explain how he will improve
human rights abuses in China and ensure that the people there
have a better future?
1200
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have built with China a very active dialogue relating
to human rights that is the privilege of very few countries in
the world.
I am not sure if the question suggests that the Alliance policy
would be to withdraw from engagement with China. That would cost
us not only the Canada-China human rights dialogue process that
goes on several times a year, but also the work we have done in
sharing our knowledge with the Chinese judiciary on how to
conduct trials and maintain an independent judicial process.
That is the value of engagement. Is it enough? No, it is not
enough. That is why the Prime Minister delivered some very clear
messages when he had the opportunity to do so this week in China.
* * *
[Translation]
TRADE
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada
recently sent a team from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to
assess the system of food traceability and detection used by the
Brazilian food inspection agency.
As the auditor general explained in his most recent report,
there is no system to detect the pathogen PRION at Canada's
borders for pork and beef.
Will the minister agree that, before going to check the quality
of Brazil's food inspection system, the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency should ensure that it has an adequate detection system
and the necessary resources to improve controls at the
U.S.-Canada border?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do have a proper system. We have one
of the best food safety inspection systems in the world. That is
demonstrated again by our actions to ensure that the food Canada
produces for its domestic and export markets is safe. We are
also working with the technical team in Brazil to ensure that the
beef we import from Brazil does not endanger Canadians as far as
BSE is concerned.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
EXPORTS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table,
in both official languages, the annual report on exports of
military equipment from Canada for 1999.
Similar reports have now been produced for ten years in a row.
This initiative is aimed at fostering better international
openness with regard to sales of military equipment.
Many other countries have since followed our example by
producing their own report. However, I believe that as far as
information is concerned, very few of these documents, if any,
meet the standard established in our report.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the second report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items. In accordance with Standing Order 92, the
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding Standing Order 87(6). If the House gives its consent,
I intend to move concurrence in the third report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-269, an act to amend the Criminal Code and
the Firearms Act (exemption of long guns from registration).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today
to reintroduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, exempting long guns from the
registration system.
The purpose of the bill is to remove the need to register long
guns commonly used by deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers from
the Firearms Act.
I believe the registration scheme is nothing more than a tax on
innocent and law-abiding Canadians. The bill will put an end to
their needless harassment.
1205
Moreover, the bill would give the Canadian government the
capacity not to waste $800 million on an ill-advised long gun
registry. It could use the money on Canadian priorities such as
health care, post-secondary education, fighting organized crime
or putting more money into the RCMP. Those are the priorities of
Canadians, not the silly long gun registry.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the third report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
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.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the
question of privilege raised last Friday by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve regarding comments exchanged during oral
question period between him and the government House leader.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve contends that the
comments made by the government House leader were abusive and
threatening.
[English]
Before addressing the question of privilege I would like to
thank the hon. member for having drawn the matter to the
attention of the House. I would also like to thank the
government House leader, the whip of the Bloc Quebecois and the
hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for their contributions to
the discussion.
[Translation]
I take this opportunity to remind all hon. members that anything
said outside this House that is not directly related to the
proceedings of the House or one of its committees is not
protected by parliamentary privilege. In such circumstances,
members run the same risks and have the same rights and
responsibilities as any other citizen. Consequently, I do not
wish to comment further on a matter over which the Speaker does
not have authority.
[English]
Here in the House, however, members enjoy absolute privilege. I
would refer the hon. members to page 74 of Marleau and
Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which
states the following:
Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber
during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying
complete immunity from prosecution for any comment they might
make.
[Translation]
This freedom is essential to the work done within the
parliamentary precinct. At the same time, such freedom implies
great responsibilities. We must all bear in mind the potential
impact of our comments not just on the reputations of our
colleagues in the House but also on those of individuals outside
the House.
The use of provocative or threatening words, regardless of their
meaning in absolute or abstract terms, can also hinder the
effective conduct of House business. For this reason, the Chair
must pay careful attention to what is said here, especially
during Oral Question Period.
Comments which are not intended to create disorder, but which
have that effect, should be strictly avoided.
Previous Speakers of the House have often recalled that every
member shares part of the responsibility for maintaining order
in the House. The efficient conduct of business, especially
during Oral Question Period, requires the co-operation of all
members from both sides of the House.
1210
In this matter, I have carefully reviewed the comments of both
members. In my view, there is simply a disagreement on the
facts or the interpretation of the facts. Differences of
opinion on facts are not rare in the House and do not constitute
a violation of parliamentary privilege.
I again thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for
having raised this matter. Determining the sort of behaviour
that will enable us to conduct our business in an atmosphere of
decorum and respect should be of the utmost concern to all of
us.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for
clarification.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I do hope, indeed. I
wish, in the spirit of co-operation that is always necessary in
the House, that this ruling will not be appealed. I am sure that
there will be opportunities to bring some informal
clarifications. However, with all due respect, decisions made
during the proceedings of the House are final.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an
act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and
Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, be
read a second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-3, which was originally
introduced before parliament was dissolved.
First, I would like to make a comment. The Bloc Quebecois is not
against this bill. However, the fact that we have to debate an
issue that could already have been discussed, if an unnecessary
election had not been called, leads us increasingly to
realize with all these bills that this government has no
legislative agenda.
The only items we have been called on to debate are bills which
had been introduced before the House was dissolved. Those bills
are brought back with minor technical changes and are presented
to us as an important legislative agenda.
This shows once again that this government has no vision nor any
clear policy. It does not know where it is heading. It is the
first time in my short political career, and also in a previous
life as a reporter, that I see a government with so poor a
legislative agenda.
When I looked at Bill C-3, I hoped the government might have
taken advantage of this opportunity to really deal with the
problem of the oil companies. All we are asked to do is to amend
rules and regulations in order to permit a deal involving the
owners of Petro-Canada, those who might buy its shares. However,
this does not get to the heart of the issue.
This bill does absolutely nothing to alleviate the crisis faced
by Quebecers, especially in areas where gas prices are very
high. There has been no change in spite of the oil
companies' record profits. What we see is that there has been no
change in the concentration and centralization of decision
making. When we talk about capitalist countries, we are talking
about the United States, of course.
1215
In the U.S., there are laws protecting companies, distributors
and retailers, thus improving the economy within this system.
Here, over the last 25 years, we have seen retailers and
distributors disappear, and big companies take over the market.
This is of great concern to me as my riding of
Lotbinière-L'Érable is very rural. Over the past 25 years, we
have seen the local garage disappear. We were better off when we
had a gas station, at least then there were attendants to serve
us. Now we are left with self-serve gas bars. They are run by the
oil companies.
The managers of these outlets have nothing to do with pricing
and the profit margin.
Let me give the House a very specific example. The managers of
two related companies, Petro-Canada and Esso, met with me to give
me a press release issued by each of their companies. Both press
releases were issued at 7.04 a.m. and were similar in that they
informed their managers that both companies, Petro-Canada and
Esso, were setting the price at a certain amount and indicating
what their profit margin would be that day.
The problem with gas is not only at the pump. It is also a
management problem. These people told me “Do not mention the
municipalities. Do not try to identify us, because we will
suffer reprisals at the hands of our companies.
If they find out that we tried to get a little more, that we
tried to be a bit fairer, they will reduce our profit margin”.
These people are terrorized.
According to a report not yet published, but which we had an
opportunity to get a glimpse of, “All is well in the wonderful
world of the oil companies”.
My riding is rather small, let us say that it is 120 kilometres
from one end to the other along highway 20. My riding is on the
south shore near Quebec City. The price differences can be 6, 8,
or 10 cents. Could someone explain that to me?
Is it due to transportation? I doubt very much that it could
increase the price of oil by 8 or 10 cents.
Is it due to taxes? As far as I know, politicians, in Quebec as
well as in Canada, explain in their budget how they manage it.
This is not due to transportation or to taxes and, as I
said, management has nothing to do with it neither. This means
that oil companies are increasingly taking control of retailers.
A television channel called LCN is now presenting the hit-parade
of gas prices. Here is the hit-parade: in the Eastern Townships,
82 cents; in Lac-Saint-Jean, 81 cents; in central Quebec, 79
cents; in the Quebec City area, 77 cents, and so on. But this is
ridiculous.
When this government tells us that everything is fine in the oil
industry and when the Conference Board of Canada tells us
officially, as it will soon tell us, that there is no problem,
they are laughing at people.
1220
They are laughing at people because, as I explained with many
examples, the retailer has no control on his profit margin nor
on prices. In addition to that, the situation is so ridiculous,
prices changes so much, going up and down like a yo-yo—so to
speak—everywhere in Quebec that we now see the hit-parade of gas
prices on LCN. This is ridiculous. Who foots the bill? It is the
workers, both wen and women, and the small and medium size
businesses who foot the bill.
I will now move on to the heating oil issue and the $125 or $250
that were paid. Could someone please explain to me why a person
living alone gets $125 and two persons living together get $250.
As far as I know, the price of fuel oil is the same. This
government is always determined to put forward diversionary
measures.
It would have been far simpler, instead of having this
propaganda operation, this flag-waving exercise by the great
Liberal Party of Canada, to really attack the problem at its
source and find a means to ensure that the people paying for
fuel oil are the ones to receive the $125 and $250, and to make
the amounts uniform. Prisoners got cheques. People who have
been bedridden for the past ten years in chronic care hospitals
got cheques. Young people got cheques.
This week, a minister announced in the House that they were
going to get parents to have their children return the $125. I
am not here to promote the clothing stores, but I can tell hon.
members that that $125 has already gone on jeans, coats and cool
shirts.
A person would have to be out of touch with reality to not
realize that a kid with a cheque for $125 is going to cash it.
He is not going to mention it to his parents. I have had
parents calling me to ask “What is this business of $125?” They
had not heard anything about it. This is unacceptable.
Now we have the government turning up here with a bill aimed at
transactions and trying to get out of a field from which it
ought to have pulled out a long time ago. Much editorial ink
has been flowed about this bill since the start of the session.
The latest clipping I have in hand is this one of an editorial
by Jean-Paul Gagné in Les Affaires. I would advise hon. members
to listen carefully.
Petro-Canada has just made the highest net profit in its history:
$893 million or $3.28 a share in the year 2000, compared to its
1999 figure of $233 million or 86 cents a share.
He goes on to tell us what Petro-Canada is about.
This company was created in 1975 by the government of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau to enable Ottawa, so they said, to acquire an
indicator sector in the petroleum industry, which was and
remains dominated by foreign multinationals, and to better
understand the industry.
The Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or 2000s do not
change. They say any old thing. We have the proof once again
with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who tried to get us to believe
that, with the creation of Petro-Canada, we would be protected
from the multinationals. What a monumental joke. The
editorialist continued, saying:
At the same time, this was an opportunity to plaster maple leaf
designs throughout a vast network of gasoline sales points from
one end of Canada to the other.
The fine symbol of the maple leaf was at the heart of the
creation of Petro-Canada. When will this government get down to
dealing with the real problems? I have talked about the problem
that stands out with the price of gasoline. I have talked about
the problem that stands out with heating oil and the problem of
the fluctuations in the price of gasoline not only within
regions but even within my riding.
1225
I also mentioned that, in the last 25 years, self-service
stations have cropped up while service stations and small local
garages disappeared, and all the government has to offer is Bill
C-3.
The Minister of Industry and the Minister for International
Trade keep saying “We are going to table the report of the
Conference Board of Canada. You will see, they will come up with
some solutions”. Nothing will be changed and once again the poor
will foot the bill.
What I find unfortunate is that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, when
we rise in this House, we seem to be the only ones in touch with
what is going on in our ridings, in touch with the people.
How many times have people come to me saying “Look, Mr.
Desrochers, if the gas price keeps going up, I will no longer be
able to drive to work, about 10 miles away from home, because I
already have a house, two kids, a car and I cannot make ends
meet”.
The government does not seem to care, since it does not have any
qualms about the oil companies getting richer on the backs of
the ordinary citizens. The current government, which has been in
office since 1993, has worked extra hard to make the rich richer
and the poor poorer. We have huge debates on market
globalization and global economic integration, but we do not get
to the bottom of these issues.
When we talk about concentration, as in this case with oil
companies, and when we talk about market globalization, as we
are doing today, people get worried.
When they see Americans, Asians or Europeans, who have a
different mentality than North Americans, Canadians and
Quebecers, move into their communities, people are afraid they
might lose their jobs.
These are direct consequences of market globalization. It is a
direct consequence of corporate concentration. These things are
all happening under the federal government's nose. The federal
government should closely monitor them, if it wants to maintain
a sound economy. But no, the government would rather boast. It
is pleased to see our heritage being sold. Who is paying for all
this? It is ordinary workers.
The average salary back home has nothing to do with the figure
provided Statistics Canada, because it makes no sense.
Back home the average salary is around $25,000 or $30,000 a
year, and I am being generous, for a family with two children and a
mortgage.
Recently, I saw an add showing a person who was choking and
losing his voice. I am losing my voice today, but it is because,
like many, I was caught off guard by the sudden changes in
temperature. But that person was losing his voice because he
continuously felt choked. The same thing is happening in our
ridings. People come and see us because they feel choked. They
do not know how they will manage to pay their bills at the end
of the month. They do not know how they will be able to plan for
their holidays.
This is all because of the little games played by oil companies.
This year, they were rather nice, they did not hit us too hard
during the Christmas season. But I can guarantee that we will
pay dearly when the nice weather comes, in May and June.
It is not for nothing that some oil companies have already begun
changing the prices at the pumps. It is no fluke that Ultramar,
to take one example, has set its sights on being able to post a
price of $1 on its pumps. These people know what is in the
wind. They point to international rulings, but they have some
leeway and they do not approve.
Bill C-3 is not the way to sort out the whole business of
increases in gasoline and heating oil prices.
1230
We hope, through comments such as these in the House, to
bring home to the federal government the human misery—I am not
afraid to say it—that is taking hold in our regions.
I will not go over the entire history of Bill C-2, the employment
insurance bill. It has been addressed at length this week. As
I was saying a few minutes earlier, in everything it does, the
federal government is overlooking the middle class. The middle
class is fading right out of existence.
Yet it is the middle class that paid most of the taxes levied by
the members across the way.
It is totally unacceptable. Will we go back to social democratic
values, family values, values of mutual support and solidarity
to save Quebec society? I doubt it.
Lastly, I want to mention that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour
of Bill C-3, but it condemns all of the government policies
adopted in the last few years concerning the concentration and
the consolidation of oil companies. It also condemns the
government for ignoring those who always end up paying: the
poorest among our workers. I have this to say to the Liberals:
wake up.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-3. Most of the
country is seized with the issue of energy as we speak. Many
homeowners and small businesses are reeling with the shock and
the horror of the rising, out of control, skyrocketing fuel
prices, so it is timely that we are having this debate now.
It is timely but maybe not fitting, given the content of the
bill. We see Bill C-3 as the death rattle of a national dream.
There was a time when Canadians believed that the federal
government had some role to play in looking after the interests
of ordinary Canadians in terms of access to energy.
In 1975, the minority Trudeau government, held up by the David
Lewis NDP, saw fit to enter into the energy industry with some
presence, whether it was as a watchdog or a producer. It saw
that the whole oil and gas industry was owned by offshore
interests.
We really did not know if Canadians were getting gouged. We did
not know if we were paying a fair market price or a grossly
inflated price. Given that Canada is, first, geographically
challenged in that it is huge and, second, that it has a cold
northern climate, this was no small issue.
However, in 1975 people had the vision and forethought to try to
do something about it. They still believed in the nation state
of Canada that we could do something to control our own future
and destiny.
When we raise the subject, people look at us as if it is heresy
to even recommend that the federal government might be able to do
something to help Canadians. Government shrugs its shoulders and
says that it actually traded that away in the last free trade
agreement it signed, that it used to be able to influence and
dictate domestic market prices for our energy resources but it
traded that away and cannot help us any more.
Frankly that is why I think it is sad today that we are dealing
with the death rattle of a national dream, when people with
vision actually had some idea and some awareness of how critical
access to reasonably priced energy resources would be to the
economic stability of the country.
It is even more galling to Canadians when they realize that our
energy resources are part of our common wealth. There is that
old term. We used to use that word that in the name of our
party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Our natural
resources are part of our birthright as Canadians. They are in
the ground. They are under our feet. They are something we all
need and we all should be able to share.
1235
We believe some things should be regulated. We all know that
capital has no conscience as such, so it is government's role to
introduce regulation on the free market to make sure that it
meets ordinary people's needs. We could certainly argue that the
absence of any national energy strategy is not serving Canadians
well. We could ask any homeowner in this country what he or she
thinks about the way the free market has served the interests of
Canadians when it comes to energy supply. We could ask any small
business person or any trucking company representative how he or
she likes waking up in the morning not knowing if the price of
fuel has arbitrarily fluctuated by six, seven or ten cents.
What really annoys Canadians most is this seemingly arbitrary
nature of the wild price fluctuations. That is what really galls
people. That is why, when we did have Petro-Canada, when we did
actually own a piece of the action, we knew what the real cost of
production was. Then we could tell if we were paying the real
cost or if we were being gouged like most Canadians feel they are
being gouged now.
I am not at all impressed with Bill C-3. It is a huge step
backward. It is the end of an era in terms of the nation state
of Canada being able to dictate its own domestic price for energy
strategy.
There is a growing interest, of course, in the whole issue of
energy resources. As prices skyrocket there is a growing
realization that we have to do something about energy
conservation. We have to get more involved in the demand side of
our resources rather than the supply side.
I am a carpenter by trade. I used to build hydro dams and oil
refineries. I worked on megaprojects of that nature. It used to
be heresy for a tradesperson to advocate demand side management
because we wanted the jobs. We wanted to build hydro dams to put
people to work.
In actual fact, the more people dig into the subject, we are
pleased to be able to say that there are far more job
opportunities in demand side management in terms of energy
retrofitting buildings like schools and hospitals than there are
in building a hydro dam. We have to start considering that a
unit of energy harvested from the existing system by demand side
management measures is indistinguishable from a unit of energy
generated at a generating station except for a number of key
things: it is available at about one-quarter of the cost; it
creates as much as seven times the number of person years or
jobs; it is available and online immediately instead of the 10
year lag time there is to build a new generating station; and it
does not degrade the environment, but in fact rehabilitates the
environment by reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
That is the type of message we should be getting from our
federal government as we enter into an era of energy supply
crisis. Instead of throwing money at it with a dysfunctional
rebate system, why are we not hearing about a progressive
approach to serving the needs of Canadians by demand side
management energy conservation? If I heard the government say
that even once, it would be of some comfort. Instead we have a
token gesture.
Let us start with the federal government itself as a
demonstration pilot project. The federal government owns 68,000
buildings in Canada, many of which are absolute energy pigs
because they were built in an era when people did not worry about
energy conservation. These buildings waste energy like crazy.
All the empirical evidence now shows that we can reduce the
operating costs of those 68,000 buildings by as much as 40% by
working on the building envelope. I am talking about new
insulation, smart thermostat controls, basic caulking and sealing
of windows, and smart lighting systems that dim and light up as
the day brightens and darkens. All of these measures are easily
done and would serve as a demonstration project to the private
sector that it too can reduce its fuel consumption and operating
costs. We all have to realize that our energy resources are
extremely finite and that Canada is the most wasteful country in
the world when it comes to energy consumption.
David Suzuki was quoted recently as saying that for the rest of
the world to live in the same manner we do or use the same level
of energy we do, seven more plants would be required to provide
the raw resources.
There are not enough energy resources in the world for every man,
woman and child in developing nations to live the lifestyle that
we enjoy with our energy use.
1240
Let us face it. Essentially the jig is up as far as our cheap
access to unlimited energy use is concerned. Conservation is
going to be the key and will ultimately save the planet. Sooner
or later we are going to have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels
altogether.
In regard to the demand side management I described, possibly
there would be some optimism and hope on the part of Canadians if
they heard our government make visionary statements like that.
Frankly, we could show the world how to do it. We could be a
centre of excellence for energy retrofitting technology because
we are a harsh northern climate and we have challenges in terms
of energy supply now. We could develop and export the technology
and become world leaders in the sensible use of energy resources
instead of showing the world just how wasteful we can be, which
is our practice, frankly.
I started by saying that there was a time within living memory
when Canadians still believed that we were not impotent as a
government, but now as we sign more and more trade agreements we
are locking ourselves in deeper and deeper, to the point where we
can no longer dictate our own domestic energy strategy. We
cannot give preferential pricing to our own customers, our own
citizens, our own kids. We are not allowed to because somebody
traded it all away. I call it economic treason to trade away our
birthright and our ability.
In the 1980s and 1990s in the private sector, in the Business
Council on National Issues and the Canadian Manufacturers'
Association, everybody wanted to deregulate everything. The idea
was to let the free market prevail and get government out of
business because it was tying up the free hand of the
marketplace. The government sold Petro-Canada. It sold the
goose that laid the golden egg. Why did we want to get out of
the energy sector just at a time when world prices were going
through the ceiling? We sold it off.
Last year, $800 million in profit would have been in the coffers
of the federal government, but no, we had to let the free market
handle things: all things private, good, and all things public,
bad, and the public sector could not organize a peanut stand.
Although frankly, with the way the government has managed its
energy rebate system there is not much room for confidence in its
ability to run anything else.
However, the really galling thing is that we used to own it. We
used to have a piece of it. It was called Petro-Canada. Bill
C-3 puts to bed any idea of ever getting involved in that kind of
thing again because the powers that be simply will not tolerate
it.
We are not being served well. Ask Californians with their
energy problems how much they like deregulation. They are trying
to re-regulate as fast as they can to save their bacon, to save
their industries, to save their economic base. Ask Albertans how
much they like deregulation. They always say they do, until the
price of natural gas goes up 125% in one year. Thanks a million.
The free market is really servicing them well. These outrageous
gouging costs have to be offset by energy rebates to Albertans
every month.
However, we never get to the root of the problem. Rebates are
just offsetting the profits of the oil companies. If we are in
fact being gouged—and we do not know if we are being gouged or
not—rather than the government intervening to try to put some
semblance of order into the industry, it is telling us that if we
are being charged too much it will help us by giving us a little
bit of money, a $125 lump sum payment.
That does not even heat one house for a week in Cambridge Bay,
Nunavut. I had phone calls from people in Cambridge Bay,
Nunavut—I spoke about it in question period today—who were
complaining that the fuel oil delivery guy will not deliver now
unless customers have cash up front. Many people are defaulting
on their monthly bills. They have to pay cash in advance to get
oil to heat their homes. That is a desperate situation when it
is 40 degrees below zero or worse in Nunavut.
1245
We are not being well served with what is our common wealth,
with what we used to consider our birthright and our property. We
are not being well served when we cannot even afford to heat our
homes or we are paying $500 or $600 a month for an 800 square
foot house in Nunavut. The $125 rebate will not even heat that
house for a week. One cannot be without heat for more than an
hour in that part of the world.
Deregulation has hurt ordinary people. The previous speaker
from the Bloc Quebecois was saying that the average joe, the
little guy, the working person, has suffered in all of this.
People who own shares in the oil companies have benefited while
the rest of us have suffered. Who will stand up for us? Who
will be our champion, our advocate? Who will say on behalf of
the Canadian people that enough is enough?
Who will say that they will find a way to produce and distribute
energy resources in a way that is fair and equitable so that all
Canadians can share in the benefit of what is ours, not theirs
but ours collectively? That was the dream of Petro-Canada. The
government is putting the final stake through the heart of that
dream as we deal with Bill C-3. That is nothing to celebrate. I
have heard other speakers saying it is great that we are moving
forward with a whole new way of dealing with our energy
resources. We are not. We are moving backward.
People cannot survive without energy. It is one of the
fundamental basics. It gets to be an economic development issue
because he who has the energy can attract the business. This is
why in all the free trade agreements the Americans have been
quite up front. They are after our energy resources and our
water because without those two resources no country will move
forward. They are two resources that we used to have in great
abundance.
Now, frankly, that natural gas might as well be in the United
States because we have to sell it to our own domestic customers
at the same price we sell it to our export partners south of the
border, who have an insatiable appetite for our resources. Even
if we run short and are freezing in the dark, we are not allowed
to turn off the tap once it is turned on. That is the miracle of
NAFTA.
This is the frustration that Canadians are feeling. They feel
that we are no longer in control and that their freely elected
representatives, like us in the House of Commons, cannot even
help them. They are right, because in my opinion somebody
committed economic treason by signing away our economic
sovereignty and giving it away for next to nothing in a trade
agreement that we neither wanted nor voted for. It does not
serve ordinary Canadians. It only serves the powerful and the
elite or maybe those who have shares in oil companies.
We are worried that we have lost the ability to have any kind of
national energy strategy. That is why I recently introduced a
private member's bill calling on the government to create a
national energy price commission. On energy issues the
commission would at least be an advocate on behalf of ordinary
Canadians. It would champion their issues, so that if the oil
companies wanted to raise the price of gas or home heating fuel
or whatever, they would have to come before this independent
tribunal and justify why the increase is warranted. What is so
wrong with that?
Granted, it would be a regulation, and maybe it would be the
first tentative step toward a new national energy policy that
would in fact set policy which would provide for ordinary
Canadians. Maybe that same energy price commission would say
that charging the GST on home heating fuel is not only wrong but
amoral and fundamentally antithetical to anything Canadians
should be standing for.
Maybe that energy price commission would say that we need to
start investigating more sources of alternative energy. Maybe it
would be the think tank that would actually set some energy
policy. Perhaps it would say that the real value of a barrel of
oil is not $25 or $27 but that the whole cost of a barrel of oil
is about $150, because we have to factor in the price of the
American military to keep supertankers in the Persian Gulf to get
the oil out of there and then we have to factor in the
environmental degradation and the cleanup afterward.
If we look at the whole cost of burning fossil fuels, all other
sources of energy seem cheap in comparison. Even if solar energy
and wind energy need some investment before we are ready for
them, that seems like a bargain when we start really viewing what
burning fossil fuels does to our planet and our environment and
what the whole cost of that is.
We are ready to move on. We would hope that most Canadians are
also ready to move on and into an era of progress and new
maturity about our energy resources. That includes taking the
bull by the horns and not saying that we cannot do it. We are
always making excuses about why we cannot shape our domestic
policy. There is a saying I heard that “there are no more
prizes for predicting rain, that from now on we are only giving
prizes for building arks”. There should be no more excuses.
1250
The government should not tell us that it cannot help us. It
must get creative and find a way to make sure there is a reliable
supply of affordable energy so that Canadians can heat their
homes without breaking the bank.
We do not want more repeat situations like Cambridge Bay where
people have to go down to the fuel dealer with five gallon jerry
cans and pay in advance to get ten gallons of fuel oil to heat
their homes. That is a disgrace.
It is a complete abdication of responsibility by the federal
government in not representing the interests of Canadians in this
way. Bill C-3 takes us one step further from the complete
abdication of responsibility by the government. It simply does
not think it has a role in any kind of a national energy
strategy, and we think that is wrong.
I look back fondly on the days when David Lewis had the official
balance of power in a minority government. He could influence
government and demand that government exercise its sovereign
right to manage the affairs of the country in terms of energy
supply. That was 1975. This is 2001. Bill C-3 will drive a
stake through the heart of any national dream we might have in
taking care of our own interests.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this topic concerns me. I should like to address
what I think is a deficiency in the bill, the 18% ownership by
the Government of Canada of Petro-Canada.
I come from Saskatchewan. I should like to draw on the history
of that province in dealing with this topic. In 1944 we elected
a Baptist minister as the premier of that province who embarked
on a different way of doing things. There was a lot of state
intervention, state ownership and state control of the economy.
At the very same time in our sister province to the west we
elected a Baptist minister who believed in self-reliance and the
market system. At that time Saskatchewan had approximately one
and a quarter million people. Saskatoon and Regina were far
larger centres than Edmonton and Calgary. Alberta had
approximately 600,000 people. At the end of the last century we
now see which model has worked.
Saskatchewan has a million people. Many of the members sitting
on this side of the House from Alberta are transplanted
Saskatchewan people. Even some of the Ontario people are
transplanted Saskatchewan people. We have been great at
exporting people from our province. Alberta has three million
people today.
This 18% ownership is a reminder of a flawed, failed policy in
the seventies where the federal government decided to use the
Saskatchewan model to embark in the economy in a major way. It
cost the Canadian economy a lot of money. It created a lot of
unity problems that are still lasting in the country.
I wish the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs were here
today so we could deal with some of the grievances out west which
he says do not exist.
I think the 20th century was a contest among many things. One
of the big contests was a contest between a free market driven
economy and state controlled command style economies. The
verdict came in loud and clear—
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I did not make it clear, and
I may be jumping in a little too early, but this is the question
and comment period on the speech of the member who last
intervened in the debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I
would ask the member for Prince Albert to wrap up his comments,
and if he has a question to please deliver it.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, almost anyone who
would look at the history of the 20th century would say that the
market driven economy clearly is a superior model to a state
command dictated type of economy. Why does my learned friend keep
on bringing up a model that has obviously failed as an economic
model for creating wealth, opportunity and jobs?
1255
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, what has actually failed
Canadians is the free market in terms of not being able to ensure
a regular supply of affordable energy. Some level of state
intervention is necessary to regulate that market.
I think the hon. member, in his history lesson about the former
premiers of the two provinces, should keep in mind that the most
significant difference between those two provinces was the fact
that in 1947 Leduc No. 1 struck oil. It is not rocket science to
start showing a more balanced budget when there is gold coming
out of the ground in Leduc, Alberta.
Tommy Douglas was elected premier in 1944. There were a number
of things that the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation was known
for, one of which was medicare. He was elected on a promise to
create socialized medicine. Sometimes people forget that he was
not able to do that until he had enough money. It took about 20
years to implement that promise. He did it to our collective
benefit. It is inarguable that Canadians should thank Tommy
Douglas for the single thing that we are most proud of.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to preface my remarks with a comment on the remarks from the
member for Winnipeg Centre. He led us through an interesting
discussion though I am not quite sure that he was completely on
subject. Still, it was a very interesting discussion.
I think the question is not whether Canada wants to have a
private crown corporation run oil firm, but how much that firm
cost us. Is it responsible and reasonable to continue in that
direction today? Is it time to get out from under that burden of
debt?
I would like to see a tally sheet of what Petro-Canada has cost
us on one side and the profits that we made on the other side. I
expect to have that information before we finish the bill in
committee. I think then we could get into a very interesting and
hopefully enlightening debate on whether or not we should keep
the company in Canada.
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act, will allow for greater foreign ownership of
the two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco. That is plain and
simple.
As previous speakers have said, the proposed legislation would
provide greater flexibility to both companies in their respective
industries. It should allow them to continue as well-respected
participants in the oil, gas and uranium fields. It should also
provide them with increased opportunities for strategic
management and positioning within those sectors.
I would like to repeat something that my colleague from St.
John's West said when he spoke to the bill in its previous life
as Bill C-39. Speaking as a member from Newfoundland, where
Petro-Canada has a large involvement through its development of
the Hibernia project and other potential oil and gas fields, he
said “Even though we can appreciate, perhaps more in
Newfoundland than anywhere else in the country, what Petro-Canada
has done for oil and gas development in our province, we also
must realize that to grow, companies need investment. We cannot
restrict that investment or we are putting companies at a
disadvantage.”
I could not agree more with my colleague. We all know that we
operate in a global environment. Free trade agreements,
technological advances and developing countries and markets
require innovative and evolving responses to new challenges and
opportunities. It is not in Canada's best interest to restrict
any company from taking advantage of those opportunities or from
moving into new and unexplored areas and markets.
However, there are other issues respecting the legislation that
still need to be studied and examined as the legislative process
continues.
First, Petro-Canada is an oil and gas company in a market where
the price of crude oil has significantly increased over the past
year. Petro-Canada has announced record earnings for the year
2000. In a press release the company says “Petro-Canada's
performance reflects both an exceptional business environment and
our success in capitalizing on that environment.”
1300
No one would argue that if the government is going to take steps
to get out of the oil and gas business, now could be one of the
best possible times to do that. The industry is on a high and
prices reflect that reality. With annual net earnings in 2000 of
$893 million, the company far exceeded its previous high of $306
million in 1997.
We all know that the price of oil and gas has increased. We are
reminded of that on an almost daily basis when we fill up our
cars and pay our heating bills. While this points out the reason
why companies like Petro-Canada are experiencing record highs, it
also begs the question of what do Canadian taxpayers get out of
this deal.
If the government has indicated that it is going to divest
itself of the 18% stake it continues to hold in Petro-Canada,
taxpayers who funded the purchase of this former crown
corporation in 1975 need to benefit directly from the
government's decision to get out of the energy sector. Many
Canadians are ready to let Petro-Canada be privatized completely
and have that money either paid on our national debt or invested
in alternative and sustainable energy.
We can stipulate certain requirements in the privatization
process, in this case the location of headquarters, Canadian
directors and a limit on individual ownership.
The province of Nova Scotia recently announced that it is
selling its share in Nova Scotia Resources Ltd., a company
established in 1981 to allow the government to participate in the
oil and gas industry. Over the course of time a debt of almost
$800 million has been amassed. This is a debt that Nova Scotia
taxpayers have had to assume. If the $425 million deal that the
government announced goes through it will be one less burden on
Nova Scotia taxpayers and the government will reduce its debt
load. That deal allows the government to cut its losses.
I would suggest that now is a favourable time to get out, just
as it is for the federal government with respect to its position
in Petro-Canada. If we are going to privatize, now is the time
to do it. It also shows that unless there are public policy
reasons for direct involvement, the risk inherent in the oil and
gas industry may outweigh the benefits for governmental
involvement.
In both cases, Petro-Canada at the federal level and Nova Scotia
Resources Ltd. at the provincial level, the decision to get
directly involved in the oil and gas industry stemmed from global
conditions of the day, namely the energy crisis. Petro-Canada
was established as a crown corporation in 1975 by an act of
parliament to allow Canada to have a stake in the oil and gas
industry and improve exploration and development of new oil and
gas sources within Canada. This is precisely what happened.
Petro-Canada went on to make purchases that led to a share in the
Hibernia project and the gas discoveries off Nova Scotia, as well
as the tar sands in Alberta. These are still some of the
company's primary areas.
However, the federal government divested its interest over time
to the point that today it controls exactly 18.2% of the shares
but it has no management involvement. With no public policy
reasons for its continued participation in the company, the time
is seen as appropriate for a complete divestiture. This bill is
one more step toward that objective.
The bill deals with two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco.
While many of the points I have already made also apply to
Cameco, their respective industries are significantly different.
I would like to discuss those differences for a few moments.
Cameco is involved in the uranium business. In fact, it is the
world's largest uranium company. As I mentioned, the similarity
with Petro-Canada is that this legislation will increase the
percentage of foreign ownership on both an individual and
aggregate basis, again stipulating that the head office remain in
Canada, in this case Saskatchewan, and with Canadian directors.
However, the nuclear industry is quite different from the oil and
gas industry and Canadians remain skeptical about the safety
issues surrounding nuclear power, perhaps with good reason.
The auditor general recently reported to parliament and he
highlighted some concerns respecting risk assessments at Canada's
nuclear power generators. As well, the issue of disposal of
radioactive waste remains largely unanswered.
1305
I have been told that the legislation in no way affects the
non-proliferation policy and uranium will continue to be sold
only to those countries that are signatory to the
non-proliferation agreement.
World markets are changing dramatically, and by loosening rules
on foreign ownership, it is anticipated that this will provide
Cameco with increased opportunity to take advantage of new
opportunities and new market conditions.
What both of these companies highlight is Canada's and the
world's dependence on energy sources, whether those sources be
oil and gas or nuclear. There are a lot of exciting developments
taking place in both of these sectors. The Mackenzie Delta
pipeline looks like it could soon become a reality and new
nuclear reactors have increased safeguards.
Canada needs to be in a position to take advantage of these new
prospects and new technologies. I look forward to studying the
legislation more closely at committee to see whether the
legislation will benefit Canadian taxpayers and be one step
toward helping these companies position themselves for future
growth and productivity.
In closing, the issue here is exactly that. Does the
legislation benefit Canadian taxpayers? It would be my position
that the legislation does benefit Canadian taxpayers. There is a
significant difference between developments in the petrochemical
and petroleum industry energy sector and the nuclear and uranium
industry sector.
That is what we have to take a look at in committee. This is
only the first time the bill has been debated. We will have an
opportunity to discuss it further, and we plan to have some more
numbers to look at when we come back to parliament the next time.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last
intervention was quite thoughtful. I will comment on the
ownership later.
The previous speaker, my colleague from the NDP, was a little
off topic when he was talked about things in NAFTA only going to
the elite. That precludes all the workers who have got thousands
upon thousands of jobs because of NAFTA. They are not elite,
they are every day working people. It also precludes the
lowering of prices because those poor people do not have to pay
tariffs that they artificially had to pay before the agreement.
I find it difficult that the NDP would call those poor people and
the workers who have benefited from that elite.
He also said that he would like to hear this side of the House
just say once that demand management is good. I will say that I
think demand management is good. In fact, if he would like to be
positive on this point, perhaps he should consider making an
enumeration of the hundreds of initiatives of provincial and
federal governments that are helping save energy across this
country. They have for decades.
Both he and the previous speaker were back on the topic of the
energy program, which has been mentioned numerous times. They
talked about some examples where it may not have gone to the most
appropriate person. This is getting a bit tedious. We got the
message. I do not think there has been any program in history
dealing with millions of people that has always been right. The
bottom line is millions of poor people benefited from that
program, which is good. In fact, the argument by the member from
the Bloc got so circuitous at one point when he complained about
children having money to buy clothes.
He also said there should be a more in-depth discussion on
globalization. He was referring to poverty again, which is
great, admirable and a good topic to discuss. However, maybe he
missed my remarks yesterday when I talked about the in-depth
analysis which showed that globalization reduces the tariff
barriers and the customs that poor people would have to pay. It
reduces the control of companies that are hiding behind tariff
barriers.
It opens up markets for those poor and undeveloped countries.
Poorer people can now market their goods more easily because they
do not have to cross a huge tariff barrier.
1310
My last comment is related to the point about the ownership of
Petro-Canada, which has been raised by most of the Alliance
members. We live in a free market economy in the western world.
We believe basically that the market in appropriate circumstances
should work freely and bring lower prices. Therefore, we can all
have those lower prices. However, the market does not always
work perfectly by itself. There are times when there needs to be
government intervention.
I personally believe that the effort of this bill to maintain
Petro-Canada's 18% in government control is a good safeguard in
the event that we need to be involved in this industry when it is
in a oligopoly position. When there are only a few large
companies involved, it is good to have a player from the
government to keep track of what is going on and to be on the
ground in the day to day involvement of pricing and operations.
That way we get a true picture of the on the ground situation.
That would help the concerns of every member in the House with
things like prices of energy, which we are all concerned about.
A closer attachment to the operation of what is going on, such as
the partial control of Petro-Canada, would be a benefit to us
all.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I realize the member is a
new member of parliament and I welcome him to the House. I
understand he spoke here before, but it is the first time I have
had an opportunity to reply to one of his questions. We look
forward to many more.
He made several points but I would like to respond to two of
them. First, the member for Yukon made reference to the oil
rebate and said that it helped millions of people. Imagine how
many people it could have helped had it been applied fairly and
with any sense of conscience whatsoever? I mean this was child
simple.
The government had $1.4 billion. It wanted to give an energy
rebate to Canadians who needed it most. The Liberals decided
that the venue they would use to choose those Canadians was the
GST rebate. It made good sense. All they had to do to make that
work was ask for an energy receipt showing that people had paid
their oil or electrical bill or bought fuel wood. Lots of
provinces have done it. It is not complicated.
I would guess, and I do not think I am too far wrong but we will
never get the real numbers out of this crowd, that 50% of the
$1.4 billion or $1.3 billion, or whatever it was, was wasted.
There were double cheques, triple cheques, quadruple cheques to
one household. We could have a widow living on one side of the
street in a two bedroom bungalow who received $125. On the other
side of the street there could be a married couple who received
$250. Explain to me how that got money to Canadians who needed
it. Explain to me how that is fair.
It is hopeless. The government cannot even give away $1.4
billion and do a good job at it. It is scandalous. Do not try
to defend that, it is not worth it. He made some good points but
he should not defend the oil rebate.
The other issue is the Petro-Canada position. Now is the time
to get out of Petro-Canada. Do not delay. Sell the shares.
There is lots of money out there. Its shares are at a premium
price. The government does not have any managerial position in
Petro-Canada. It holds 18.2% of the shares. It does not make
decisions any longer on Petro-Canada.
We are going to put a board and a director in place. All of
those people will have stipends. All of those people will get
per diems. All or some of those people will be on salary. We
are going to create a bureaucracy where there is no need to
create one. We have a good opportunity to sell our shares and
get out from under a burden of debt. Now is the time to do it.
We can get the most money for our investment. Let us move on.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, who owns more than 18% in
Petro-Canada?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the exact
question but it was something about who owns more than 18% in
Petro-Canada.
We own 18.2% of the shares. The rest of the shares are owned
throughout the country. This will open them up to foreign
ownership as well.
1315
The 18.2% is a non-managerial position. We do not make the
decisions regarding Petro-Canada, nor should we make them.
Petro-Canada had its place. Petro-Canada helped start the
Hibernia field. It helped develop Panuke and Cohasset off Sable
Island. I worked in those oilfields for eight years as a
driller. Petro-Canada was needed then. It was a wildcat
operation with high pressure and deep wells. It had some of the
iffiest wells being drilled in the world at the time.
However those days are gone. We found the gas and oil. We have
better technology. We can drill faster and cheaper and can find
gas and oil better than we ever could before. We no longer have
the high risk in the energy sector that used to be there. It is
time to move on and sell the shares.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents
of Calgary East to talk about Bill C-3 pertaining to Eldorado
Nuclear Limited Reorganization and also to Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act, Bill C-39.
Basically the bill allows both companies greater access to sell
themselves and to get more outside shares.
The Canadian Alliance has no problem with the bill as such. Our
natural resources critic will allay whatever fears he has when
the bill goes to committee. We will be supporting the bill as it
now stands.
The bill also talks about Petro-Canada and the attempt by the
government to increase individual share ownership and remove
non-resident ownership. I wish to draw attention to the oil
sector as we are talking about Petro-Canada.
Sometime last summer the Calgary caucus, the members of
parliament from Calgary, showed through calculations how much
money the federal government was taking from Canadians through
taxes on gasoline. It was interesting. We highlighted that
there was a tax on a tax. The GST on gasoline was a tax on a
tax. The government levied the excise tax and whatever the other
taxes were, and then the GST came in on top of every other tax.
We came out and said that it was double taxation and it should
be removed. We called on the federal government to reduce taxes
on gasoline. This was a cry that went out when gas prices went
up.
When gas prices went up the government resisted reducing taxes,
despite what we showed them. It did so because it was reaping
benefits from the tax on gasoline prices. Who was benefiting
from increasing gas prices? The federal government. It
benefited because of the way the tax structure is set up on
gasoline. As prices and the excise tax went up, the 7% GST on
top of that started to reap windfall profits.
At no time did the government think it necessary to return the
money it was getting, the windfall profits, back to the taxpayer
by reducing taxes. No, the government kept the money.
Then the government tried to offer what I will call a band-aid
solution to the rise in heating oil prices. My colleague from
the Conservative Party indicated to the government that it was a
very ill-conceived program.
1320
Let me give an example. I got over 50 calls to my office from
Canadians talking about their heating bills and how unfair they
were. People say that when the government wants money from them,
it takes the money right away through Revenue Canada with no
questions asked. However when it comes time to give the money
back the government brings in a stupid, ill thought program
Here is what happened. The government decided that those
eligible for the GST refund would receive the rebate. Just for a
second let us think about the GST refund. It is the goods and
services tax imposed uniformly across the country. That is fine.
We can understand the government giving GST rebates across the
country.
The government is now trying to give money to homeowners, a
segment which is not uniform across the country, but which needs
money to pay for heating costs. Suddenly people who did not pay
heating costs and had no heating bills were receiving the
cheques. Those who paid heating costs were not receiving the
cheques. Children were receiving the cheques while parents, who
paid the heating bills, were not. Naturally they phoned our
offices to say it was unfair.
Another point is that the GST rebate is based on the previous
year's income. In this case it was based upon income from 1999.
The heating oil crisis is in the year 2001, not 1999. Why is the
government basing the rebate on the year 1999? There were
changes in 2000 where people were not earning the same amount of
money and needed help. However they did not qualify because
their income from 1999 was slightly higher than it was in 2000.
The government in its haste, without thinking, brought in the
plan. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance say that the government has given money to 11 million
Canadians. It may have given money to 11 million Canadians, but
were they the 11 million who needed the relief? Were they the
ones paying the heating bills? No, they were not. That is why
even prisoners were getting cheques. Does the government think
prisoners pay heating bills in penitentiaries?
We now have an ill conceived program, as is normal. Half the
programs coming from that side are like that. All my colleagues
here have received numerous calls from their constituents on this
foolhardy program.
The government gave back $1.2 billion to the Canadian public
without thinking. What an idiotic program. If it wanted to
really help there were ways it could have done so. It has a huge
bureaucracy. Could all those bureaucrats and mandarins not have
thought up a plan where those who were paying would get a cheque?
No, they did not. They used a quick solution without thinking
about it.
The government has wasted $1.2 billion. Canadians notice the
unfairness of the system, the unfairness of the high taxes they
pay. The government has stated that it will reduce taxes, but
the way taxes are being reduced is not uniform.
1325
On behalf of my constituents I needed to bring up the point of
the heating oil and let the government and those mandarins know
that this is a wrong and ill thought out program that is wasting
$1.2 billion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
Resources.
(Bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.27 p.m. the House stands
adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24.
(The House adjourned at 1.27 p.m.)