37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 048
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| PALLIATIVE CARE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| ROGER GARCEAU
|
| Mr. David Price |
1405
| NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| RIDING OF BROME—MISSISQUOI
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| PARKS CANADA
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| PRINCE OF WALES
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1410
| SECRETARIES DAY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| WORLD ATHLETIC CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| DISASTER AID
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| PREMIER OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| FALUN GONG
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1415
| ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FRANCOPHONE AND ACADIAN COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1435
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1440
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GASOLINE TAXES
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1445
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1450
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| INDUSTRY CANADA
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CHEESE IMPORT
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1455
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| CIDA
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1500
| LUMBER
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-338. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT
|
| Bill S-5. First reading
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1510
| Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Human Rights
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1515
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| >Bill C-3. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1520
1525
| Mr. David Chatters |
1530
1535
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1625
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1630
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1650
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1655
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1700
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1705
1710
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1715
1720
1725
1730
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 048
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Crowfoot.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in a democracy we have the right to protest but we must obey and
respect the law.
Those people who protested peacefully at the summit of the
Americas in Quebec City were exercising their democratic right.
However, those people who thought protesting meant throwing
bottles, bricks, pucks and iron were nothing more than hooligans
and anarchists.
I want to highly commend our police services, especially the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police and the
local municipal regional police forces for an outstanding show of
restraint, discipline and professionalism.
Just for a moment, imagine how police in most countries in the
world would have acted if faced with those violent protesters,
coupled with the heavy burden and task of protecting 34 heads of
government. We can only imagine.
Our police services are second to none in the world. They
deserve the gratitude and thanks of a very grateful nation.
* * *
PALLIATIVE CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Dutch parliament passed a law that formally allows a
medical doctor to euthanize a patient. This action will set back
palliative care, which seeks to make the end of life as
comfortable as possible and breaks the traditional role of doctor
as helper.
My first duty as a surgeon was to do no harm. The Hippocratic
oath forbids any physician from practising euthanasia. Having
practised medicine for 25 years, I personally dealt with terminal
patients over and over again. By creative use of drugs,
companionship and kindness, we always found a way to comfort
those patients.
Canada needs to concentrate its resources on palliation for
terminal patients. Our patients deserve the best care, not the
most expedient.
* * *
[Translation]
ROGER GARCEAU
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were
saddened last Thursday to learn of the death of Roger Garceau.
He had been battling lung cancer for some months.
This well known actor made an impression on us with his roles in
several TV serials, including Symphorien and Les forges de
Saint-Maurice. He also appeared in more than 150 theatre roles.
His talent, enthusiasm and generosity will be greatly missed by
Canadians. His significant contribution to our cultural history
will be a lasting legacy.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to offer our
sincere condolences to Mr. Garceau's family and friends at this
sorrowful time.
* * *
1405
[English]
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to recognize that Thursday, April 26 will
mark the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.
Early that morning an explosion occurred in Reactor 4 of the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The release of radiation was
almost a million times greater than the release at Three Mile
Island. As a result of this accident, 125,000 people have died,
70,000 people have become disabled and tens of thousands of
hectares of once fertile land are now barren.
In compliance with the memorandum of understanding that was
signed in Ottawa in 1995, the Chernobyl facility was closed on
December 15, 2000. In return, the signing countries provided
much needed financial and technical support to the government of
Ukraine. Canada's contribution of $50 million was used to fund
the shelter implementation plan.
I know that the Canadian government will continue to support the
recovery of the Chernobyl area and I ask that hon. members and
all Canadians take a moment to remember all those affected by
this disaster.
* * *
[Translation]
RIDING OF BROME—MISSISQUOI
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in July
1609 Samuel de Champlain discovered the large lake that now
bears his name, Lake Champlain. I am proud that this discovery
of one of our great explorers is located in my riding of
Brome—Missisquoi.
Samuel de Champlain was a true builder, a man who did everything
possible to make his dreams a reality
In our ridings, and I am thinking of my own riding of
Brome—Missisquoi in particular, we are surrounded by men and
women who work just as hard for the development and growth of
rural communities.
For instance, two municipalities in Brome-Missisquoi, Stanbridge
East near Lake Champlain and Lac Brome, have recently been
honoured in the community beautification competition “Fleurir le
Québec”. They had more than 260 competitors in this prestigious
competition.
I congratulate all those involved directly or indirectly in
these community beautification projects. In their own way they
too are builders who bring a new face to our rural areas with
their creativity and dynamism.
* * *
[English]
PARKS CANADA
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, park wardens in our national parks
have a proud tradition of service. The decision by Parks Canada
to replace wardens with RCMP officers at double the cost of fully
training and equipping a park warden does not resolve the problem
of unsafe working conditions. Issuing shotguns to patrolling
wardens only heightens the potential for violence when a
non-confrontational approach is needed.
The problem is that you cannot look at the activity to determine
the danger. Risk is determined by a subject's behaviour.
Therefore, being told to back away by Parks Canada management is
not appropriate.
The pending decision to locate a detachment of RCMP officers in
every national park in Canada is costly and unnecessary and, in
the case of Ontario and Quebec, an unacceptable intrusion into
provincial jurisdiction.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage should do the right thing and
allow park wardens the right to bear sidearms.
* * *
PRINCE OF WALES
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Canadians welcome His Royal Highness, the Prince
of Wales, to Canada. His Royal Highness is an inspiration to
many, a caring and loving father, a champion for social justice
and a gracious humanitarian.
He is respected for his strong conviction that we all share a
duty to care for the natural world and to use natural resources
in a way which can be sustained for future generations.
On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians, I wish to extend
a warm and heartfelt welcome to the Prince of Wales.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
week Pearl Dugas will be one of the 60 persons honoured in
Ottawa as part of the International Year of the Volunteer.
Ms. Dugas has been a social worker for 10 years and works as a
volunteer administrator for the Société d'aide au développement
des collectivités de Ville de la Baie, where she works
developing businesses in rural communities.
She also served as the president of the Société de développement
de Saint-Félix-d'Otis for four years and helped organize rural
economic summits.
I have no doubt that the contribution of volunteers is essential
to the development of modern Quebec.
In their exceptional work they devote themselves body and soul
to improving their community.
On behalf of the regional caucus of the Bloc Quebecois in
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—Côte-Nord I pay tribute to the generosity
and devotion of Pearl Dugas.
We offer our hearty congratulations.
* * *
1410
SECRETARIES DAY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every year
the return of the lovely days of April brings a very special
day, Secretaries Day.
Today I want to tell the House why this day is set aside in
their honour in recognition of the important work they do.
In all sectors, private and public, the people in these
positions are devoted. The work they do in their job obviously
helps expand our job market.
Over the years the image of the secretary has changed somewhat.
Room has been made for men in this job as well. Regardless of
the gender of the person in the job, on this day, I say for all
to hear “Behind every manager is a great person known as a
secretary”.
I pay tribute to the excellence of your work and wish you a
happy Secretaries Day.
* * *
[English]
WORLD ATHLETIC CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the countdown begins today. In 100
days from now over 2,000 athletes from over 200 countries will
meet on a field of contest unequalled on earth, an event
surpassed in size and grandeur only by the summer Olympics and
soccer's World Cup.
The 2001 World Championships in Athletics are coming to
Edmonton, the city of champions.
Mr. Speaker, you might ask exactly who is invited. Why, you
are, Mr. Speaker, with your family and friends, as are my
colleagues from all parties and of course all Canadians, along
with visitors from around the globe.
It is 100 days and counting until the world arrives in Edmonton.
I invite everyone to Edmonton for the opening ceremonies on
Friday, August 3 and I invite everyone to join in the fun.
* * *
DISASTER AID
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the 1998 ice storm paralyzed a number of communities in
Ontario and exacted an enormous economic cost.
The Government of Canada has worked hard to assist communities
and individuals to recover from this disaster.
Today the hon. Minister of National Defence reinforced the
Government of Canada's commitment by announcing a third payment
of $50 million to the government of Ontario through the disaster
financial assistance arrangement program.
This payment brings the total financial assistance provided by
the federal government to the province of Ontario to $105
million.
The payment demonstrates our government's commitment to ensuring
the well-being of all Canadians and our guarantee that we will
provide assistance for each step on the long road to recovery.
* * *
FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as all of us know, the firefighters are here for their annual
lobby on Parliament Hill.
I urge the government to act on their request, particularly with
respect to the increased pension accrual rate and with respect to
the death benefit for survivors of firefighters who are killed or
permanently injured on the job.
They have come here year after year to be told by Liberal
backbenchers that they are in support of what the firefighters
are requesting. They are told that by other members.
This is a test for us as parliament. If a majority of us
support what the firefighters are requesting, then let the
government act on what they are requesting. Let us see some
progress for these people who come here year after year
requesting these changes.
* * *
[Translation]
PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois would like to congratulate the premier of Quebec,
Bernard Landry, for his remarkable attitude in a difficult
context, considering that the Quebec national government was
prevented by the Government of Canada from formally taking part
in the summit of the Americas held in our national capital.
Showing a composure that is the trademark of true heads of
state, the premier of Quebec nevertheless seized this
opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with other heads of state
from the Americas, thus strengthening the harmony that governs
our relations with our neighbours in the south.
Mr. Landry also used the forums at his disposal to brilliantly
explain why Quebec sovereignty was necessary and to discuss the
FTAA in a context where trade between nations of the Americas
and of the whole world is increasingly based on the strong and
serene affirmation of national identity and on the respect of
democratic values.
Bloc Quebecois members are very proud of their premier.
* * *
[English]
FALUN GONG
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent witness testimony and documentary evidence, both national
and international, demonstrates that the violations of human
rights in China continue unabated, particularly with regard to
violations of the rights of the Falun Gong.
These include, first, the criminalization of Falun Gong itself
for nothing other than espousing the values of truth, compassion
and tolerance, thereby violating their fundamental rights to
freedom of conscience and beliefs, freedom of assembly and
association, and freedom of expression and information.
1415
Second, the arrest, detention, torture and imprisonment of Falun
Gong practitioners for nothing other than exercising their rights
as guaranteed under Chinese and international law.
Third, the abuse of psychiatry for political purposes on a scale
unseen since the dark days of the Soviet Gulag.
Accordingly, I would like to join my voice with parliamentarians
in this country and around the world who have called upon China
to rescind the criminal ban on the Falun Gong, release political
prisoners, such as ShenLi Lin, husband of Canadian citizen Jinyu
Li, and cease and desist from the abuse of psychiatry for
political purposes.
* * *
ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, from April 23 to 29 many people will be wearing a small
green ribbon. This symbol represents Canada's National Organ and
Tissue Donation Awareness Week.
It is vital to the success of our organ and tissue donation
program that Canadians be made increasingly aware of the
importance of their participation.
More than 3,700 Canadians are waiting for organ transplants,
kidneys, hearts, lungs, livers, and thousands of others are in
need of replacement core tissues, such as corneas, heart valves,
bone grafts and skin. The success rate of such surgeries is
upward to 90%.
I urge all Canadians to give serious thought to organ and tissue
donation, complete a donors card and make sure their families are
aware of their wishes.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker,—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know there is a lot of
enthusiasm in the House today but we do want to hear the hon.
Leader of the Opposition's question.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured by
the support of my colleagues and surprised at the support from
the Liberals but I do appreciate it.
It was only yesterday that we learned that one of the biggest
high tech employers in Canada has laid off another 2,500 workers.
Every day we get reports that growth in the economy is slowing
down. The dollar is in difficulty. There is neglect by
government. Consumer confidence is down. Even the auditor
general some time ago asked the question: Who is minding the
store?
What specific steps are being taken to restore the confidence of
Canadians in the economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, let me simply say to the Leader of the Opposition
that he should not be a bit surprised by the great support that
the government has for his position and his remaining in that
position.
In terms of who is minding the store, when the store was being
minded by somebody else here in the House, yesterday the Prime
Minister gave the following quote, which answers the hon.
member's question. This is a quote from the IMF. It says “The
strong policy framework in place has positioned the real and
financial economy to cope with any new major economic shock”.
Then, the IMF goes on to say “The Canadian authorities are to be
highly commended by their policy accomplishments”.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Finance love to talk about the IMF. I am sure that pleases
certain bankers and others.
However, I wonder if the minister is aware what Canadians said
recently in the Minister of Finance's own polling conducted by
the folks at Earnscliffe. The poll shows that only a third of
Canadians feel that they are better off now than they were four
years ago.
Never mind what the bankers are saying. They are delighted with
the interest payments that keep coming from a government that
neglects debt, but only a third of Canadians think they are
better off than they were four years ago.
What is the government doing in specific steps to restore
consumer and investor confidence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member perhaps ought to go back to his numbers.
Real disposable income in Canada is up. In fact real disposable
income per family is now at a record level in Canada.
1420
The hon. member talks about interest rates. Interest rates are
now down substantially. In fact, as a result of the interest
rate reductions now, a typical family with a mortgage has $750
more in their pocket now than they would have had three to four
months ago.
Despite the fact that there is global volatility, problems in
Japan and in the United States, if we take a look at the Canadian
economy, while signals are mixed, we—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I prefer to use the numbers of the
Minister of Finance. His own polling shows that only a third of
Canadians feel they are better off now than they were four years
ago.
I wonder whether the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister
could tell us, in terms of the accountability that comes from
having to table a budget, how many of the presidents from the
Americas who were present in Quebec did the Prime Minister or the
finance minister advise that we do not need to have a full and
accountable budget month after month, maybe up to 24 months? How
many presidents did they advise to say that was good policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the meeting of the finance ministers of the western
hemisphere, two weeks prior to the Quebec summit, we did discuss
this. The vast majority of the finance ministers said that it
was a remarkable turnaround the Canadian economy had seen with
the elimination of the deficit, the largest paydown of debt in
Canadian history and the largest reduction of taxes in Canadian
history.
In fact, most of the finance ministers would have agreed with
the conference board today which said that the first quarter of
2001 was one of those rare moments in history when a huge dose of
fiscal stimulus was actually occurring at exactly the time that
it was needed.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister talks about a huge paydown in
debt. He has paid down less than half of the amount of debt that
he added to the national debt.
Today we learned from Statistics Canada that the leading
economic indicator has dropped for the fourth straight month. We
also know that retail sales have slipped. Manufacturing
shipments are down by 19% over the past four months.
How can he continue to talk about a rosy scenario when all the
economic indicators are on a downslide?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have made it very clear that the signals are mixed. In
fact we are monitoring the situation very closely.
I just think that it is really incumbent upon the hon. member as
well to be balanced and not to be fear mongering. He talks about
retail sales. He is wrong. Retail sales were up 1% above the
fourth quarter of the year 2000. His facts are wrong.
As far as the payment of debt, the Alliance Party recommended
that we pay down debt by an average of $6 billion a year. The
fact is that we have paid down debt by $7 billion on average over
the last four years, $1 billion more than it ever thought it
could do.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, wrong again. We proposed a legislated minimum of $6
billion a year, which would add up to a whole lot more, with 75%
of unanticipated surpluses going to debt reduction.
The minister talks about the IMF report which reported that over
the last three years our productivity growth has been about a
third of the productivity growth in the United States.
How can the minister continue to say that Canada is leading the
world when in fact our major trading partner sees its
productivity growing three times as fast as here in Canada
because of his high tax high debt policies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to understand this legislated debt paydown.
Is that the legislated debt paydown that the then Alberta
treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, brought in when he was
the treasurer of Alberta and then had to amend six months later
when he could not hit the target? Is that what he is talking
about?
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE AND ACADIAN COMMUNITIES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the new
minister responsible for official languages has inherited quite
a challenge.
Assimilation is taking a heavy toll on Canada's francophone and
Acadian communities, despite the courageous efforts of these
communities. According to Statistics Canada the rate of
assimilation is constantly increasing and stood at 36% in the
last census.
If the minister truly wants to change this state of affairs, and
I hope he does, and come up with solutions, will he first admit
that he must recognize the problem of assimilation from which
these communities are suffering, rather than deny it, as the
federal government has for too long done?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has never denied that there were
problems and we intend to do everything necessary to correct the
problems that have been identified.
I simply wish to say that I will be very pleased to receive any
advice the member has to give as a parliamentarian, but his
political party, with its plan to establish an international
border between the francophones of this country, lacks all
credibility in this regard.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, those
who have no credibility are those who make such remarks because,
if there are problems, they are attributable to the federal
government, even with Quebec still in the federation. The
sovereignists have undertaken to recognize and maintain the
rights of Anglo-Quebecers in a sovereign Quebec.
When the minister implies, and this is too often the case
with federal ministers, that communities would no longer have
rights without Quebec, is this not blackmail, because these
communities should have collective rights, whether or not Quebec
is there, because these communities exist in their own right in
Acadia and throughout Canada, whether or not Quebec is a member
of the federation? This is blackmail.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that the worst thing that could
happen to the francophones of this country would be to find
themselves divided by a move to separate, which in no way serves
their interests.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
we hear about blackmail, let us talk about the best thing that
could happen to francophone and Acadian communities.
The commissioner recognizes that the best services to minority
communities are provided in Quebec. Anglophones have health,
cultural and educational services in English.
Will the minister pledge to propose to the provinces to provide
services for francophones and Acadians that are equivalent to
those provided to anglophones in Quebec? That would be best.
Will the minister deal with this issue?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is all together that francophones will succeed in
promoting the cause of French in Quebec, in Canada and all over
the world.
This will definitely not be achieved by a political party that
called francophones outside Quebec dead ducks, francophones-poof
and paraplegics.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
I hear the minister continuing to resort to blackmailing these
communities, when I hear the Prime Minister say that if there
were problems it is because of cuts, I wonder how he explains
the cut of $100 million that he made to his official languages
support program, while at the same time investing $60 million to
create the Canada Information Office, which is mostly active in
Quebec.
Would it not have been better to use that money to help
communities in anglophone provinces across Canada, communities
that are in need and do not have access to the same services as
Anglo-Quebecers in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the first time in human history, the number of
languages in the world is diminishing instead of increasing.
For the first time in human history, a language, English, will
become an international language to an even greater extent than
Latin was in antiquity.
Canada is the one country in the world that has shown the way to
linguistic pluralism. We have shown that we were right to do so.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Toronto Dominion Bank, the government's policy
to accelerate economic integration with the U.S. means Canada
might just as well abandon its own currency and just cede control
of its monetary policy to the Americans. That is where the Prime
Minister's love affair with the FTAA is leading us.
Canadians need to hear loud and clear that the government
categorically rejects this recipe for Canada's demise. Will the
government give that assurance today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the NDP has somewhat misread the article.
The document by the Toronto Dominion Bank said that
dollarization would not be the appropriate policy at this time.
It then went on to say “However, it might be at some future
time”.
If what the hon. member wants is a categorical refusal to go the
dollarization route, if what the hon. member is looking for is a
reaffirmation of this government's intention to maintain monetary
sovereignty, I am delighted to say that is exactly this
government's policy.
1430
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, within
10 years does not seem like much of a future, far off date.
The finance minister mouths words about maintaining control of
our currency, yet the government cannot change the rules fast
enough to weaken our ability to do that with changes to the
financial services act and through propelling us further into an
ill conceived FTAA.
The government promises to maintain our currency and
systematically erodes the very foundation of the Canadian dollar.
Is the government doing this in total ignorance or is it sheer
hypocrisy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given the positions that have been taken by the NDP and
given those criteria and the elements one requires to have
monetary sovereignty, it is a little hard to understand her
question.
The fact is that elimination of deficits and the pay down of
debt are part of that. The NDP has opposed that. Reduction of
taxes is a part of that. The NDP has opposed that. In fact in
all areas where the government has sought to invest to support
the new economy, research and development and regional
development, all areas which would build the new economy, the NDP
has consistently taken a position of voting against the
government.
The fact is that her positions taken in parliament—
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Business
Development Bank asked Justice Silcoff for an order that included
the destruction of documents. That is a very unusual request,
and the judge refused it.
Why did the crown corporation request the destruction of
documents? Was the Prime Minister or anyone on his behalf
involved in any way with the decision to ask the court to order
the destruction of documents?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, neither the Prime Minister nor his staff was involved in
any effort to get a court order on this matter. I challenge the
accuracy of the hon. member's remarks about destruction of
documents.
In any event this was done by the bank, an arm's length agency
from the federal government. The Prime Minister was not
involved.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have another question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The
Business Development Bank documents confirm that its own loan
analysis showed that the Auberge Grand-Mère loan was very high
risk.
When the Prime Minister was lobbying the Business Development
Bank on behalf of Mr. Duhaime, was he advised of that unusually
high risk? If he knew that this involved such an unusual risk of
public funds, what special circumstances caused him to press for
this loan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been put on record many times that the decision
was made within the bank according to its usual practices.
A validation of the decision by the bank is through the fact
that the local caisse populaire and the Fonds de solidarité des
travailleurs du Québec looked at this project and decided to
share in its financing. They were not linked in any way with the
Prime Minister who made representations properly as a member of
parliament.
The decision was made within the bank. It was validated by the
caisse populaire and the worker solidarity fund. If the hon.
member wants to attack these arm's length bodies, it shows just
how weak and empty his arguments are in this matter.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, speaking of Shawinigate, the ethics counsellor has
shown his love of travel. As a matter of fact, other than
Canada, he has visited 22 countries in the last three years, all
at taxpayer expense.
Could the minister explain how the ethics counsellor can find
many international destinations but does not seem to be able to
find the Prime Minister's riding in Quebec?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has now found a new way to sink to a new
low, attacking the integrity of a distinguished public servant.
He ought to be ashamed of himself. He must have travelled a long
way to get even deeper in the mud than he is already.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The call is for an independent
public inquiry. We have the ethics puppy dog who has been to
South America, Australia, China, and Europe, all on the taxpayer
dime. He has never found his way to Shawinigan, Quebec.
This is why Canadians are demanding that we have a full
independent public inquiry. When will we get it?
1435
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no need and no basis for the kind of inquiry
sought by the hon. member. The ethics counsellor, a
distinguished permanent career public servant, has looked into
the matter and found no breach of ethics. The RCMP has looked
into the matter and found nothing to go on.
I see the desperation of the Alliance Party by this renewed
attempt to detract attention from its own implosion and
disruption in trying to raise this matter rather than conditions
and questions of interest to Canadians. Why does it not get back
on track before it disintegrates completely?
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry made the statement
that the lease between the Auberge Grand-Mère and the golf club
was a forgery.
He has now had 24 hours to verify that the lease is genuine.
How can the government justify the letter sent by the Prime
Minister to the Conservative leader with statements to the
effect that there was no connection whatsoever between the
auberge and the golf club and that, on the contrary, they were
competitors, whereas once again the lease proves exactly the
opposite?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
The ethics counsellor reported on this matter and clearly stated
in a press release dated March 1, 2001, in connection with the
company, in which the Prime Minister had an interest, as
follows:
The company sold its interests in the Auberge Grand-Mère to Mr.
Yvon Duhaime. This company was paid in full by the summer of 1993.
Therefore, there were no continuing financial links between Mr.
Duhaime and the Prime Minister after the middle of 1993.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is playing the wrong
tape.
The Shawinigan property registry—here I am talking about a lease,
so let the Deputy Prime Minister not answer about something
other than the lease—indicates the existence of a lease signed in
1988, but has no indication of that lease being terminated
before it expired in 1998.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the existence
of this lease clearly demonstrates that the Prime Minister was
in a conflict of interest situation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker,
absolutely not.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health will know that
one of the concerns surrounding this billion dollars for new
equipment for Canadians is that the money is allegedly being used
not to buy the needed new equipment but to pay for existing
orders, equipment that had already been ordered and would have
come anyway. In other words, some of the billion dollars is not
buying new equipment.
Could the minister could tell us if he could do anything to
ensure that Canadians actually get a billion dollars worth of new
equipment that they would not have had otherwise?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member raises a very good point. It was part of the
agreement last September that as the Government of Canada
provided the billion dollars and left it to the provinces to
exercise their judgment about what equipment to buy, they would
report to the public on how they spent that money so the public
could see that it went for new equipment.
I am writing my provincial counterparts to ask them to now
report to the public on how that money was used so we may all see
that it went to new medical equipment.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this question is particularly
critical in light of some of the recent concerns raised by
radiologists, for example, saying that tests are not only
unreliable but there may need to be some legal warnings to
patients that they are not getting good results from equipment.
Could the minister tell us the time line he has in mind for
Canadians to know exactly what they are getting for this
expenditure?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will ask the provincial and territorial ministers of health to
respond as soon as possible. Obviously I will make their
responses public as they have undertaken to tell the public how
they are spending that money.
1440
The government believes strongly that Canadians, no matter where
they live, have the right of access to the finest, the best, the
most effective medical equipment and treatment and need settle
for nothing less. That was our objective in putting that money
on the table.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the oil
companies continue to accumulate huge profits and we witness
real collusion, the prices at the pump continue to rise.
The former Minister of Industry could come up with no better
idea than to order a study by the Conference Board, where the
oil companies are represented. As we expected, it produced
nothing.
The public wants the government to take strong action
against the oil companies.
Will the government finally admit that its study is worthless?
While they studied and pussyfooted around, the prices kept
rising, and the oil companies made unconscionable profits.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the study that was undertaken by the conference board
was obviously a very independent and professional study. I would
point out that the conference board includes in its ranks a
number of eminent organizations from the province of Quebec,
including the Quebec department of natural resources. The study
should have some credibility on that basis.
The issue of the regulation of consumer prices of petroleum
products is very squarely within the jurisdiction of the
provinces, not the Government of Canada but the provinces. I
would like to know from the hon. gentleman if is recommending a
federal intrusion in provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government, the Minister of Natural Resources can think of
nothing better to say than increases are inevitable and others
are to blame. In the meantime, truckers, taxi drivers, farmers
and low income households continue to pay exorbitant prices.
Will the minister acknowledge finally that, instead of preaching
resignation, he should consolidate the provisions of the
Competition Act, which by the way is a federal jurisdiction, to
bring the oil companies into line once and for all?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have the competition bureau to receive evidence. If there is
evidence, it should be passed along to the competition bureau.
However, regulating the retail price of gasoline is a provincial
matter. If the member is serious with his question, why does he
not approach his colleagues in Quebec to get this matter
settled?
* * *
GASOLINE TAXES
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
in 1999-2000, the government accumulated revenues of about
$333 million by imposing a tax on a tax.
Indeed, the GST is imposed on the federal and provincial taxes
on gasoline.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he finally
correct that injustice by eliminating double taxation on
gasoline?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. member surely knows, this is an issue that was raised
vigorously here and that was examined by several of our members,
including the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
We did the necessary review. We talked to small retailers and
companies. They told us that if we went ahead with that measure,
it would really create an administrative nightmare for them and
that it would be better to leave things as they are.
As I told the hon. members from our party, we continue to look
at the situation.
[English]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in 1995 the government raised the federal excise tax on
gasoline by 1.5 cents per litre in order to fight the deficit.
That battle has been over yet Canadians are still paying that
tax, over $700 million in 1999-2000 alone.
Will the Minister of Finance do the right thing and eliminate
this needless tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at the taxes on gasoline they are
substantially higher at the provincial level than they are at the
federal level. That is why the federal government made the offer
to all provinces that if they wanted to act in concert on this
matter we would be prepared to do so.
The fact is a number of the provinces pointed out, including the
province of Ontario, that any reduction in tax would be simply
lost in volatility at the pump, and they were not prepared to
proceed.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as all
members of the House will know, it has been a long and difficult
winter for P.E.I. potato producers.
1445
Many warehouses still remain full of high quality potatoes
blocked from movement to market by unfair United States trade
action.
It is my understanding that some progress has been made to
resolve this dispute. What could the minister tell the House and
Prince Edward Island potato producers with respect to the
discussions and any decisions which have been reached on this
issue?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the difficulty this
issue has caused for the producers of potatoes in Prince Edward
Island. There has been a lot of discussion. The Prime Minister
has entered into discussion at least twice with the president.
Officials have been in discussions. I have been in discussions
with the secretary in the United States.
Yesterday and today officials are again meeting. They are
exchanging documents this morning and this afternoon. I am very
optimistic that in the very near future we will have the border
open between Canada and the United States.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the trade minister. While police were firing
tear gas and plastic bullets last weekend on peaceful
demonstrators in Quebec City, inside the summit leaders were
celebrating their great democracy clause.
Is it not a fact that this so-called democracy clause makes
absolutely no link whatsoever between respect for democracy and
access to the FTAA? In fact, the only sanction is exclusion from
hemispheric summits. Is it not just window dressing to cover up
their failure to deal with human rights, the environment and
worker rights?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the immense commitment, under the
leadership of our Prime Minister, the hemispheric leaders met
through the democracy clause has also been supported by the world
banks that have committed to work in that direction. I think
this is major progress.
As the free trade area of the Americas is also one of the
results of the summit of the Americas, one cannot participate in
the free trade area of the Americas if one is not part of the
summit. One cannot participate in the summit if one does not
respect democracy.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Yesterday people around the world solemnly commemorated
the Armenian genocide of 1915.
When will the Liberal government finally stand up to pressure
from the Turkish government and officially recognize, along with
many parliaments including the French parliament, this genocide
not just as a calamity, not just as a tragedy, but as a genocide,
the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I am very pleased to know that there is a fund
being accumulated for the hon. member's trousers. I hope to
contribute to it.
I would also like to remind him of the importance that many of
us place on his actually coming out and condemning the violence
that occurred so often in Quebec City on the wrong side, so that
we understand exactly where he stands on the question of how we
maintain order and civility in society.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday
the Americans added Atlantic Canada to their softwood lumber
countervail charges. Atlantic Canada through industry efforts
had been excluded.
What action has the minister taken to deal with this important
issue before we have bankrupt mills in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were consultations last week in
Washington with the commerce department. Our government has made
very clear that if the Americans wanted to recognize what they
have recognized in the past 20 years, that there are no
allegations from the producers in the United States about
Atlantic Canada, and wanted to make an exemption, this is
something that our government would certainly support.
We are engaged in consultations with the commerce department in
order to recognize what has been recognized for many years, that
is an exemption for Atlantic producers in any countervailing
duty. We will fight for the whole country.
1450
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on April 9 the Minister for International Trade held a press
conference in which he stated that there was no urgency in the
softwood lumber issue because “there is no way countervailing
duties could apply before August”.
This is wrong. The duties could be retroactively charged as of
yesterday. Already softwood lumber orders are being cancelled.
Will the minister finally call together the industry from coast
to coast and once and for all establish a plan of action the
industry can live with?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been in consultation with the
industry on a daily basis for a very long time. We have been
monitoring the file extremely closely. We will be having a
stakeholders conference in the next few weeks when the industry
also feels that the time is opportune.
I think it is very important that as a country we remain united.
We should not play one region against the other. We should try
not to panic. We should not play the game of the Americans,
because we know that on this issue, east and west, Atlantic and
Quebec, we are not subsidizing our industry and we should say it
loud and clear.
* * *
INDUSTRY CANADA
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, another damaging audit has condemned Industry Canada in
the handling of the access.ca project.
This audit found that the information highway branch bypassed
the federal contracting system, backdated agreements and could
not confirm whether those companies paid to deliver the program
had fulfilled their obligations.
Will the minister explain why he would tolerate such shoddy and
dubious management in this project?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also answering for the Minister of Industry today.
The hon. member has asked an interesting question. I will have
to check to see whether what he is saying is accurate. I will
look into it, and either myself or the Minister of Industry will
get back to him before too long.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, while he is looking into it, maybe he could look into a
couple of other matters.
This is a follow up audit to another that raised serious
questions last October. Despite being given explicit training on
correct procurement procedures after the last audit, the director
continued to flaunt the rules. In fact this individual pressured
fellow employees to approve questionable invoices and told them
not to express concerns about the contracting process.
Will the minister or the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House
that he will either direct the branch to follow the government's
procurement rules or else set them free to the private sector?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I will check on the accuracy of what the hon.
member has said. We will look into this and provide him with an
answer.
In the meantime, I would love to see a management audit of the
Alliance Party. I am sure there would be some shocking results
in it to date. Where is its management audit?
* * *
[Translation]
CHEESE IMPORT
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under the WTO
agreement, Canada may import 20,400 tonnes of cheese annually.
But, without any trade agreement requiring it to do so, Canada
last year imported 9,000 additional tonnes of cheese.
Will the Minister for International Trade confirm that the
government issued such permits and that it is thus continuing to
import cheese in excess of WTO quotas?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Canadian government always
respects its international obligations.
It is true that we occasionally go beyond our obligations when
it comes to international trade. This can sometimes arise
because Canadian consumers are asking for more of certain
specific products. When they justify their need for those
products, we can then exceed quotas to meet domestic needs.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
that the minister understood the question.
This is an issue that is detrimental to the interests of dairy
producers in Quebec and in Canada, who already have excess
inventory on their hands.
Since Canada is under no obligation in this regard, will the
minister undertake not to issue any more such supplementary
import permits?
1455
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not issue supplementary import
permits when products are not requested or required in
connection with the needs of certain consumers or of our market.
We definitely have the best interest of our dairy industry's
cheese producers at heart. We are regularly prepared to promote
their interests outside the country, just as we are going to
keep on respecting, but not exceeding, our international trade
obligations, barring a specific requirement in our economy.
* * *
[English]
CIDA
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, an internal evaluation conducted by the United Nations
development program exposed its west African gun control project
as a complete failure.
Unfortunately for Canadian taxpayers the minister responsible
for CIDA sunk $400,000 into this botched project. Why does this
minister continue to give hundreds of thousands of dollars with
no monitoring in place to ensure value for taxpayer money?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the main priorities of my
department is peace building and conflict resolution and to try
to bring peace in different parts of the world where thousands of
people are still dying.
It is absolutely critical that we continue to assist and work
very hard to ensure that peace is negotiated and brought about
and victims get the kind of assistance they need.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the question was regarding gun control in west Africa.
According to the minister's draft long term strategy document,
“CIDA finds itself managing a large number of projects, with
fewer and fewer resources and more and more demands on staff time
and resources”.
How could the minister guarantee taxpayer value for aid dollars
when the number of projects remain constant but the resources to
monitor them are shrinking?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that every program at
CIDA is thoroughly monitored. In fact the auditor general in all
audits said that 97% of all the programs that were audited showed
100% compliance.
We are very careful and the department is extremely vigilant in
all the programming that we do.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
serious allegations were made in the House yesterday regarding
living conditions on Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. I call on
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
to respond to this allegation.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's question
is a good one.
Over $5 million has been invested in health and safety repairs
for married quarters over the last two years at CFB Esquimalt.
The health and safety of all members of the Canadian forces is
our first priority. We intend it to continue to be our first
priority.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today Canada's privacy commissioner is questioning
the practice by Canada Customs and Revenue of opening mail on
behalf of Immigration Canada and other departments. The
commissioner had previously suggested that the immigration
department obtain a search warrant to open large suspicious
parcels. That suggestion was rejected by the minister of
immigration.
My question is for the immigration minister. Why did she balk
at getting search warrants to open these packages and not protect
the privacy of the citizens of the country?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have asked my departmental officials to
verify that the powers which are in the hands of customs and
revenue are in compliance with the law which was passed by the
House.
Certainly privacy is a paramount consideration. However the
member should know that we are very concerned about fraudulent
documents which are coming into Canada in packages that are
properly opened by customs and revenue to ensure the national
security interests of all Canadians are considered as a priority.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the privacy of our
citizens is less important than the convenience of the
immigration department?
I am not disputing the need for confiscation of contraband
items, but protecting the privacy of Canadian citizens should be
top priority, not invading it.
What are the minister's specific plans to ensure that the mail
which crosses our borders will not be tampered with
unnecessarily?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that Citizenship
and Immigration Canada does not have any legislative authority to
open mail. The department does not do that.
1500
It is Customs and Excise Canada that opens mail where it has
reasonable grounds to believe that the package contains documents
which may be fraudulent. Those are then given to the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration as evidence and can be seized
under the Immigration Act. That is in the national security
interests of Canada and, as I said before, privacy concerns are
always paramount.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the softwood
lumber agreement ended on April 1, and producers in Quebec and
Canada are concerned by the turn of events and the attitude of
the Americans, who are calling for the imposition of
countervailing duties.
Could the Minister for International Trade not show a little
more initiative and be a little less professorial with American
producers by forming a delegation to explain just what goes on
in the lumber industry in Canada?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for her
constructive suggestion.
Every possible way to inform American opinion and to make it
clear to the U.S. Congress just how things are and how they work
in Canada would be useful.
I can assure the member that the Canadian embassy has done a
magnificent job over the past year and that we have more support
in Washington than we have had for a very long time.
I invite all of my colleagues visiting Washington or meeting
American legislators to be sure to pass on accurate information
to build our case.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday an historic labour agreement was signed
with Costa Rica.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Labour. Could she explain to the House the importance of this
agreement?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this agreement on labour
co-operation with Costa Rica demonstrates Canada's commitment to
promoting and protecting worker rights in the context of the
trade liberalization of the Americas.
Both countries have pledged to enforce their laws relating to
the 1998 ILO declaration on fundamental rights and principles at
work.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the Governor
General's Caring Canadian Award.
[Translation]
Her Excellency the Governor General presented these awards at a
ceremony this morning at her residence. The Governor General's
Caring Canadian awards go to persons who make a significant
voluntary and unpaid contribution to their fellow citizens and
to their community.
[English]
I know all hon. members join me in saluting the selfless efforts
of these caring Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I take this opportunity under
subsection 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons
to table, in both official languages, the declaration and the
plan of action report of the summit of the Americas.
* * *
1505
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the
House, in both official languages, reports from the Canadian
Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, concerning the
50th commonwealth seminar which was held in London, the United
Kingdom, from March 6 to March 17.
Mr. Speaker, this was the 50th seminar on parliamentary
procedure and practice, something I know that you are most
interested in. It was an opportunity to share experiences not
only with members of parliament in the United Kingdom but with
more than 20 commonwealth countries.
This is something the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has
now been doing for 50 years and the possibility of sharing
experience with more than 20 legislatures like our own is
something that I recommend to all members of parliament.
* * *
NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term
management of nuclear fuel waste.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Food and Drugs
Act (process for approval of new drugs).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an act to amend the Food and
Drugs Act specifically in regard to the approval of new drugs,
because we are concerned that the approval process in this
country is too long and too laboured. What we are asking Canada
to do is to at least adopt the model used by the European
Community, where on average drugs are approved at least six
months ahead of ours.
We are also asking that the minister transfer funds from his
existing budget into the approval process to expedite the
approval of drugs so needed in Canada to help fight disease. In
fact, these new drugs will eventually reduce the costs of health
care.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that Bill S-5, an act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority
Act, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am presenting today a petition signed by residents of the city
of Val-d'Or, the Vallée de l'Or RCM and workers at McWatters'
Sigma-Lamague mine.
The petitioners are asking the government to make the rules
governing existing programs more flexible and to ensure they are
being used in resource regions.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to set up a
financial assistance program for thin capitalization mines in
Quebec's resource regions.
1510
[English]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions to the House today. One of them is
a petition from over 200 Canadians across the country who are
concerned that the Canadian government has been negotiating the
FTAA in secret.
They believe that the clandestine nature of these negotiations
must end. They are requesting that the documents of the FTAA
agreement be made public for public democratic consultation.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition I would like to present is a petition from 3,000
Canadians who are concerned about the 1993 death of Tracey
Latimer.
They are petitioning the Government of Canada to protect the
rights of Canadian citizens, especially those with disabilities,
by refusing to pardon Mr. Latimer from his conviction for second
degree murder or from his sentence of life imprisonment without
parole eligibility for at least 10 years, the minimum for that
crime.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present yet another petition from people in the
Peterborough area who want to re-establish VIA Rail service
between Toronto and Peterborough.
They point to the environmental advantages of commuter service.
It will reduce emissions, accidents and stress on the highways.
It will also strengthen Peterborough as a centre for tourism,
business and education and, by the way, as a commuter centre.
Like four or five other MPs, I support this petition.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Second, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition that is also from
people in the Peterborough area. They are concerned about the
sanctions against Iraq.
They point out that these sanctions are doing nothing with
respect to Saddam Hussein and his government, but they are doing
a great deal of damage to the people, particularly the children
of Iraq. These people urge that these sanctions be lifted
because they are doing nothing to persuade the government of Iraq
to change its ways.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Last, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present another petition from Canadians concerned
about kidney disease.
They say that real progress is being made in ways of preventing
and coping with kidney disease, but they call upon parliament to
encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to
explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in
its system, that institute to be called the institute of kidney
and urinary tract diseases.
* * *
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.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Here we go again. I have
had a series of questions on the order paper for way over 45
days, which relate to the abuse of shell fishers by HRDC.
How much of this can we tolerate? This is not the first time,
as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, as I see you shaking your
head in disgust at this member getting up time and time again.
When will the government respond in a timely fashion to these
questions? It limits our abilities as members of parliament when
we can put only four questions on the order paper. If we are
talking about reforming the House, it can start over there with
the House leader demanding that government ministers answer these
questions in a timely fashion. That is all we are asking for.
The Speaker: I want to assure the hon. member that I was
shaking my head only in sorrow at his plight.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, we do not want anyone to get
too emotional about this, but I want to thank the hon. member for
his representation. As usual, preparation of answers to written
questions proceeds fairly expeditiously and we will get back to
the House with an answer very soon.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that all questions be allowed
to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1515
[Translation]
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act to
amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and
Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, as
reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave,
now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill
C-3 at third reading.
The Canadian economy is still strong, thanks in part to the
solid performance of the resource industries.
Canadian companies in that area are proving that they cannot
only prosper in the knowledge economy of the 21st century but
also contribute to its dynamism and vitality.
However the prosperity of the resource sector should not be
taken for granted. The industry must be able to make strategic
decisions and to better position itself on domestic and foreign
markets.
The changes proposed in Bill C-3 will allow two actors in the
natural resources sector, namely Cameco Corporation and
Petro-Canada, to continue contributing to the economic growth and
environmental stewardship by lifting restrictions that have no
more reason to be and which prevent them from attracting new
investments and concluding new strategic alliances.
Those two companies used to be crown corporations. The
Government of Canada sold all its shares in Cameco in 1995. It
has kept an 18% participation in Petro-Canada, but it is a
carried interest and the government has no say in the management
of the corporation.
At the time of privatization the government imposed
restrictions on the proprietary interest of the two companies. It
had good reasons to do so, but some restrictions have since
outlived their usefulness and only prevent the two companies from
taking advantage of new business opportunities.
In particular, Bill C-3 changes the restrictions imposed on
share ownership and the disposal of property by the Petro-Canada
Public Participation Act. It also amends the share ownership
provisions of the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and
Divestiture Act, which governs Cameco.
With regard to Petro-Canada, Bill C-3 will raise from 10% to 20%
the limit on individual shares ownership. Moreover, the 25% limit
on the total number of shares that can be owned by non-residents
will be eliminated. In other words, there will be no more
restriction to the foreign ownership of Petro-Canada's shares,
except that an individual, of whatever origin, will not be
allowed to own more than 20% of the shares of the company.
Despite the abolition of the limit on foreign ownership,
Petro-Canada is likely to remain under predominantly Canadian
ownership in the foreseeable future.
First, the 20% limit on individual ownership of voting shares in
Petro-Canada prevents any potential takeover by a major
multinational.
Second, there is far greaten interest for Petro-Canada among
Canadian investors than foreign investors. As a matter of fact
the foreign participation in the company does not exceed 16%,
while the existing act allows up to 25%.
Third, under the Canada Business Corporations Act corporations
subjected to share ownership restrictions like Petro-Canada are
still required to be run by a board of directors comprised of a
majority of Canadians.
1520
In order to give Petro-Canada more latitude with the management
of its assets, 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
which makes no distinction between upstream and downstream
assets. The bill maintains just the level of prohibition
necessary to prevent the company from shutting down operations
through the sale of all its assets.
In the case of Cameco, Bill C-3 eases restrictions currently
imposed on foreign ownership without eliminating them
completely.
The limit on individual non-resident share ownership will be
raised from 5% to 15%. The limit on collective non-resident share
ownership will increase from 20% to 25%. As for the ownership
limit for an individual Canadian shareholder, it will remain at
25%.
In spite of the reduction of the foreign participation
restrictions, Cameco will always be controlled by Canadians and
the majority of its capital will remain held by Canadians in the
foreseeable future.
First, the 15% individual non-resident share ownership
restriction rules out any possibility of takeover by a major
multinational.
Second, with the 25% limit on collective non-resident share
ownership, control over Cameco cannot fall into foreign hands.
Third, Cameco generates much more interest among Canadian
investors than among foreign investors. Indeed, foreign
participation in the corporation does not exceed 6% right now,
whereas the current legislation allows a 20% participation.
Fourth, under the Canada Business Corporations Act, corporations
such as Petro-Canada which are subjected to share ownership
restrictions are still required to be run by a board of directors
comprised of a majority of Canadians.
Bill C-3 has the support of both corporations, which see the
current restrictions as unfair in that they do not apply to other
corporations in their respective sectors of activity.
In my opinion the legislation will be well received by all
investors both in Canada and abroad.
At the same time it will protect the Canadian status of
Petro-Canada and Cameco. The headquarters will remain in Canada
and the majority of the board of directors will be made up of
Canadians.
I can assure my colleagues that in the case of Petro-Canada the
proposed amendments will have no impact on the price of refined
petroleum products. A recent study carried out by the Conference
Board of Canada confirmed that the price of gasoline is
established mainly according to supply and demand and has
nothing to do with property rules governing one company
of the Canadian petroleum industry.
I can also assure the House that the proposed amendments will
have absolutely no impact on the competitiveness of the Canadian
oil and gas industry.
Also, this bill is not a prelude to the sale of the government's
shares in Petro-Canada.
Although its holdings in Petro-Canada no longer serve any of its
political purposes, the government is waiting for the right time
to sell off its shares. In other words, it will wait until the
market conditions ensure optimal yield for Canadian taxpayers.
I also want to inform hon. members that the proposed changes
to the Cameco legislation will not change anything in the
commitment Canada made toward non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons or nuclear security.
Uranium is a regulated substance of strategic importance. The
Canadian policy concerning uranium exportation is subject to the
support regulations of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and to
permits delivered under the Export and Import Permits Act.
Canadian substances, equipment and technology cannot be used to
manufacture nuclear explosive devices.
1525
The Government of Canada has not only urged its trading partners
to ratify the non-proliferation treaty but it has also entered
into nuclear co-operation agreements providing an additional
control mechanism.
The Government of Canada, and hon. members can rest assured of
this, thinks that it is still necessary to impose restrictions on
the foreign ownership of uranium. Bill C-3 gives Cameco better
access to foreign capital and allows it to develop new strategic
alliances, but it does not in any way compromise the Canadian
control of the company.
I would like also to underline that Cameco has the support of
another element of the public sector, and I am referring
obviously to the government of Saskatchewan. It has indicated
that it totally supported the proposed amendments to Bill C-3.
Obviously the bill is consistent with sound management of
public affairs. During the discussions in committee there were
no serious objections. In fact, hon. members of most parties
have expressed their support for the bill.
[English]
This bill is good for Petro-Canada, good for Cameco and good for
all Canadians. I urge my colleagues to adopt the legislation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on Bill C-3 to discuss
the amendments to the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and
Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
These two acts placed restrictions on individual and foreign
ownership when Petro-Canada and Cameco were first privatized some
years ago.
The bill intends to increase the companies' access to domestic
and foreign capital and enable greater flexibility in using share
exchanges and asset pooling to make acquisitions and strategic
alliances. I cannot help but hope the bill will finally pave the
way for the government to sell off its remaining 18% ownership or
49.4 million shares of Petro-Canada.
The bill does a number of things to make room for the sale. It
raises the limit on individual ownership of shares from 10% to
20%. The 25% limit on shares that can be owned collectively by
non-residents is removed. While it gives the company greater
flexibility to manage its asset portfolio, the bill also provides
a check against the company winding up its activities through the
outright sale of assets.
The parliamentary secretary has told us that the introduction
and passage of Bill C-3 does not pave the way for the sale of
Petro-Canada. He says that the government will wait for the most
favourable market conditions before proceeding with the sale.
However, I, and I think most other Canadians, cannot conceive of
a more favourable time than today. The industry is healthy, the
company is strong and the conditions in my opinion could not be
more favourable.
Given that, what does all this mean? Petro-Canada was created
in 1975 as one of the mechanisms of the national energy program.
The feeling of western Canadians, certainly myself and those
representing ridings in the region, are well documented when it
comes to the national energy program. We never did buy the
Liberal line that the program was a vehicle for nationalist
dreams and a ticket to energy self sufficiency. At the time
Canadians were told we had less than 20 years worth of
recoverable oil reserves and that high gasoline taxes were a
justifiable means of guaranteeing our future energy needs.
When we look at where the oil industry in Canada currently
stands, we see that our skepticism was appropriate. Twenty-five
years later we know those empty threats were little more than
Liberal hogwash, a simple money grab and a flagrant breach of the
principles of Confederation by the federal government, a Liberal
federal government. We now have proven oil reserves that will
supply Canada's energy needs well into the future.
1530
There is in excess of 200 years of recoverable reserves in the
tar sands of northern Alberta alone. The Liberal government
might have thought that it had fooled Canadians but we knew that
it was the federal government poking its rather large and
unwelcome nose into the oil and gas industry, an intrusion that
was totally unasked for, unappreciated and clearly unnecessary.
Although the national energy program was eventually dismantled,
Petro-Canada lives on, fed by taxpayer dollars without their
approval.
Eventually the government changed its mind and in 1991
decided that it no longer needed a crown corporation in the
energy business and began the privatization process. In the end,
with the fluctuations in the markets, business setbacks and even
the present political struggles, Petro-Canada ended up as an oil
company much like any other oil company in Canada.
However, the government, or should I say the taxpayers, still
owns 18% of the company and is the single largest holder of
stock. Only the government could own more than 10%.
Back in 1994 I questioned the government why it would not sell
off its national oil company while the industry was strong in
order to recoup some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that
were used to create Petro-Canada in the first place. I 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. In 1995 a Liberal budget promised to totally privatize
Petro-Canada. We can see today how reliable that Liberal promise
was and, like so many other budget promises, it is something that
we should consider over the coming weeks.
The fact remains that Petro-Canada cost Canadians over $5
billion. Petro-Canada has never provided any benefit to
Canadians that could not have been provided by the private
sector. When it was finally privatized Petro-Canada started
making a profit and competing effectively in the industry.
Governments, since Petro-Canada was established, have never had
the courage to admit to Canadians that they would only be able to
recover less than $2 billion of the original cost of
Petro-Canada. If the bill is indeed the first step in the
process of the government selling off its remaining shares of
Petro-Canada, my first response is that it is about time.
I am curious as to the timing of the bill. On Bay Street
investors have driven up Petro-Canada share prices in
anticipation of a move by Ottawa to sell its shares. Today
Petro-Canada's shares are trading at $32.75 per share. That is
over a 46% increase so far this year. There is the potential for
the price to go even higher.
Bill C-3 would remove foreign ownership restrictions allowing
for an expanded market and potentially an increased price. If
the government were to sell its shares it could optimistically
find itself receiving $1.6 billion. That is a $3.4 billion loss
on what Canadians originally paid for Petro-Canada, a business
transaction that anyone could identify as a total disaster.
However, the government could find itself in possession of $1.6
billion. What would it do with that money? Since it was
originally taxpayer dollars that paid for Petro-Canada, the
funds should return to the taxpayers in a direct fashion rather
than being dumped into the general revenue fund that Liberal
cronies could dip into whenever they felt inclined.
I would like to see the money go to debt reduction or into
transportation improvements. Perhaps we could really be
revolutionary and put the money toward lowering gas taxes. What
an original idea. The Liberals recently voted against that in
the House. I do not expect that they would really show too much
interest in returning taxpayer dollars directly to taxpayers.
That is too simple, too clean cut and too direct a responsibility
for the government.
Bill C-3 does a number of things that I can support.
Petro-Canada is moving toward opening up the ownership of the
company to both national and international interests while
ensuring that the majority of the company is Canadian. The
legislation states that resident Canadians must make up the
majority of the board of directors. It also stipulates that the
head office of the company must remain in Calgary, which is a
common practice of the government and one that is not necessary
as it ties the hands of a number of companies that the government
has followed this practice on.
1535
The Canadian Alliance also supports the removal of restrictions
upon Canadian businesses to allow for both domestic and foreign
investing. We expect that Petro-Canada, once it is no longer
manipulated by the government, would continue to show profits and
growth.
Bill C-3 does not only address issues surrounding Petro-Canada.
It also addresses issues relating to the sale of shares of
Cameco, Canada's biggest uranium producer. Canada's Kyoto
commitments have increased the need for Canada to find green
energy. Nuclear energy is one option that is being examined. I
do not wish to get into a debate on the merits of nuclear energy.
That is a debate for another day. It is clear, however, that it
is part of the package the government is examining in
relationship to the Kyoto accord, along with the emission
reductions that we are trying to achieve.
Uranium remains a source of nuclear energy. It is a vital
factor in the world's efforts to reduce CO2 levels. It has been
and will increasingly be a strategically important resource for
the country. The bill raises foreign and individual ownership
limits for Cameco. Individual non-resident ownership would
increase from 5% to 15% and the limit on the total amount of
non-resident ownership of shares would increase from 20% to 25%.
I am pleased to see that the legislation is mindful of the
possible consequences of high levels of foreign ownership of
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 all the opportunities to succeed, we must also be
conscious of the need to keep such potentially volatile resources
within Canadian control. The bill allows for greater flexibility
in the selling of shares in Canadian companies, and I support
that effort.
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 wait and see if that is the case. If
Petro-Canada is sold off, we will see how much the Liberals think
Canadians have forgotten the original purpose of Petro-Canada and
the amount of money that taxpayers put forth to establish the
company in the first place.
The Canadian Alliance and I will be supporting the bill as we
have at each stage. We will continue to support the bill at
third reading. We are pleased that the government is showing the
initiative in opening up these companies to better investment and
a bit more flexibility in the way that they operate.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate today. At the outset I wish
to say that my caucus colleagues and I vigorously oppose Bill
C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization
and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation
Act.
The bill relates to the mandatory provisions in the articles of
Cameco Corporation, which was formerly known as Eldorado Nuclear
Ltd., and Petro-Canada which was created in 1975.
Bill C-3 was first introduced in the previous parliament and
died on the order paper with the dissolution of parliament last
fall. The bill provides that the articles of Cameco Corporation
would 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 stipulates
that the articles of Petro-Canada would be amended to allow for a
20% individual share ownership limit while the aggregate
non-resident share ownership limits would be eliminated.
In addition the prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal of
all or substantially all of Petro-Canada upstream and downstream
assets would be replaced with a similar prohibition on the sale,
transfer or disposal of all or substantially all its assets
without distinguishing between the upstream and downstream
sectors of the activity.
1540
[Translation]
Energy, mining, forestry, geomatics and related industries
currently account for approximately 11% of Canada's gross
domestic product. They employ directly nearly 800,000 Canadians
and account for 22% of new capital investment. The resource
sector exported $97 billion worth of goods and services in 1998
and it drives the economies of over 600 communities across
Canada.
Canada is the world's largest producer and exporter of uranium,
and Cameco is not only a Canadian state of the art company which
accounts for about 25% of the world's uranium production but
also the western world's uranium chemical conversion facility.
At one time Petro-Canada and Cameco were both crown corporations
wholly owned by taxpayers. The Government of Canada sold its
shares in Cameco in 1995.
Although the government currently owns 18% of Petro-Canada's
shares it does not influence the management of the company. At
the time of privatization certain ownership restrictions were
placed on both these companies.
[English]
I wish to talk about Petro-Canada because I remember it fondly,
not as a member of parliament but as a very proud moment in the
life of the federal New Democratic Party. Those with longer
memories will recall that in the minority government era of 1972
to 1974, the creation in 1975 of a publicly owned oil and gas
exploration company with downstream stations was part and parcel
of this party's support for the Liberal minority government
following the 1972 election.
I recall how Petro-Canada was talked about as being a window on
the industry with the other multinationals that were operating in
the country. Members will recall that at that time we were going
through some extreme price shocks following the crisis in the
gulf and the six day war in the Middle East in 1973. We had some
very sharp price hikes.
There were concerns about the rapid increase in gasoline fuel
prices in the country. Some rules were put in place to regulate
or to make sure that there was a flow through in terms of how
much product there was in the lines at the time. As I recall, it
was 60 days before some provinces would allow a price increase
after a world price change was announced because that is how the
price was determined in terms of the fuel that was in the line at
that time. That was a very important time and a very important
rationale for Petro-Canada to come into being.
There were additional benefits as well that were well
recognized. We talked about the ability to have a two price
system to take advantage of some of the enormous resources that
exist in Canada. We are a rich storehouse of resources. Canada
is blessed with some of the greatest natural resources in the
world, such as oil and gas reserves. We talked about a two price
system that would not only be a benefit to consumers but would
also be an incentive to make our products more competitive and
sell better abroad.
The world has changed dramatically in the last 25 years, and in
particular in the last 10 years. We cannot do that any more,
thanks to the free trade agreement and the North American Free
Trade Agreement and undoubtedly the FTAA when it is put into
place in three or four years from now.
We cannot set a two price system. We cannot have a price for
Canadian products or a domestic product in Canada and export our
commodities and our resources south of the border, or for that
matter to any other part of the world, without running afoul of
these WTO, FTAA and NAFTA arrangements.
1545
The Prime Minister was on his feet earlier this week in the
House of Commons trying to defend his position on natural
resources. He said that he wanted to keep the control of them in
this country. We have news for him. We have lost that control
already. We lost it some time ago. We lost it when we signed
the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
We cannot turn off the spigot any more and say that we want to
protect our resources so we will restrict the amount of our
exports. We can only do that if we turn off the spigot to our
people and our companies. It has to be done in direct
relationship, so that the whole two price system and our ability
to control our resources is very much hamstrung as a result of
these agreements.
These restrictions are causing hardship, distress and a good
deal of genuine inability to comprehend. I want to take a moment
to inform the House that this morning on my voice mail in my
Moose Jaw office there was a very worrisome call from an
individual named Chris. He said that he was trying to put food
on the table for his family but gas prices were going up, natural
gas was increasing and electricity was going up. He said there
had to be a ceiling on prices because they were getting crazy.
“How the heck are we going to live?” was what this individual
said in his voice mail.
What this individual fails to understand is that there is very
much a restriction on what a government, either at the provincial
or federal level, can do any more as a result of these free trade
agreements and the WTO. We do not have the ability any longer to
step in and say that yes, those prices are rising dramatically
and that we will take some action to lower them. That was the
case before.
When the government talks about more democracy and that free
trade agreements, NAFTA and FTAA will result in greater
democracy, people fail to understand because the fact of the
matter is that governments are more restricted today than they
were before in terms of what they are able to control and
regulate. That is what Chris is concerned about, although with
great respect to him, he fails to understand the connection
between what is happening in the world and the ability of
governments to have any bearing on it. The fact of the matter is
we are in a time and a society where what we are paying is
exactly what the market will bear. The notion that we can have
control on prices seems to be a far off dream.
All of this reminds me of what was said by Clay Yeutter who was
the U.S. trade representative in 1987-88. He said at the time
the initial free trade agreement was signed between Canada and
the United States that “Canadians do not understand what they
have signed. Within 20 years they will be sucked directly into
the U.S. economy”. That was 14 years ago, and I would say that
Mr. Yeutter's projections are fairly much on target.
We have no answer to the question of more democracy. As I was
trying to say a moment ago, governments are no longer able to
influence the cost. We have the invisible hand of the
marketplace at work.
Let me talk just a minute about the impact this has on the
agricultural sector because in 1995 about 12% of total input
costs were energy related. They have skyrocketed since then.
1550
Unfortunately I do not have the tables and the information to
show how much they have skyrocketed, but if we talked to any
farmer in any province in Canada he or she could give us lots of
facts about how much transportation costs have gone up as have
fuel bills, fertilizer bills et cetera.
I believe that all these sharp increases in prices run contrary
to the government's assumption that we would be and we were on a
long term low cost trend in terms of gasoline and fuel products.
The fact of the matter is that we have an extremely tight gas
market at the moment.
As a world, we require between 8 and 8.5 billion cubic feet of
natural gas every day just to stay current. There is a lot of
talk about big developments in Alaska and in the Mackenzie
Valley. Each of them might bring on stream perhaps one billion
cubic feet of gas per day. That is when they are developed in
about 10 years from now. We are only going to be standing still
at the very best.
The point I am trying to make is that I do not see prices coming
down. I see them continuing to escalate in the days, months and
years ahead.
With respect to oil, the U.S. requires about 19.5 million
barrels of oil each day to maintain all the things that run on
oil. A lot of people are talking about the Alberta tar sands as
being a big vast rich reserve of oil, which it is. However it is
also very costly. As David Suzuki pointed out last Wednesday
night at the environmental conference in Quebec City, developing
the Alberta tar sands would result in about 1.35 million cars on
the road each and the greenhouse gas effect that would have by
developing that very costly oil from the Alberta tar sands.
Transportation is the fastest growing cause of greenhouse gases
in the world. There has been an explosion in transportation over
the last 50 odd years because one day's trade today is equal to
about one year's trade 50 or 55 years ago.
The point I am trying to come to is that Petro-Canada was a very
good idea at the time. It could still be a viable project if the
crown corporation was allowed to continue to work both here and
abroad. The government, with its ties to big business and the
oil industry, is simply not interested in that at all. That is
why we see this legislation before us this afternoon.
What is privatization? It is the commercialization, nothing
more nor less, of the public sector, the part of society owned
and controlled by the public through government. These include
things such as medicare, schools, education, social services,
pensions and crown corporations. The privatization of all that
is when they are sold off and deregulated. In short,
privatization basically is transferring public dollars into
private hands at a profit.
From the creation of this country back in 1867, Canada relied
rather extensively, probably more so than many countries
certainly more so than the one immediately to the south of us, on
federal crown corporations. They played a central role in the
economic, cultural and political development of the country.
In 1937 Trans-Canada Airlines was created. The federal
government began to restructure many of its economic enterprises
into federal crown corporations. Currently there are over 40
federal crown corporations providing a vast array of services to
the Canadian public and Canadian business. They range from large
national enterprises, Canada Post Corporation being one, to
smaller more localized operations.
1555
Although many operate in competitive economic environments
providing services which are also provided by private sector
companies on a market basis, the purpose of a crown corporation
is markedly different than that of private sector companies.
While many, such as Canada Post, are supposed to operate on a
break-even basis, it is recognized by the auditor general that
surplus revenues may be used to help support non-profit oriented
endeavours devoted to serving the public interest.
The public welfare orientation of crown corporations was
recognized by the federal treasury board. The treasury board's
president in 1998, in the annual report, evaluated crown
corporations on criteria such as improving service to clients,
exporting expertise and contributing to Canada's social and
economic development. Profitability was never included in the
list of items to be evaluated.
In 1996 the province of Saskatchewan, which I have the privilege
of representing, conducted a major review of its crown
corporations to determine future direction. Crown corporations
form a significant part of Saskatchewan's economy, beginning with
the Douglas government back in 1944, and currently make up a
little more than 33% of its gross domestic product.
Saskatchewan's crown corporations are some of the largest
employers in that province.
Several important findings emerged throughout that review.
People in Saskatchewan believed that the role of commercial crown
corporations was to provide universal access to essential
services. They also believed that crown corporations should be
used to create employment and promote economic development.
The majority of submissions indicated that public investment
through crown corporations had a major role to play in the
province's economy, and that even partial privatization of these
enterprises would pose a major risk to Saskatchewan's economy.
Most people there believed that crown corporations were much more
publicly accountable than private corporations.
Despite those findings, at the federal level in recent years we
have witnessed a massive privatization of major federal crown
corporations. The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Canadian
Arsenal Limited, Teleglobe, CN, Air Canada and now Petro-Canada
are but a few of the public assets which have been auctioned off
to private sector investors, abandoning the long held belief that
a public presence in industry resources and finance is necessary
to promote broader public policy purpose objectives.
The federal government has adopted an approach based on the
ideological assumption that less public intervention is an
objective of state policy. Indeed under the current finance
minister, the government adopted a policy of privatizing and
commercializing government operations wherever feasible and
appropriate. That is what we are seeing today with Cameco Corp.
and Petro-Canada.
This policy framework also has been applied to justify the
privatization and cutbacks in numerous federal government
operations, boards, departments and agencies.
The whole point of all of this is that we need a democratic
process in the country. Most of the privatization has occurred
without any meaningful consultation with Canadian citizens and
certainly without the support or consent of trade unions and
associations representing the workers involved.
Privatization has been justified on the basis of misinformation
in too many instances. Promises and commitments made beforehand
were abandoned soon after the shares were sold and the investors
were making their money.
The debate around privatization must be expanded to include
societal values in addition to the economic consequences. Public
ownership implies a sense of accountability to the collective
welfare of society, which is unknown in the public sector. Public
ownership implies democratic access to decision making through
elected officials and representatives who are responsible to
public forums.
Public ownership of major economic institutions provides
governments with important economic levers to influence private
sector behaviour, both in terms of investment decisions and their
employment and managerial practices. The struggle to preserve
federal crown corporations is part of a greater struggle to
define our values and who we are as a nation.
1600
I will branch off a little and stay with crown corporations.
However I will first talk for a moment or two about the Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan which was a huge money maker for the
provincial government in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was
sold off when the Conservatives came to power in the province
after the 1982 election.
The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, PCS, still exists. It
is now privately owned and makes record profits every year. What
a boon it would have been to the Saskatchewan economy when the
Devine government was racking up billions of dollars in losses
every year and the red ink was flowing widely. The potash
corporation could have been a great boon had that government had
the wisdom to hang on to it, but of course it did not and it is
gone now, probably forever.
The same could be said of Northern Telecom, Nortel. The
Canadian market and the Toronto Stock Exchange are dependent
these days on how much Nortel rises or falls. People probably do
not remember that Nortel was once Northern Telecom, a crown
corporation which did a lot of good for the country. It was sold
off by an earlier government into private hands and is now making
gazillions of dollars for a few investors some of the time.
However the only benefit is on taxes paid, and it is not nearly
as much of a benefit for Canadians generally now that it is in
the hands of the private sector.
I will go back and talk a bit about the new higher price of
energy because the bill is on energy. As these price increases
reverberate throughout our economy they are causing a great deal
of economic and social dislocation.
A number of commentators have reminded us that nearly all
economic recessions in the U.S. over the past 60 years have been
preceded by a spike in energy costs. Like a new tax or a change
in interest rates, the new price of energy benefits a few and
costs many others.
We have seen huge profits racked up in the oil industry in North
America in recent years, particularly in the last couple of
years. The energy industry worldwide is benefiting from a market
in which the growth in demand has recently outstripped the growth
in supply and from which spare capacity has almost vanished.
Reports in the oil and gas journals cite industry experts who
predict a tight natural gas market in North America for years to
come as the gas business races to replace wells that are playing
out. The industry must find the equivalent of between eight and
eight and a half billion cubic feet of gas per day just to stay
level.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, is in
firm control of the world market and is successfully maintaining
its base price of about $25 U.S. a barrel. The gasoline market
is tight because demand is high but also because just in time
management techniques in the refining industry are turning out to
be more profitable for individual companies than for the economy
as a whole.
Officials are warning consumers in both Canada and the U.S. of
price spikes for gasoline this summer. We have seen that in the
province of Saskatchewan in the last 48 hours.
What does more expensive energy mean for agriculture?
Agriculture uses a great deal of energy. I mentioned the figure
of $4 billion in 1995 while gross farm receipts in the country
were just over $32 billion. That would be in excess of 12%, and
it would certainly have gone up a lot in the intervening six
years.
It seems the government has been taken by surprise. It did not
expect energy prices to deviate from a long low cost trend.
Thus far the government's response to the critical energy
situation facing North America has been to offer more, not less,
energy to the Americans.
1605
The Prime Minister's new sources of bountiful energy, the tar
sands and the gas in the Beaufort Sea, will not reverse the trend
toward higher energy prices. These are tremendously expensive
resources in terms of both extraction costs and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Massive public and private expenditures are required before
additional synthetic crude or new Arctic gas can be brought to
market. A $10 billion pipeline might bring a billion cubic feet
of gas per day down the Mackenzie Valley, but if we compare that
to the eight billion cubic feet of gas per day the industry now
needs just to stay even we see the problem.
The U.S. demand for petroleum products hovers around 19.5
million barrels a day. It takes billions of dollars and several
years to increase tar sands production by just 150,000 barrels
per day. A supply solution to high energy prices is not in
sight. Lowering demand would be a more effective route to lower
prices.
Many farmers are already lowering energy consumption through
techniques such as zero till, or zero tillage, to pronounce it
fully. Farmers rightly look to the federal government to
redirect money and effort it now spends on increasing the energy
supply toward a more productive and effective investment in
demand management strategy.
I listened with care to the parliamentary secretary's comments
that there is no restriction on foreign ownership and no need to
worry about the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Yes, we know
that very well, and I think it is to the great regret of the vast
majority of Canadians.
We were assured that CN and CP, particularly CN, would not be
subject to foreign takeover. However we now know that the vast
majority of shares in our two major rail lines, which may soon
become one, are held by people who live outside our borders. I
already mentioned what we saw with Nortel and the Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan.
All these points suggest that the bill, instead of being named
Bill C-3, should be named Bill C-745, the faint hope clause, in
the hope that none of these things will come to pass.
What is the New Democratic Party's position? We believe now is
not the time to give up our last meagre interest and influence in
these vital energy sector corporations. Opening the door to more
foreign control of our energy sector is shortsighted and not in
the best interests of Canada.
The government would have us believe the proposed changes to
Petro-Canada's ownership restrictions would have no bearing on
the price of refined products such as gasoline. However by
giving up its last stake in the company the government would
guarantee that Canadians have no voice at all in the energy
sector in the future.
By abolishing the 25% cap on aggregate non-resident share
ownership voting rights, the bill would ensure that Petro-Canada
ends up sooner or later in the hands of foreigners.
At a time when high energy costs are hurting many Canadian
industries, small businesses and low and middle income families,
most Canadians want more government involvement to address the
skyrocketing cost of fuel. Instead the government turns its back
and walks away.
The Government of Canada sold all its shares in Cameco by 1995.
In our opinion it is now, by letting go of any semblance of
interest in a sector that has global implications, opening it
completely and utterly to foreign control. It is for those
reasons that the New Democratic Party firmly opposes Bill C-3.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to stand today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend
the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act
and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
1610
The bill opens up two Canadian companies to greater foreign
ownership and expands the individual ownership provisions. The
intent of the bill is to allow greater flexibility on the part of
the two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco, to better position
themselves within the global marketplace.
Within their industries Petro-Canada and Cameco are national and
world leaders respectively. Petro-Canada is familiar to most
Canadians because of its retail gas outlets. However it also has
significant oil and gas exploration and development initiatives
in Canada's north and along the east coast. It is involved in
the Alberta tar sands as well.
We all know the oil and gas sector is doing well and benefiting
enormously from the high price of oil and gas. Petro-Canada is
well positioned within the sector to profit from both upstream
and downstream production. However it continues, like any
company, to look for growth opportunities. The legislation is
expected to give Petro-Canada greater flexibility for strategic
management as the oil and gas sector continues to evolve.
While the lessening of restrictions on foreign and individual
ownership is one issue addressed by the legislation, the bill
would also allow Petro-Canada to sell, transfer or otherwise
dispose of its assets without separate provisions for upstream
and downstream operations.
Upstream operations such as development in the Alberta tar
sands, offshore oil exploration in Newfoundland and natural gas
exploration in western Canada are some of the core businesses of
Petro-Canada. Downstream operations, including the nearly 2,000
retail and wholesale outlets across Canada, make Petro-Canada one
of the more recognizable names in the gas delivery business and
the second largest petroleum refining and marketing company in
Canada.
Petro-Canada has recently focused on its core businesses,
specifically the oil and gas production that has proven
successful on the east coast and in western Canada. The
legislation could provide the company additional leeway to
concentrate on areas that have proven successful while allowing
it to dispose of operations that do not meet its core focus.
The legislation should allow the federal government to divest
itself of its remaining 18% stake in Petro-Canada. Oil and gas
companies are profiting from current market conditions and it is
a favourable time for the federal government to get out of the
industry. We all know to buy low and sell high. If the
government wants to maximize its investment now is the time to
sell.
How the government manages the windfall from such a sale is
another question. It was the Canadian taxpayer who footed the
bill when the government established Petro-Canada as a crown
corporation in 1975 and it should be the taxpayer who benefits
now. That does not mean further health care cuts or increased
devolution of services to the provinces without corresponding
increases in transfer payments.
The Nova Scotia government has recently been addressing its own
problem in the oil and gas industry: insignificant royalties from
east coast oil and gas development. Nova Scotia sees only 18
cents of every dollar generated by the offshore. The remainder
goes to the federal government.
There must be a more equitable sharing of revenues between the
federal government and the provinces. Petro-Canada has its
headquarters in Alberta. That province manages to operate in the
black because of the substantial royalties it accrues from
resource companies like Petro-Canada. Nova Scotia is asking for
a similar setup so that it too can realize the benefits of oil
and gas development.
Last year Petro-Canada had record net annual earnings of $893
million, easily surpassing the previous year's earnings of $233
million and almost tripling the previous high of $306 million.
Petro-Canada is clearly doing something right. Still, no company
should rest on its laurels. If this legislation provides greater
flexibility and allows for strategic positioning within the
industry, it is important to support it. The PC Party does so.
The legislation affects another Canadian company, Cameco, the
world's largest uranium supplier. Cameco supplies 30% of the
western world's uranium, some 18 million pounds.
The legislation would provide greater flexibility to the company
in terms of foreign ownership, although a fixed limit of 25%
would remain in place. There is a big difference, however,
between the oil and gas sector and nuclear energy.
1615
Although both sectors provide energy sources and both have
inherent risks associated with them that can have grave
environmental impacts, Canadians remain skeptical about nuclear
energy and the safe use of such energy. Radioactive waste is one
aspect of uranium mining that concerns all Canadians.
I would like to spend some time today looking at radioactive
waste and the role that public perception plays in uranium
production. With legislation that opens up foreign ownership of
this Canadian uranium producing company, the world's largest, I
think it is important to understand what issues are really at
stake here.
For instance, the briefing material provided by the Department
of Natural Resources respecting the legislation clearly indicates
that nuclear proliferation standards will be maintained and are
not impacted by the legislation. However, when one looks at
uranium mining there are serious environmental questions that
need to be addressed, not just the issue of nuclear
proliferation.
The report, “Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada”,
examines radioactive waste in Canada according to three
categories, nuclear fuel waste, low level radioactive waste, and
uranium mine and mill tailings. At the end of 1998 the total
waste of these three categories were, respectively: 5,600 cubic
metres, 1.8 million cubic metres, and 210 million tonnes. Again,
those three categories were nuclear fuel waste, low level
radioactive waste and uranium mine and mill tailings.
The report estimates that by 2035, the year when the last power
reactor is forecast to shut down, the waste totals will be:
14,500 cubic metres, 210 million cubic metres, and 248 million
tonnes.
The report goes on to state:
Radioactive waste is currently managed in a safe and
environmentally responsible manner by storing the waste away from
the public and isolating it from the environment. The management
of those wastes meets the requirements of the Atomic Energy
Control Board, Canada's independent nuclear regulator.
It is interesting to look at what has been happening recently
respecting the organization that oversees nuclear reactors and
public safety in Canada. On May 31, 2000, the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission replaced the Atomic Energy Control Board. In
his December 2000 report, the auditor general devoted a chapter
to the review of nuclear safety, with a focus on power reactor
regulations.
In his report, the auditor general noted that the risk analysis
of power reactors is not rigorous, raising questions about the
safety of Canada's 22 existing nuclear power reactors. While
Cameco may not be in the business of supplying nuclear power
reactors, it is directly affected by undertakings within the
industry because of the impact this has on Canadians' acceptance
of nuclear products, nuclear energy and nuclear waste.
Supporters of nuclear energy advocate that it is one of the
cleanest sources of energy available and one that can help meet
future demands as fossil fuel sources are depleted. Certainly it
is true that nuclear energy is a possible solution for energy,
one that some countries have been more open to than others.
France has embraced nuclear power as its primary energy
producer, relying on nuclear energy to supply 75% of its
electricity production, the result of a 1974 initiative to be
energy independent. However, to be supportive of nuclear energy
we must also have a method of dealing with the byproducts and the
residues of nuclear energy exploitation.
Cameco addresses these issues on a daily basis because, as a
result of its mining operations, the company must dispose of its
waste materials. This can range from mine tailings to the
protective clothing worn by employees.
Currently the low level radioactive waste produced as a result
of nuclear power production is compressed and disposed of within
nuclear reactors. This is not a long term solution, however, and
other disposal methods have been discussed, including the
availability of other sites as possible receptacles for this
waste material.
The Canadian shield, because of its stable rock formation and
low water levels, could be opportune in this regard and is
something that the Canadian nuclear fuel waste management program
has discussed since 1978. Public acceptance of such disposal
methods will determine whether this is a long term solution to
radioactive waste disposal.
1620
Cameco is a well respected and successful company. However,
like Petro-Canada, it too needs the flexibility to adapt to new
market conditions and strategically position itself within the
global marketplace.
While I have some concerns about the application of nuclear
energy, particularly in regard to waste disposal and byproducts,
the intent of this legislation is to help these two companies
grow and expand within their respective industries. The PC Party
supports this initiative.
A recent Cameco press release announced that reserves at
McArthur River in northern Saskatchewan, the world's largest and
highest grade uranium mine, is now expected to exceed anticipated
production by 50%. As Cameco continues to develop mine sites
like the McArthur mine, it will need the flexibility to attract
new investment and diversify its holdings. This legislation
should be one step toward providing that flexibility. The PC
Party supports the legislation for that very reason.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member's speech about his points of view on
Bill C-3, which would see us doing away with our last influence
on or ownership of anything to do with a public sector energy
strategy, at least, or an energy strategy in the public interest,
if we could put it that way.
Could the hon. member explain to me the motivation, this seeming
passion, on the part of government and obviously on the part of
his party to divest ourselves of any interest whatsoever in our
energy sector? Why do he and his party think that all things
publicly owned are bad and all things privately owned are good
and somehow better run and better managed just because they are
in the private sector?
I will let him answer, but I would argue that many Canadians
want more government intervention in the energy sector at this
time because they are facing spiralling, out of control energy
and fuel costs. They want the government to take an active role.
How does he juxtapose that reality with his party's and the
government's fixation on privatizing everything in the energy
sector?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, first of all, certainly
the Progressive Conservative Party does not agree with
privatizing everything in Canada. There are a number of areas,
particularly health care, wherein privatization has no place.
The issue before us is the result of a national energy policy
that I do not think anyone any longer supports in this day and
age. The fact is that Petro-Canada has basically been privatized
at this point. This bill still would not complete that job. We
have a company that right now is making some profits, without
question, but at the same time its stock is high. Now is the
time to move it out. We have to establish a very clear direction
on where Canadians want to go. Do we want to be the owners of
all of our public resources? I do not think so. Canadians have
very much spoken to that themselves at the ballot box in the last
number of years in this country.
The other issue is Cameco, which is a more difficult issue.
Certainly Petro-Canada is not a difficult issue for the PC Party.
There are other issues at stake with Cameco. When we start to
supply 30% of the world's uranium production, then we have issues
of nuclear proliferation and nuclear safety. We are supplying
nuclear ore, uranium ore, to many reactors around the world and
that is the more problematic issue.
At the same time, it is our belief that it is time to privatize
both companies. This does not finish the job, but it is a step
in that direction. I would have thought that the government
would have taken this opportunity to complete the job. It has
not done that. We would still have two publicly owned or
government owned crown corporations. It is a matter of time
before the job is finished. I expect that the government will
continue to do that.
1625
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will add my comments on this very important bill a
little later, but I would like to ask for a comment from the hon.
member.
He will recall that it was his party in 1990 that began the
process of selling Petro-Canada. At the time it was seen as a
very wise move given the need for capitalization and the changes
that were necessary. Ten years later, we see that gasoline
prices have now hit their highest levels and that although retail
margins are a little weak, we are now seeing refinery margins in
the order of 18 cents a litre. By the way, that never gets
discussed by the press because for some reason there seems to be
a conspiracy of silence, whatever the case may be.
More specifically, to the question of the number of shares held
by the Canadian public through the government, it is 49.4 million
shares out of 271 million common shares in Petro-Canada, at
$40.72, which is about $2 billion in potential revenue.
I wonder whether the hon. member has given any thought to the
idea that rather than the $15 billion, if we amortize that over a
number of years, that has been spent by the Canadian taxpayer to
create Petro-Canada in the first place—and we can debate the
merits of whether it was there to remove refinery capacity in the
country, because that is exactly what has happened—would he
consider or at least give some thought to, based on what Bill C-3
is proposing, the notion of returning $2 billion in income taxes
to Canadians as opposed to simply returning it to general
revenue?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, in my speech I actually
mentioned that we would certainly give some thought to making
sure that any revenues generated from the sale of Petro-Canada go
back to the Canadian taxpayer specifically. That would be our
first choice.
The other part of the hon. member's question is a much more
general question. We need to ask ourselves if we want government
in the private sector in this country. We have to be very clear.
I think the answer is no, we do not want government in business.
We want government to do other things.
We have a windfall of profit right now in Petro-Canada. We do
have high oil and gas prices, without question, but there are
other ways in which the government can influence the oil and gas
sector without being directly in the business. Quite frankly,
there is no place for government in the oil and gas business, in
retail, either upstream or downstream. The industry is working
well.
It has not always worked well. I can give a prime example of
that. I worked in the offshore oil fields on the east coast. In
1985 or 1986 we drilled a well off Sable Island. It was 85 miles
farther out in the ocean than we had ever drilled before. It was
a Canadian government supplied well, so there was a lot of money
flowing. We drilled to about 17,000 feet. We had never drilled
that deep on the east coast before. Yet the Petro-Canada
engineers, the government people involved in that well, insisted
that we drill another 2,100 feet. We drilled another 2,100 feet
of dust. We never hit any gas reserves. We never hit any oil
reserves. What we did do was break the record and drilled the
deepest offshore well ever drilled in Canada.
That is what happens when we start putting public money into
private business. Quite frankly, I do not think that would have
happened with a privately owned corporation.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. He
obviously has very special experience in the oil business. He
made some very thoughtful remarks.
However, I am being approached all the time by citizens who feel
that the price of gasoline is simply too high. It has gone up
again and is projected to go up yet again during the summer. The
people in my riding feel they are being jerked around by the oil
companies, by OPEC or whatever.
The hon. member says there is no place for government in the oil
industry, but one example of where the government has been very
effective is the oil sands, or the tar sands as they used to be
called.
I am told that the reserves in the oil sands are as great as the
reserves in Saudi Arabia. Despite what was said by an NDP member
earlier, I have also been told that the price per barrel now, as
a result of government subsidy into research for methods of
extracting the oil from the tar sands, is down around $12 or $13
a barrel. Yet OPEC is maintaining prices at $25 or $26 a barrel.
1630
Would the hon. member comment on the roles of this government
and previous governments in the development of the tar sands? How
should we manage this resource, which is even larger than the
resource he was tapping offshore, in the best interest of
Canadians, particularly fixed income Canadians who are suffering
at the present time from high gasoline and oil prices?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a
couple of questions. The first one that I will deal with is the
role of government in high risk ventures. The oil sands are an
extremely high risk venture. They have been buoyed by the fact
that we have had an increase in the value of oil and gas. If we
had not had that increase we would not have gone ahead with the
development.
We would have continued to put dollars into them and they would
never have floated. They would never have been a viable
operation. They are only viable because of the increase in the
value of the product they produce. The risk period is over. It
can now be a standalone venture and be completely privatized.
There is no need for Petro-Canada investment being there.
The other question dealt with the price of oil and gas. The
government has a lot of leeway. It has an opportunity to show a
lot of leadership regarding the price of oil and gas. It can get
rid of the 1.5 cent deficit reduction tax on gasoline as there is
no longer a deficit. There are a number of areas of excise tax
that could be looked at. Part of reducing the cost of oil and
gas is incumbent upon the federal government showing leadership,
making reductions first and then challenging the provinces to
meet it at least part way.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, once again I have an opportunity to give a brief
illustration of some of the concerns I have with Bill C-3.
Let me state from the outset that I will be supporting the bill.
It is a timely bill. We are debating a bill on a day in which
Canadians, short of what happened in the House of Commons in the
past 24 to 48 hours, are beginning to wonder whether or not a
nation so blessed with energy is being put in the situation where
it is being manipulated by its own resources. Canadians are
seeing prices that they could never have imagined a few years
ago.
Some time ago members on this side of the House took under their
own wings the idea of looking at the gas and oil industry. I am
proud to say that the industry is doing extremely well in Canada,
but not as proud to say that for most of my constituents it is
doing far too well.
I would like to indicate where the bill could be improved
because it is clear that its intention is to divest, among other
things, federal government shares which it currently owns in
Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was created out of the national
energy policy. As a young assistant I sat in the gallery and
watched as the act unfolded. Back then it was an issue for me.
Amazingly enough at the age of 38 it is still an issue for me and
it will continue to be an issue for most Canadians.
I will provide my colleagues with a description of where the
energy sector is going. There has been a lot of interest in the
idea of a continental energy policy. I had an opportunity to
make some observations on that during the take note debate last
evening. The most interesting comment that I have heard came
from the former governor general of the country, Ray Hnatyshyn,
who as a young member from Saskatchewan referred to a continental
energy policy as it related to Canada and the United States at
the time as being a bit like “swapping partners with a
bachelor”.
The difficulty is trying to explain to Canadians that when there
are opportunities to provide more energy for other parts of the
world desperately in need of energy, there inevitably becomes a
consequence to one's own consumption and to one's own domestic
situation as far as the market is concerned.
It would probably shock and surprise Canadians to know when they
are fuelling up with gasoline or buying home heating fuel, or
truckers who are using diesel fuel, that all our energy is priced
in U.S. terms because of the differentiation between the Canadian
and the U.S. dollar.
1635
The standard benchmark for oil as set by West Texas Intermediate
is about $26, $27 or $28 a barrel in the U.S., which is $42 or
$43 in Canadian terms. That number has to be divided by 159
because a conventional barrel of oil yields 159 litres of
gasoline. That makes it about 25 or 26 cents a litre. That is
the breakdown of why people in Ontario are paying 80 cents a
litre for gasoline and perhaps more.
Crude oil in Edmonton today is selling for about 26 cents a
litre. It takes about one cent to push it through taxpayer
funded pipelines which we gave over to the oil industry as an
apology for the energy program many years ago, so it is now 27 or
28 cents a litre.
Refiners in Ontario and across the country will then transform
the crude product, the bitumen, into a rack price, which is known
as the wholesale price. This usually costs them about two or
three cents a litre. However the margin today is 18 cents a
litre. Of the refinery's production, 15 cents is going into the
pockets of oil companies. I am not so concerned about their
ability to do it. They say it is economics 101 and it is their
right to do these things because that is the way it is done in
other markets.
In the U.S., the average refinery margin is hovering about nine
cents a litre. However, because we are Canadians and because it
is our own product priced in U.S. dollars, not including taxes,
we are being forced to pay an extra eight or nine cents a litre.
That may not mean a lot but when we consider that 35 billion
litres of gasoline a year are sold in Canada, we are talking
about a transfer, for every penny where there is no competition
at that level, of some $350 million from the Canadian consumer's
pocket to the oil companies. Some members may wish to nod their
heads approvingly or disapprovingly but the facts and the proof
are in the pudding.
The record profits that are being made in the downstream, in the
refining and retailing of gasoline, is testament in and of itself
of the evidence that something has gone completely wrong with the
industry and for which there is no oversight.
I would now like to talk about the retail margin. If I am an
independent I would be buying gasoline today for about 74 cents a
litre including tax. I would have about four to five cents to
work on. That is usually what is needed to turn a pump on, to
pay for staff and to keep one's nose above the water line.
Since 1993 we have seen the sustained policy of oil companies,
using their huge profit at the refinery level to cross-subsidize.
That never gets challenged because there is no competition there.
They do not mind losing money at the retail level.
Big, beautiful gasoline sites are being put up by the integrated
major oil companies in the country. It costs millions of dollars
to acquire the land, to put up the infrastructure and the
capital, and yet they are running on margins of one cent a litre
or half a cent a litre, and in some cases negative one or
negative two cents a litre.
This would be completely illegal in the United States.
Shareholders would get upset at losing money at the retail level
because retailing and refining gasoline are completely different.
Also anti-competitive questions would be raised. To build a
facility like that on the most expensive sites to attract people
to the site would be prohibitive. It would likely reflect in the
cost.
Hence when we go to the United States, and many of us have done
that although with our weaker dollar it has been more difficult,
we go to a little gas station on the side of the road. It is an
ugly, beaten up looking thing. The guy is outside with his dirty
hands and his wife is pumping gasoline. The gasoline at this
station is 10 cents a gallon less than the Mobil across the
street. A product cannot be offered at cost or below cost unless
money is being made somewhere else.
There are opportunities for the government to look at the issue
of segment reporting. One of the benefits that I hope would not
be lost, in any attempt to sell the final 18% of Petro-Canada
shares, would be segment reporting. One of its advantages,
because it is a publicly held company, is that it tells people
what it made at the retail level. It has not engaged in
predatory pricing versus what it has lost or made at the refinery
level.
1640
Finally I want to talk about what makes up the cost of gasoline.
We have 26 cents for crude. We have 18 cents as a refiner margin
today in Ontario, particularly in Toronto. We have taxes in the
area of 24.7 cents, which consist of 10 cents for the federal
excise, 14.7 cents for the province and about 5.6 cents for the
GST. Of course the GST goes up with the cost of the product.
The final point I want to put into this cost, and why it is so
important for us to consider it now in Bill C-3, is that in the
future when it comes to being able to measure these companies we
will have less of an opportunity to do so. Yes, the books will
be open, but they will be open for shareholders.
Will there be guarantees, as we see with a current partially
held public company, that these companies will be held to a
higher standard? Will there be guarantees to ensure that all
reporting is not combined and that it is not simply put in and
consolidated, as we see with Imperial Oil and Sunoco? They tell
us what they made in crude and of course what they made in the
entire downstream, which is refining and retailing. As we know,
they are two completely separate businesses.
There are opportunities for the federal government and
parliament to begin to look at the impact a possible continental
energy policy would have on product. For instance, in regard to
transferring a certain amount of product from Canada to the
United States, priced in U.S. dollars, if we do not take into
account the fact that there will be an impact on Canadians, a
cost push in higher prices, then I think we are engaging in a
fool's errand. There is no doubt in my mind that a continental
energy policy must take into account the impact it could have on
Canadians.
I believe it is important that we head in that direction and
that we begin to look at ways in which we can co-ordinate our
valuable energies and our resources. However, if we fail to
estimate the impact on Canadians, we will lose the very people
who give this place legitimacy.
Right now gasoline is at 80 cents a litre in Toronto and there
is an 18 cent a litre margin at the refinery level, which not too
many papers, media or members of parliament want to talk about.
We tend to spin around and worry about the taxes that are part of
gasoline. I think they are important, but there is not a single
member of the House of Commons who does not know that those taxes
go back into general revenues and are there for the common good
of the country. We can dismiss re-election for every member of
parliament here if we do not like the way our taxes are spent,
but there is no accountability for the chairman of Imperial Oil.
That money that we call taxpayers' money, which is part and
parcel of the cost of crude, does not go up on long weekends and
every Canadian knows that. Canadians also know it goes to pay
for our hospitals and for our roads. Equally, they know that if
we are dealing with the subject of taxes maybe we ought to look
at how the oil industry is spending those taxes.
It may come as a surprise to some members of the House of
Commons that an oil company will charge an independent cash on
the barrelhead, taxes in, for delivery of goods and products, for
their product, the gasoline. They demand the taxes up front.
However, because they are large companies they get to keep that
tax for 30 to 40 days as a float, simply because they happen to
be large players. That is part of their general revenue. Never
has working with the government been so profitable.
For this reason I find it rather ironic that we are dealing with
what appears to be a rather casual housekeeping matter in Bill
C-3, that we should proceed with this. However, make no mistake
about it. Most of us here know that we are proceeding with the
further privatization of a company that has done very well from
the marketing point of view considering where its shares were a
few years ago. I applaud the company for that. They are now at
$40.72 in trading. That is quite a whack of cash. Some $2
billion is what the federal government has at stake here if it
decides to sell its common shares on the open market tomorrow.
I would argue very passionately that this money is only a small
amount of the money Canadians put toward creating Petro-Canada in
1990 as a result of a decision by the House of Commons. I think
the time has come to do something, given the high cost of energy
and the anticipated even higher costs down the road. The oil
companies use the excuses of warmer summers and colder winters or
shutdowns in Kuala Lumpur or wherever in order to justify these
high prices. The excuses are predictable, but they are certainly
not exhaustive.
For that reason I think it is important for the House of Commons
to consider taking that money and do nothing else, short of
putting it in the general revenue, but to give it to every single
Canadian on his or her income tax in the form of a grant, a
credit or however the system can be worked. I would advocate
very strongly for that because I think it gets us away from the
arguments being made by members on the other side that the
solution to high costs of energy is somehow related to taxes.
1645
Members on the other side know only too well, as my colleagues
here from New Brunswick know, that when the provincial government
of New Brunswick in 1992 gave back two cents a litre to
consumers, delivered through the oil companies, the public never
saw the savings. The hon. member for Peterborough knows this
very well and has said it very eloquently to a lot of his
constituents.
Consumers felt that the government was heading in the right
direction by dropping taxes, for whatever reason, and it was one
of the more difficult environments in which to do it, but the
public never saw the savings. This was reason the Liberal
committee on gasoline pricing recommended that if we were to take
the tax off taxes on gasoline, we must ensure that the resulting
savings go to Canadians, not to the bottom line of oil companies.
That was true then and we have evidence of it having occurred in
real terms in Canada. It is one of the reasons that, yes, even
the right wing government of Mike Harris in the province of
Ontario agrees with the findings of the committee. It is one of
the reasons they have done nothing with their 14.7 cents a litre.
I also take the liberty at this time to explain and remind
members of the House of Commons that when it comes to diesel, the
fuel that keeps our trucks going to and fro, the federal
government takes a mere four cents a litre, not 14.7 cents, not
22 cents and not 25 cents. We recognize the importance of that
industry.
As my hon. colleague from Peterborough explained, which I did
not know, when a farmer or a construction company buys coloured
fuel no taxes are paid from the federal point of view, period.
There may GST on it but that is quickly remitted.
The federal government, as it relates to taxes, is on very
strong ground. I believe that some day there will be the ability
for us to afford a tax cut in that area, but consumers are not
fooled. Only six months ago crude oil was at $38 a barrel and
the price at the pump was 77 cents in Ontario. It is now down to
$26 a barrel for crude and the price has gone up to 80 cents a
litre and rising.
No matter how many analysts or how much of the public's money is
being used to bamboozle the public about how gas pricing occurs,
the public is not fooled by these rather shameful tactics to use
their money to make them feel like complete idiots when it comes
to how pricing occurs.
I would not be so passionate about the question of energy or
gasoline if I did not think it was a problem that existed
elsewhere in other industries. I have talked to other colleagues
about this before. I believe we have some problems with respect
to concentration. If the oil industry can get away with this,
then I am sure there are other industries that can do the same.
I want to finally end by simply saying that I call upon all
colleagues and members of parliament on both sides. I am
certainly interested in hearing their questions. Believe it or
not, I had no intention to stand and talk on this bill but it
begins the process of coming to grips with the changes around us.
If we do not begin to understand the market structure to which
we are making changes, we will have done a disservice to the
public. We will have failed in our mission to create good public
policy. I plan to work with the government. It is a good bill
but let us do it in a manner considerate to the context in which
Canada currently finds itself with high energy prices.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
think I understood the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge
to mean that he believes there is a role for government to
intervene in and regulate the energy marketplace that, frankly,
is not serving Canadians very well at this point in time.
I realize the member is an authority on the subject. I have
heard him speak about energy prices many times in the House of
Commons. I firmly believe he is genuine in what he is saying,
but I would ask him to clarify something for me.
Is it his feeling or point that government can and should set
national energy policies for the well-being of Canadians or does
he believe, like we heard from the Tories, that we should let the
free hand of the marketplace prevail and it will find its own
natural level?
That is what I would like to understand a little more clearly
from the hon. member.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre and I have had a few discussions about this and I
thank him for his very kind remarks about my very cursory
knowledge of the industry.
I say to the hon. member that I believe all options in terms of
the free market should be available to the industry, as others,
before we look at the issue of government intervention. I think
that intervention by government should be of necessity.
1650
My argument, in very plain words, is that there is a deficiency
in the free market as it relates to oil and gas. For anybody to
tack on 18 cents a litre as a margin at the refinery when
competitors to the south are operating at substantially less,
demonstrates to me that if I thought, given that 35 billion
litres of gasoline is being sold every year, the opportunity of
potentially making $300 million, to $500 million would invite
new entrants in the marketplace, that would be the first
indication that the free market is non-existent here.
I also believe that our Competition Act needs teeth. This may
come as a surprise to some hon. members, but the Competition Act
was written in 1985 by groups represented very heavily by big
oil. It was one of the reasons I brought in my bill which would
remove the efficiencies defence or excuse in which, if one can
believe it, a company, if it could demonstrate that it was acting
in a merger which could have competitive, harmful effects, could
proceed with the merger as long as it could demonstrate
efficiency. We have two players in the case of propane. This
was evident in terms of what happened in August. Superior bought
out ICG.
Superior went to the competition tribunal because of course the
bureaucrats said that Superior would have 100% control of the
energy market. They said that it would be competitively harmful
and that it would have a negative impact on consumers.
The tribunal, in a two to one decision, said that
notwithstanding the fact that it would hurt consumers, the
competitive process and ultimately the free market, the fact that
one company can buy out the other and shut it down is a form of
economic efficiency. That defence was put in specifically in
1985 so that we would wind up in a situation where there was a
Competition Act that looked a lot more like a concentration or
monopolization of the Canada Act. I think we need to look at the
economic instruments, such as the Competition Act, to ensure that
there is fair play.
I could talk to the hon. member about independents that have lost
their shirts because they were too good for the obvious reasons
that I mentioned. Cross-subsidization does occur but it should
be illegal. It is illegal in the United States.
If shareholders knew that oil companies were engaging in the
practice of losing money at the retail level while saving a lot
of money at the wholesale level to discipline their competitors
who rely on them for supply, they would walk away in droves
saying that those companies were not making proper economic
decisions and that the government was not paying attention to the
fact that this was obviously anti-competitive and obviously
wrong.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as
I understand it, what my colleague is saying is that government
or quasi-government organizations have the very important role of
ensuring that competition is fair and fair at all levels of
industry. I think that is very important.
One thing I have difficulty doing is explaining to my
constituents how it has been possible to undertake competition
type reviews of this industry or parts of this industry,
culminating I think in the conference board review within the
last year or so, and yet it is impossible to demonstrate the
collusion and the anti-competitiveness that my constituents feel
are occurring in the oil and gasoline industry.
Could my colleague take us through and explain what has happened
with those reviews?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Speaker, those are very excellent
questions. I want to explain to the hon. member that although I
and many members on the committee held much promise that the
conference board would do a thorough and independent job, it
became apparent to us that much of its methodologies were in fact
wrong and flawed. For instance, it compared that wholesale
market that I was talking about, the refinery level, to 1% of the
U.S. market, mostly the market of Plattsburgh and Buffalo, New
York, which of course are trailers to the Toronto and Montreal
markets. There was an asymmetry in terms of comparison. The
board was literally comparing watermelons to apples, with the
apples in the U.S. following the situation here in Canada.
However, if the board had taken the whole of the United States
and compared it to the whole of Canada it would have found, as I
and many others have discovered in any objective review, that the
two are very different. In the U.S., in many respects, one will
find that its refineries do not even sell gasoline at retail so
there is real vibrant competition at the wholesale level.
The second part of the hon. member's question was a very good
one. It dealt with the question of why investigations have not
turned up conspiracy collusion. I want hon. members to really
understand this. Collusion is not illegal in Canada. The burden
of proof to discover collusion and price fixing under section 45
requires not only the establishment of the fact that it has
happened and not only the intent of the individual, but that it
had an undue impact or an undue standard on the market.
1655
Can anyone believe this? Our Competition Act is similar to
someone going in, knocking over a bank, having the intent to
knock it over, carrying it out, pistol-whipping whoever is there
but not being proven as having committed a criminal act unless
the effect of their act is to bring about the collapse of the
Canadian monetary system. It means it is a burden of proof not
beyond reasonable doubt but a burden of proof that can never be
proven.
The hon. member would probably have the chairman of Imperial
Oil, Shell or any of those companies, which I am sure they would
not do nor should they do, come before the Supreme Court of
Canada and swear under oath that they had committed a conspiracy
and of course done that by way of affidavit. Therefore the
problem is with the Competition Act.
Again, I beg the hon. member and all hon. members in the House
to remind themselves who wrote the Competition Act in 1985. If
they do not like the way it was written and they do not like the
high, unjustified costs of energy that have been fleecing
Canadians, then I beg them to ignore the fact that the media has
locked the issue down and to start discussing it because their
constituents are doing it.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech.
He has talked about the role of government in the energy sector
and has spoken about the importance of government being able to
play an effective role on behalf of the people of Canada.
I want to put to him that, as a result of some decisions his own
government has enthusiastically supported, particularly around
the adoption of NAFTA, and now its proposal for the FTAA, it has
taken away precisely the tools that government needs to
effectively assist the people of this country in the energy
sector and, for that matter, in many other sectors. I would like
the member to comment on this.
The Prime Minister was bragging recently about the continental
energy pact. He talked about how he had educated President
George Bush about the fact that we have tar sands. My God, we
have tar sands. The Prime Minister said “He didn't know two
months ago. I'm a good teacher”. He may be a good teacher but
he is an even better person to sell off our resources and the
control that Canadians should have over our own destiny when it
comes to energy resources and other resources.
Does the member not recognize that as a result of the NAFTA
provisions, which now exist, that we are not in a position to
decide as Canadians that if, for example, there are energy
shortages in this country that we will give preference to the
people of Canada? It is not exactly a revolutionary concept, is
it, that when Canadians want to have access to their own energy
resources they should be given preferential access to them?
Under NAFTA and under the FTAA, as proposed and enthusiastically
supported by the government, we have lost that right.
I want to ask the hon. member to explain how it is that he is so
concerned about Canada's ability to protect our own energy
resources when his government sold out that ability by adopting
NAFTA and now proposing the FTAA.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Speaker, I need no lesson from
the hon. member when it comes to speaking out against my own
party. I know the hon. member has quite a degree of interest in
that area.
I want to point out to the hon. member that there are many
countries in this world that have those kind of resources. Russia
would be a good example of where it cannot get the investment to
get the resources. Sure, it may belong to the people, but
ultimately the people will never see the benefit of those
resources because they will remain in the ground ad infinitum
with that kind of a socialist policy, which we understand to mean
not recognizing the market as it currently exists.
I want to tell the hon. member that I am prepared to exhaust the
free market and make sure it works appropriately before we have
some kind of a command system.
The hon. member had a class example of why gasoline prices are
expensive in his own riding. The Atlantic Richfield Company came
into his riding, knocked out a few independents, had prices below
cost, even below the level of taxation, and the hon. member never
once raised the issue. The independents are out of the way and
British Columbians in his riding are now paying among the highest
prices for gasoline in this country.
When it comes to my position as it relates to gasoline, I would
ask the hon. member to once and for all take up this issue, tell
his constituents why he did not talk about this and explain to
them specifically what international policy or international
conspiracy has to do—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for
Prince Albert.
1700
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak on this matter, but
there has been such good debate and provocative ideas presented
that I could not resist it.
I picked up some of my Liberal friend's comments which I found
very interesting. I give him credit for standing up and not just
taking the party line. He gave a fairly damning indictment about
competition law in the country saying that it was ineffective,
that it was geared against the consumer and that we really did
not have competition. He alluded to the U.S. and how good things
were there, how much better the consumer was served, how much
better the prices were and that it had good competition.
I would invite the government to look across the border at the
U.S. competition law and policies and then bring forth
legislation in the House that would create a more competitive
economy in the country to better serve our consumers. I thank
him for pointing this matter out. This has to be heard by other
people on the other side of the House, and I give him credit for
raising this point.
For people my age in Saskatchewan and Alberta, who I believe are
thinking people and can remember things, if they are depressed
today, the word Petro-Canada is not like Prozac. It does not
have good vibes in my part of the country. It brings back bad
memories about a thing called the national energy plan.
My New Democrat friends do something that I have seen very few
people do in my lifetime. They are good at forecasting the
future, or they think they are. Lenin and Marx predicted the
future, and there were a whole slew of socialist thinkers after
that time who projected the future of civilization. I would like
to know which one has actually predicted the future accurately.
I think just about every one of them totally struck out.
Back in the 1970s when we brought in Petro-Canada, the prime
minister was worried about the $100 per barrel oil price. The
energy minister at that time talked about the same thing, that
the invisible hand of the market would bring prices up that high
and Canadians had to be protected. The NDP members at that time
were the government's cheerleaders. They said the government was
right, that they could see the future. We have not seen $80 per
barrel oil prices and we have not seen $100 per barrel oil
prices.
Something else concerns me. There is an aspect of the bill with
which I have a good deal of difficulty. There are a lot of
restrictions on the shares and the ownership of these shares. I
do not buy fuel from Petro-Canada. It is a matter of principle
with me because I am one of those people who remembers the
experience from the 1970s. However I drive by every once in a
while to check Petro-Canada's prices. Believe me it is the same
price as Shell, Imperial Oil, the Co-op and other competitors in
the marketplace. If I and my learned friends over there were
somehow going to get a benefit ownership, I have not seen it.
There was much lamenting about how the oil industry gouged the
economy with excessive pricing. I would suggest to most folks in
the House that if we got rid of the wellhead price, the royalty
structure, the excise tax on fuel and so on we would probably see
an instant 50% plus reduction in the price. If there are any
benefactors out of increased energy prices in this economy, it is
the provincial and federal governments.
I would suggest to the members from Saskatchewan who spoke
earlier that if oil and energy prices were not at the levels they
are today their NDP government in Saskatchewan would have an
enormous problem trying to balance the books.
It is about the only thing in that province these days that pays
the bills.
1705
I am amazed that the member for Palliser would say that we
should go back to a two price, made in Canada price. Was he
actually saying that we should price 15% to 20% of Saskatchewan's
oil and energy for Ontario, Quebec and other regions of the
country at a dramatically lower rate than what we would for an
export price to the U.S.? I would find it very surprising if
people in Saskatchewan would accept that as good logic.
I want to raise a few comments about the share structure. I am
trying to figure out why they would have a restriction that
nobody could own shares in excess of 15% or 20% or whatever the
amount is. I have a lot of problems with that. In my view
Petro-Canada is no different than Shell or any other oil company.
They are in the marketplace and are privately held companies. Why
does the government want this restriction in the bill?
The auditor general commented that a lot of our crown
corporations and government owned operations were vehicles to
appoint unqualified people to important positions. Many of them
are not doing a very good job. I would say the government does
not want to lose control of Petro-Canada because it wants to
retain the ability to appoint people to the board of directors.
It is one of those plums that it still has and it does not want
to give it up. That is one explanation why it would be that way.
It was mentioned that the share price of Petro-Canada is $36 a
share. If my math is right, if those shares were sold at $36 a
share that would be $1.8 billion. If that was paid on our
national debt that would mean we would save about $136 million
every year on interest charges. That would go right to the
bottom line of this national federal government.
This money could be used to build highways or buy MRI machines
for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan does not really have many MRIs.
It could be used to help children. As my learned friend with the
Liberals mentioned, maybe we could do what Mike Harris did in
Ontario and pay that money back to the taxpayer in the form of a
dividend.
I am glad some of the Liberal members are starting to learn that
some of the things Mike Harris is doing in Ontario are all right.
There is one over there that is not in agreement with the
proposal of her fellow colleague but he was quite bullish on
that. I want to point that matter out.
If these restrictions were removed from the shares and these
shares could be freely traded, maybe we would be talking about
$45 a share. Then we could be looking at $2.5 billion or $3
billion on these things. These restrictions diminish the value
of those shares.
What about the head office being in Ottawa? I think that even
lawyers who graduated from law school with a D average could find
a way to get around that loophole. They could hire one
secretary, put a telephone in that office, put up a sign saying
head office and that would qualify. I really do not know where
this sort of thing comes from. If anyone thinks about this
seriously, this could be a way of maintaining some sort of
Canadian control. We have too much of this. We have the same
sort of problem with Air Canada with that sort of thing in
legislation. It is another restriction on ownership. It is
about politics and not good business.
I have a few more comments about the province of Saskatchewan.
Much was said about our crown corporations. I want to bring up
one matter which is Wascana Energy, a crown corporation owned by
the New Democratic government.
Some Canadian owned companies in Calgary tried to purchase that
company. The premier and his cabinet did not want to give up
ownership of the company and opposed it. A year or so later, lo
and behold they sold it to Occidental Petroleum, an American
corporation out of California. Guess who sits on the board of
directors of Occidental Petroleum? Allan Blakeney. He lost his
socialist past and is part of that corporate agenda.
1710
A couple of other crown corporation ownerships in Saskatchewan
were used to balance the budget in that province. Believe it or
not the NDP government sold its shares in Cameco and applied it
to the public debt. That is amazing.
The Saskatchewan government owned shares in the Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan and sold those. It owned a big stake
in the heavy oil operator at Lloydminster. Guess what the NDP
government did with its shares? It did what Mike Harris or Ralph
Klein might have done and sold them. Then its government members
went around Canada and said they were good fiscal conservatives.
I am not going to disagree with them. That is good fiscal
conservatism.
However I find all these comments about the Saskatchewan family
of crown corporations rather strange. I also find it strange
that a member from Saskatchewan would talk about returning us to
the national energy program where Saskatchewan would sell its oil
to other Canadians at well below market prices. I wonder how the
premier of that province would balance his books? He would
probably come to Ottawa, ask the Prime Minister to give the
province more money because it had a shortfall in its budget and
needed more financial assistance. I find a lot of those comments
hard to defend from a Saskatchewan perspective.
There is one last comment I would like to make. If atomic
energy ever takes off, we will be the Saudi Arabia of the world
in terms of atomic energy. There are a lot of interesting things
on the go in atomic energy. South Africa has a interesting
project with a 100 megawatt nuclear reactor, not a 1000 megawatt
reactor, and it uses modern ISO standards of construction. If
this ever catches on and is a safe way of delivering energy,
Saskatchewan will be the place sitting on the energy in North
America, not Alberta or Texas.
Saskatchewan is sitting on a great opportunity if it can find
the technology to deliver atomic energy safely to consumers in
North America. I do not think our governments should close the
door to that.
We know coal and hydro are problems. We certainly know with
some of the treaties of the problems with hydrocarbons and
petroleum. Atomic energy is starting to look like it has some
possibilities, especially with modern technology. Most of the
nuclear industries we know use 1950 or 1960 technology in
developing their plants. We have an opportunity to use much more
advanced technology to develop high quality nuclear reactors
today that could deliver clean energy to consumers in North
America. We should be looking at that as an opportunity in the
future.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad to be able to join the debate on Bill C-3. I am
probably one of those people who the member for Prince Albert was
talking about. I firmly believe the federal government has not
just a role but an obligation to try to ensure that Canadians
have good access to affordable energy, especially in our harsh
winter climate. Energy is not a luxury commodity it is a
necessary commodity.
1715
Something that is our birthright, something that is our common
wealth, something that is part of our Canadian heritage should be
accessible to Canadians at a preferential price than we sell it
offshore. I am proud to say that on behalf of Canadians.
Many Canadians, especially people in my riding, have phoned me
and asked for help, for some relief, for the federal government
to stop being so impotent when it comes to giving them access to
affordable energy. They are asking why it cannot be that way.
They sent us here to represent their interests. This winter
their interests or needs were better access to affordable energy
because they thought they were being gouged, ripped off and
cheated by big oil.
There was a time when Canadians collectively decided to try to
take steps to represent their interests when it came to energy.
That is when people with more vision apparently than those who
occupy the House today came up with the idea that perhaps we
should not have our entire energy industry foreign owned and
foreign controlled because we do not know when we are being
gouged or overcharged.
They did not say, as the hon. member for Prince Albert was
trying to imply, that we should nationalize the whole industry.
They did not come on that strong. They said we should have one
oil company, a watchdog, a window on the industry. We would be
part of the industry and we would have one company owned by the
people of Canada, not owned by the Liberal government.
What is wrong with that idea? What is it about that idea that
so frightens small minded people? The hon. member also tried to
imply that crown corporations are owned by the party in power. I
get tired about hearing about it.
It is very fitting, timely and appropriate that we are having
this debate today because I think energy is a top of mind issue
for most Canadians. Certainly judging from the calls I have
received in recent months, frankly this past winter, Canadians
are very concerned about a constant and reliable supply of clean,
affordable energy.
I am mostly concerned about the homeowners who live in my
riding. They are my primary concern, but small businesses,
schools, hospitals, institutions and non-profit organizations are
reeling with shock and horror at what is happening to their
operating costs, for seemingly no rhyme or reason. Seemingly
arbitrary skyrocketing prices in energy are what infuriates
Canadians the most. That is why recently people such as me in my
private member's bill have been advocating some kind of
government intervention, some kind of regulation, no matter what
form it takes.
If it bothers the hon. member for Prince Albert so much, we will
not call it a national energy program. That seems to irritate
him. It seems to set him off. We do not want to provoke him and
make him any more hostile than he already is, so we will call it
something else. Let us call it an energy price commission. There
is a good moderate sort of phrase. It would not have broad
sweeping powers to nationalize every oil industry.
All we are saying is we want some stability and some
regulations. If we had an arm's length energy price commission,
the oil companies would have to come, whether producers or
retailers, to that commission and justify why they deserve a rate
increase, a hike.
We would not let it happen every long week. Perhaps twice a
year or perhaps every six months, they could come before that
panel and argue the merits of their case as to why they deserve
an energy price increase and then that would be it. If it were
justifiable, the people of Canada would know the rationale and
they would not feel so gouged, cheated and ripped off as they do
today.
The hon. member who spoke previously can call that whatever he
wants. I call it a good idea. I call it advocating on behalf of
Canadians. It is not just the NDP that seems to think that way.
The Government of Newfoundland introduced such a thing a short
two months ago. We have been talking about it all winter. I am
sure it was not our initiative that gave it the idea. It
actually learned it from the Government of Prince Edward Island
because it had been doing that for 40 years.
The Government of Prince Edward Island had the common sense to
represent the interests of its own people and put the interests
of its citizens before the interests of big oil. It could stand
up on its hind legs and stand up to big oil. Now Newfoundland
has followed. Perhaps now it does not sound like such a crazy
idea to the small minded people who are afraid of that concept.
Canadians would be proud of us if they could hear a debate in the
House in which we represent their interests and not the interests
of big oil.
1720
We have heard a lot about energy pricing today. I should like
to raise another element. The member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge talked about the real costs of margins
from the producer to the refiner. I should like to talk about
the whole cost of energy.
We have to start viewing energy pricing. We have to look at the
whole cost of burning fossil fuels. When we look at the whole
cost of oil as a fossil fuel it is amazing. It is not the $12 a
barrel that it costs to produce a barrel of oil in the tar sands.
It is not the $28 a barrel that we are charged by OPEC. It is
more like $150 a barrel when the cost of the American military to
keep the gulf shipping lanes open is factored in. When the
environmental degradation that takes place every time we burn a
litre of fossil fuels is factored in, that is the whole cost.
When it is viewed that way all other sources of alternative
energy such as solar power or wind power seem like a bargain by
comparison. Demand side management becomes the logical choice.
Instead of trying to find ways to get cheaper access to fossil
fuels and soiling our own nests to the point where we cannot live
on the planet for very much longer if we carry on, we should be
looking at ways to enjoy the same quality of life or even an
improved quality of life using less and less energy.
Canada should be a centre of excellence in demand side
management. Obviously we have needs that most countries do not
have in terms of a harsh winter climate. We should be experts in
the field of doing more with less. I certainly advocate that as
being the direction we should go.
To meet the actual immediate needs of Canadians I believe there
is a role for government to play in intervening to represent the
interests of Canadian citizens before the interests of oil
companies. The idea of a national energy program should not be
frightening. It should not be met with such fear and
trepidation. It is not a two headed monster. It is looking
after people's interests.
The only real thing that we have seen the government try to do
to recognize the plight of Canadians this last winter was the gas
rebate, the home heating rebate program. I received a phone call
from a person in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I do not know how he
got my number. It is not in my riding, but the argument was the
rebate system was flawed and that we should think about what it
does to northerners. Northerners make higher salaries because of
the increased cost of living. Nobody in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut,
got the $125 because none of them were at the low income cutoff
line that we see in most cities.
Even though they have $500 and $600 per month home heating bills
in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, nobody was getting the rebate. The
rebate of $125 would heat their houses for one week but they did
not get a penny. It was getting so bad that the home heating
retailer would not give credit any more. People had to show up
with cash on the barrelhead to purchase a barrel of home heating
oil because he was concerned that they simply would not be paying
those bills because they did not have the money. That is the
kind of crisis we are facing when we do not intervene on people's
behalf.
We have heard a great deal about energy supply and energy
strategies. Now we are starting to hear about a continental
energy strategy, that George Bush has a vision of being able to
tap into the resources of the whole hemisphere. We heard
recently he now plans to open up the natural gas fields in
Alaska, causing the need for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline or a
pipeline like it to run down through Yukon or through Alaska into
the southern states.
I can see why he is interested. There is 33 trillion cubic feet
of natural gas in that one natural gas field. It seems like an
astronomical number until we consider that every year the United
States uses 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. He is going
to open up the north and arguably, although I think the argument
is pretty good, it will do serious environmental damage to Canada
with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that has been studied to
death. There is no way to build this pipeline without serious
interference with the flora and fauna of the Yukon territory so
that the United States can have natural gas for one and a half
years. He will do all that damage for one and a half years of
natural gas.
1725
This is staggering to me. It is probably the best and most
graphic illustration I can find to make the point that we cannot
continue to do what we are doing. The jig is up in terms of
energy consumption in North America.
David Suzuki had a good statistic recently. He said that for
everyone in all the developing nations to live with the same
level of energy use as we live with in Canada today, we would
need six more planets. There are not enough resources on this
planet for everyone in China to have 2.2 vehicles in the garage,
an outboard motor and all other things we use energy for. There
simply is not enough. There simply would not be enough air to
breathe if we were fuelling that many vehicles.
We need to take a sensible approach to an energy strategy. I
would argue that our energy price commission would comment on
alternative forms of energy. This would not only help set the
price of energy and the length of time at which those prices
would be fixed, but it would also promote alternative sources of
energy. It would promote Canada as a centre of excellence for
alternative energy sources so that we could develop the
technology and export it. This would benefit the planet instead
of just flooding the world with more and more natural gas and
oil.
If we used an interventionist hand or at least took a regulating
role, the Government of Canada could not only benefit Canadians
by better access to affordable energy but also benefit the world
in terms of showing some vision and some recognition that what we
are doing is wrong and sooner or later we need to wean ourself
off fossil fuels.
In terms of being a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist, Bill
C-3 seems like the death rattle of a national dream. I hearken
back to a time when people in the Chamber had enough sense,
foresight and political courage to take active steps to represent
the interests of Canadian citizens before the interests of oil
companies. That manifested itself in a national energy program,
part of the strategy which had one oil company owned by the
people of Canada so that we had a watchdog on the industry and a
window into how the industry really operated.
That was a time of courage. That was an era when people had
some vision and some political courage. That has been eroded and
stripped away by the mania that everything must be deregulated,
the free hand of the market must prevail and the government must
not intervene whatsoever.
It has not served us well. It was the mantra of the Business
Council on National Issues and groups acting out of self-interest
and not the common good. We used to have people who were taking
steps for the common good. What a concept.
I believe our precious natural resources are part of our common
wealth. It is a term we also do not hear too often. Some of us
feel strongly that the oil under our feet is part of the common
wealth we all share as Canadian citizens. Our children should be
proud of it and we should be able to feel secure about it.
One of the galling things is that we have now watched successive
governments trade away our ability to intervene on behalf of
Canadians when it comes to preferential pricing of energy
products even though it is ours, is under our soil and we seem to
have quite a bit of it. We have an abundance of natural gas.
I used to work on the oil rigs in Alberta. Every time we hit
natural gas everybody would collectively curse under their breath
because they did not want more gas. We would cap those wells off
and move on to the next well. That is a fact. One cannot swing
a cat in northern Alberta without hitting a capped off natural
gas well. There is no shortage. There is a manufactured
shortage if anything so prices can be jacked up.
Returning to my original point, there was a time in 1975 when
men and women in this place with political courage, with vision
and with a fierce national pride inspired whole generations.
1730
I was a young man then and I was very proud of the fact that we
were taking active steps to represent ourselves and make sure we
did not lose whole industries to foreign ownership.
In fact, Liberals such as Walter Gordon and Paul Martin Sr. and
people like them were against too much foreign ownership. They
passed laws to regulate how much of our industry should be
controlled by foreigners. Frankly we want the interests of
Canadians to be put before the interests of others. That is only
natural.
Why, then, would successive governments, the Tory government
under Mulroney and now the Liberal government under the current
leadership, trade away to our export market our ability to make
sure Canadians have access to our precious energy resources at a
preferential price? I call it economic treason when someone
trades that away.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I note that the hon. member from the Liberal Party who
was to move his motion does not appear to be in the House. I do
have a motion on the same subject which I would be pleased, with
the consent of the House, to propose. It calls for recognition
of the Armenian genocide of 1915. I certainly would be pleased
to proceed with my motion in the absence of the hon. member, if
there is consent of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if it would be helpful to the House if we would
extend government orders for a while until the member arrives. If
the member arrives we could stop immediately at that time to deal
with the item. I would be prepared to agree with that. Otherwise
I guess we have no choice but to adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member for Brampton
Centre is not present to move his motion pursuant to the notice
published in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the order is
dropped from the order paper.
It being 5.35 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.)