Debates of May 29th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House again.

Does my colleague believe it is possible to improve Bill C-6? Does she agree that we now have an opportunity to improve it?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I think that improving the bill means removing clause 11, purely and simply. If we really want to respect the spirit and the letter of the convention, that is what we have to do. We still have an opportunity to do it, and I encourage the government to take this path.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is an important bill that will significantly impact future international conflicts and Canada's role in them.

My colleagues have already rightly pointed out that the bill contains some major flaws, unfortunately. If it is passed in its present form, we will have signed the convention in invisible ink, because we will in fact not be adhering to the letter of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In many parts of the world, the Conservative bill to implement the convention is considered to be the weakest one and, quite honestly, the worst one.

The bill is very problematic, which is why it is essential that we amend it. As my colleagues have already stated, we will only be able to support it if it is amended. As it currently stands, the bill undermines the spirit in which the convention was drafted as well as its intent, namely the protection of civilians in armed conflicts. Tragically, those who have no stake in conflicts, civilians, far too often become the unfortunate victims of these dangerous weapons.

We have worked very hard with Canadian and international civil society groups to convince the government to ban the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. The bill is still riddled with several dangerous and unnecessary legal gaps. These would allow Canadian soldiers to come into contact with highly dangerous and lethal cluster munitions and even use them. Their projectiles can unfortunately hit civilian populations.

The NDP will keep pressuring the Conservatives to amend this bill, so that Canada can at least be recognized as a humanitarian country, a humanist one, and a leader when it comes to promoting peace and protecting civilians.

Canada used to have a better reputation on the international stage. Recently, under the Conservative government, we have lost opportunities to maintain and even enhance our country's reputation. For example, Canada was the first and only country to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. We backed away from our responsibility to protect our environment and our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All this tarnishes our reputation. Many experts and witnesses have said that of all bills created by the signatories to the convention, Canada's is the weakest.

I hope that the Conservatives will have the diligence and open-mindedness to accept the amendments put forward in good faith, so that the convention can be ratified. Canada will then be party to a convention aimed at improving the well-being of civilians and children, who are often victims of cluster munitions.

Unfortunately, Canada managed to negotiate, in the final text of the convention, the inclusion of an article allowing for ongoing military interoperability with states not party to the convention. That is a weakness.

What is worse is that Bill C-6 is not only about this article on interoperability. The main problem lies with clause 11, which proposes a list of very vague exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, obtain, possess or transport cluster munitions in the course of joint operations with a state that is not a party to the convention, and to request that they be used by the armed forces of another country.

Obviously, such a provision does not respect the spirit of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Clause 11 makes it virtually impossible for the NDP to support the bill. That is why I am saying amendments will be required. The amendments that the NDP and other parties will propose will have to be accepted to bring the bill back on the right track and respect this very important convention.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP gave its support to Canadian and foreign civil organizations calling for the bill to be amended. Unfortunately, this legislation has other flaws, but that is the main one.

We want to fully support the development of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We want a treaty to implement such a ban, as stated in the convention. However, this bill does not fully implement the convention.

The NDP will not support the bill as it stands. In committee, we will work very hard with civil society groups to ensure that the amendments, which are logical and accepted by civil society and international groups, are also accepted by the Conservatives. We will then be able to support the bill. We must sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions because it is good and it goes in the right direction. However, the bill must also go in the same direction.

At this time, the best thing would be for the Conservatives to accept our proposed amendment to completely delete clause 11. I think this would allow us to have a perfect bill.

Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for the mine action program for Afghanistan at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He said:

In my opinion, the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to date.

He is a very significant figure in the negotiations, and he is saying that the proposed legislation is the worst. It does not satisfy Canada's obligations with respect to international humanitarian law. It does not protect vulnerable civilians in war-torn countries. In addition, it betrays the trust of the countries that negotiated the treaty in good faith. It also falls short of Canadians' expectations.

I could quote many other witnesses who made similar comments. The bill does not hold up and it does not comply with the convention. I am not the one saying it, the experts are. It absolutely needs to be amended.

I am reaching out to the Conservatives, and I hope that they will be open to amending this bill so that it honours the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out in his speech, the issue of cluster munitions is particularly tragic because the victims are often women and children. That is what we heard in committee when we were studying this bill.

My colleague also commented on the fact that the government has become the laughingstock of the international community when it comes to cluster munitions and the contents of Bill C-6.

Can my colleague talk about why clause 11 is so problematic? Does he think, like I do, that this clause should be taken out?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who is doing an excellent job. I believe that she sat on the committee and I am sure that she listened carefully to the experts, who clearly said that the bill in its current form does not comply with the convention.

To point out how dangerous these weapons are, I will repeat that 98% of the injuries caused by these cluster munitions were inflicted on civilians. That clearly shows why these weapons must be banned. These weapons are not really useful in war, but represent instead a danger to civilians, children, women and non-combatants.

That is why clause 11 is so dangerous. It allows us to shirk our obligation to not use these cluster munitions. We are saying that we will sign the convention, but that we will use these weapons anyway. We are not being honest if we sign the convention and keep clause 11.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the NDP always tries to work with the government in order to improve legislation. We have worked with groups in civil society to convince the government to come up with a common sense bill that prohibits Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions.

Can my colleague explain why we cannot support this bill if we leave legal voids? It is not enough to leave these legal voids; we must ban these bombs outright.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges for his question and excellent work.

It is not acceptable for us to sign a convention and make a commitment to the international community and then do the opposite when that community is not looking. There is a sort of legal loophole in this bill. There are holes everywhere. The bill is a sieve. It would enable Canadian soldiers to use cluster munitions in almost every situation, even though our country signed the convention.

That is why this bill needs to prohibit the use of cluster munitions. Ninety-eight percent of all injuries from cluster munitions are suffered by civilians. That number speaks for itself. It makes no sense from a humanitarian and peace-building perspective to continue using cluster munitions. We must take action.

We claim to want to bring peace to other countries. We sent our blue berets and other delegations to Afghanistan and other places all over the world to bring peace. We cannot use these cluster munitions and kill civilians. That makes no sense. That is not in line with Canada's humanistic reputation.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a new approach to talking about cluster munitions. I have heard a lot about this topic, but what I want to talk about is a bit new. The problem with cluster munitions is that they take human judgment out of a military operation.

I want to use some examples from the Second World War. Imagine a pilot who received information about the location of tents in enemy territory. He cannot wait to bomb those tents. He gets there and sees that on these tents is a white circle with a red cross on it. He stops the attack. He will not bomb a field hospital.

That is not the case with cluster munitions. The pilot does not even see the area. He sends a missile to attack an area—not a very specific target, not a tent. He bombs an area. That is the problem. A pilot cannot use judgment and stop an attack. The cluster munition decides who will die and who will not.

A sapper, an engineer, sets up a minefield. It is mapped out. He indicates on a map where the minefield is located, and he indicates what kind of mines were used and where they are placed. There are documents that support what I am saying. Every military manual will say that this is how to create a minefield. A well-placed minefield protects the sapper, but it also protects his troops, showing them they should not walk in that area. It prevents civilians from walking into the area by accident. It is very specific.

When a cluster munition explodes, it does not discriminate. It is left to chance. A huge area is haphazardly mined. Anyone can trip those mines. That is the problem with cluster munitions. The military no longer controls the placement and structure of a minefield.

A gunner attacks an enemy battery that is in a village, or near a village. What does the gunner do? He focuses his first shots on isolated targets before attacking the village, which gives civilians time to find shelter. A cluster munition does the exact opposite. It attacks the entire area at the same time, without warning. Cluster munitions increase the number of civilian victims, mostly because they are indiscriminate. Unlike humans, who can reason, machines are indiscriminate.

We are told to be careful with cluster munitions, because even though we may not use them, our allies might. However, when we stopped using poison gas, we stopped using it altogether. We did not say that our soldiers could not use poison gas but that we would let the Americans use it on our behalf. We did not say that if we ever needed support and if, by chance, poison gas was used, it would not be our fault. Poison gas is entirely prohibited. Cluster munitions are not subject to that same rule.

The biggest problem is that even if we ourselves do not use cluster bombs, we use their delivery systems. One of the biggest is the F-35. Our government wants to buy F-35s. An F-35 without cluster bombs is like a shotgun without bullets. Therein lies the contradiction.

How can we employ technology that is designed for the use of cluster bombs? That is what makes this situation so hypocritical. This is just like what happened with nuclear warheads.

Canada signed an international protocol prohibiting it from having nuclear weapons. What did Diefenbaker's Conservative government do? It said it wanted to use American F-101 Voodoo fighter jets and huge Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles. Those missiles are effective only if equipped with nuclear warheads. Canada might not have any nuclear warheads, but it would allow American technicians to bring nuclear warheads to Canadian military bases. If things started going badly, those American technicians could put nuclear warheads on Canadian planes and Canadian missiles. In theory, we signed a protocol prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.

The very same thing is happening now. The government puts on a show of being virtuous, but behind the scenes, it is finding ways to use these weapons. This kind of approach is dishonourable. If we do not want to use cluster munitions or be allied with countries that use cluster munitions, the simple answer is peace. We just do not participate in armed conflict with people who use these weapons. If we do so, we become accomplices.

One day we will have to face that fact. Just because the Americans go to war does not mean we have to be idiots and join them simply because the Conservatives think it is exciting.

It is not exciting to see Canadian soldiers die. It is not exciting for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have to kill people. Even less acceptable is when Canadian soldiers participate in military operations whose targets are primarily civilians. Peace is not built with weapons, but unfortunately, that is something we forget too often here.

Obviously, the NDP opposes Bill C-6, which allows for sly ways to use these unacceptable weapons. We want Canada to sign on fully to an agreement that has already been signed by several countries. That is what we want, and it is not unreasonable. Many countries that are U.S. allies have already done it. Being a U.S. ally does not necessarily mean being their underlings or their servants and finding that exciting. I will leave that to the government people.

So, naturally, the NDP believes that clause 11 has to go.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the lobby and I caught part of what my colleague was saying.

I will be on Juno Beach on June 6 next week, where thousands of Canadians apparently died like idiots. I have personally lost 35 friends to violent death in the service in flying accidents. They apparently died like idiots. There were 158 brave Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan who apparently died like idiots. We have had millions of Canadians who served in the cause of freedom, apparently like idiots. With those kinds of comments, I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

It makes me proud in a perverse kind of way that we can have a Parliament in a country where people can make comments like that, which are frankly beyond the pale. As well-meaning as I am sure they are, there are references, implications, or inferences to Canadians who served in uniform, any Canadians who fought for freedom of our country and countries that we have supported throughout our history over the last almost 150 years.

On the one hand, I am proud that we have a country where we are allowed to stand in this place and say such, frankly, idiotic things. On the other hand, it makes me sad that we have Canadians who have so little appreciation of what men and women in uniform have done for our country and for other countries throughout our history. I am extremely proud of those people. I am extremely proud of all those idiots, and I am extremely proud to have been one of those idiots.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the perfect example of an idiot. Dying for one's country and dying for freedom is one thing. Dying to allow imbeciles to say that they are allies of the Americans is another. I think it is sad that this individual considers himself a defender of our veterans. If he were truly a defender of Canadian veterans, then he would stop persecuting them and cutting their medical and other services. That would not be idiotic.

What we need here is to defend our country and our freedoms, not those of another and certainly not by using solutions that attack civilians.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand it is late and the member is emotional and tired, but he should apologize to my colleague for what he called him with regard to the word “idiot”. That is not appropriate parliamentary language and he should withdraw it and apologize.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Prince Albert for his intervention. I would remind all hon. members that the use of this kind of language specifically to individual members, as is referenced in section 18 of the Standing Orders, invariably leads to the kind of discourse that we do not abide by in the House. We realize that emotions can get high on either side.

I recognize the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin made his comments in French and I may want to go back to hear exactly what was said and the context of how it was said.

One of the standard measures that we use for unparliamentary language is when it creates disorder. Clearly, in the context that the comment was offered in this case, it has created a certain amount of emotional response from the other side.

I wonder if the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin might wish to address the point.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for this House and especially for you—your job is not easy and I believe we must support you at all times. I also think that my comments crossed the line.

I think the hon. member for Edmonton Centre deserves an apology and I apologize to him.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, incongruent with the way we handled the situation with the land mine treaty, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that the loopholes within Bill C-6 are certainly not congruent with the way it used to be. Would he like to comment on that, plus the fact that there are other nations that seem to have closed these loopholes without us taking part in it in order to ratify this treaty?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the entire international community is trying to prevent the use of certain weapons: land mines, especially plastic ones that are undetectable and can be confused with toys; poison gas; and nuclear weapons. The international community is trying to limit those.

When we limit the use of a weapon, we do so totally and irrevocably. Cluster munitions are generally recognized for being dangerous and for unacceptably targeting civilian populations, but yet they are given a pass. That is what is unacceptable about this bill. Bill C-6 allows another exception. We publicly say that we are against these cluster munitions, but then we turn around and allow them to be used. That is precisely what the Conservatives did with the use of nuclear weapons, the Bomarc missiles and the Voodoo fighter jets.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House this evening, despite the late hour. I would like to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

It is important to me to speak to this bill because I have a lot of reservations about its content. I plan to vote against Bill C-6 in its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement.

Here is some background on the horrific effects that cluster munitions can have on civilians. Essentially cluster munitions are a form of air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapons that release or eject smaller submunitions. The submunitions can be as small as a D size battery or a tennis ball.

The reason why these submunitions have such horrific effects is that their victims tend to be women and children. They tend to be civilians in a war zone or in a war situation. Moreover, unexploded submunitions essentially become landmines that can have devastating impacts on civilians many years after a conflict has ended. We have heard testimony from witnesses in committee about the devastating effects that cluster munitions can have on civilian populations.

Canada has participated actively in what was known as the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines.

Despite a strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada has succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problems with Bill C-6, as my colleagues before me have mentioned, lie in clause 11, which is the most controversial part of the bill and which establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions.

In its original form, section 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess or move cluster munitions when participating in combined military operations involving a state that is not a party to the convention, and to request the use of a cluster munition by another state's armed forces.

I had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which studied Bill C-6. I am proud to be part of the NDP team and to have worked with our foreign affairs critic, my colleague from Ottawa Centre, in supporting civilian organizations in Canada and abroad and in calling for amendments to the bill.

We talked to civilian organizations and worked with committee members. My colleague from Ottawa Centre worked with the government, hoping he could persuade it to expressly prohibit Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions. Unfortunately, the bill does not go far enough.

If Bill C-6 is not amended, Canada's commitment to the fight against cluster munitions will be very shallow. In fact, in its current form, this bill is the least restrictive of all bills passed by signatory states thus far.

Why is the bill problematic? It is problematic because it creates a dangerous precedent. In fact, it could even be detrimental to the convention internationally, in that the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.

The Government of Canada is not taking the lead. Instead it is attempting to undermine international initiatives to ban the use of cluster munitions.

I would like to share some of the comments heard in committee. The witnesses are very critical and very clear on the government's position.

Malcolm Fraser, a former Australian prime minister said:

It is a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

I must also mention that I have never been so ashamed about the government's position on international commitments as when I went to Durban a few years again when the government withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. That is another example of how the government operates and negotiates. It is acting in bad faith towards the international community.

Unfortunately, that is the Conservative government's way of doing things. Consequently, we have become the laughing stock of the international community.

I would like to read some more testimony into the record, and this comes from Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada. He said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Earl Turcotte, who is a former senior coordinator for mine action at DFAIT and was also the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention, said the following:

...the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

The important thing to stress is the issue of trust and the very real issue that the Conservative government is slowly eroding the trust that our international partners have in our ability and our willingness to support things like human rights and climate change negotiations internationally.

The Conservative government has also fallen short in other areas. Just today in the House of Commons during question period I was able to question the Conservative government on the signing of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The government has refused to join all of our NATO allies in signing the UN Arms Trade Treaty and has loosened restrictions on arms exports.

I believe that Canadians expect better from the Canadian government. Canadians expect the government to play a leadership role and to strengthen the convention rather than propose measures such as Bill C-6 that undermine the principles of the convention.

I would like to repeat that we are opposed to the bill as presented and, although we were able to obtain one amendment during committee that the Conservatives worked together with us to implement, it is an insufficient amendment to allow us to support the bill.

I believe without question that clause 11 needs to be eliminated from the bill in order to obtain my support and in order to obtain the support of my party. The NDP and our critic have proposed to delete the clause from the bill before it passes report stage.

Of course, we all decry the horrific effects of cluster munitions, but when it comes to real action, to strengthening our position on the international stage, and to reinforcing human rights around the world, I would invite all of my colleagues in this House to join with me in calling for clause 11 to be deleted from Bill C-6.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for her excellent speech.

She gave a good explanation of why we cannot support the bill in its current form. That is why the Conservatives must keep an open mind. They must understand that these amendments would ensure that the convention protects the people to whom these munitions pose a threat, that is civilians. I would like to point out that civilians suffer 98% of all injuries caused by cluster munitions. Women, children and people who have nothing to do with the conflict, but who unfortunately are caught in the crossfire, are the victims of these cluster munitions. Therefore, it is very important for Canada's reputation that this bill ban the use of these munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Does my colleague believe, as I do, that it is vital that we remove clause 11 to have this bill reflect the Convention on Cluster Munitions?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We cannot accept this bill unless clause 11 is removed. I quoted several witnesses who appeared before the committee in support of our position. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that clause 11 would authorize activities undermining the purpose of the CCM and would contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions instead of bringing about their elimination.

To me, that speaks volumes. The Canadian Red Cross believes that Bill C-6 will contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions. That is certainly not what the House intends. I think that all MPs should work to eliminate the use of cluster bombs given their devastating impact on women, children and innocent people. We have to stop using these weapons as soon as possible.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question.

One of the things we noted missing in Bill C-6 are obligations that are outlined in the convention. Not thoroughly addressed are obligations including stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of convention obligations, and discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on those glaring omissions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee looked at other ways to improve this bill. We talked about prohibiting investment in companies that produce cluster bombs. Other countries have done that. Civil society organizations told us that we had to get rid of clause 11. I have to emphasize how big a problem this clause is. I know we can do something else. Some countries have gone even further to eliminate the use of cluster bombs.

The essential thing now is for all members of the House to come together to eliminate clause 11 from Bill C-6.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not rehash everything my colleagues have said about the fact that clause 11 is not necessary. In truth, not only is it not necessary, but it distorts the very spirit of this bill, which has a certain logic in the context of a convention.

This reminds me of the conversations we had about Bill S-9 at the time, on the convention on nuclear material and everything related to that.

I am not going to repeat my colleague's arguments. Instead I would like to quote some of the things that were said in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development during the studies. Take for example the rather interesting testimony of General Natynczyk:

If we had to enforce article 21 of the convention, the exceptions listed in clause 11 of Bill C-6 would protect our men and women in uniform against prosecution, because they would have simply been carrying out their military duties.

We can understand the government's reluctance, relayed by General Natynczyk, who, I would remind the House, was the Chief of the Defence Staff until a few years ago. There is the fear that one day our soldiers will be faced with the prospect of having to explain why they took part in the use of cluster munitions.

That just shows to what extent Canada should be taking a leadership position in defending the rights of the most vulnerable. We know that these weapons in particular attack mainly civilians and children. It was General Natynczyk who pointed that out to us at that same committee meeting:

I spent my time in Bosnia and Croatia in 1994-95 and I saw the indiscriminate effects of landmines on civilians tilling their fields, children playing near schools, our own Canadian men and women and allied United Nations soldiers who attempted to bring peace and security to those troubled countries.

There is a contradiction in General Natynczyk's testimony. On the one hand he said he witnessed the catastrophic consequences for children and civilians but, on the other hand, he supports clause 11 because our serving men and women would never have to account for using these terrible weapons, which are totally and utterly senseless because they target primarily civilians and children.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Consumer Protection

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, even at this time of night, to speak about an issue affecting all Canadians, namely the price of gasoline at the pump, which is far too high.

Each of us has seen gas stations on different streets in the same city and noticed how prices are different from one gas station to the next, and from one city to the next, so much so that sometimes a detour is well worth it. We do not understand why gas can cost a few cents a litre less at a gas station than at another one. There are even websites that indicate where gas is least expensive.

All these gas price variations at the pump are due to mismanagement. It is high time the federal government took action to put an end to these price variations. It is time to appoint an ombudsman to protect consumers from gas price variations and to strengthen Industry Canada's rules on collusion.

The NDP believes the federal government has a responsibility regarding the price of gas, which is once again reaching very high levels, as we have seen over the past few weeks.

The government can and must take meaningful action to counter these abusive price hikes. It is high time we stopped getting gouged at the pumps. We have to fill up every week. It is time to put an end to these hikes. People do not understand why the price of gas keeps going up when the price of oil does not change. At nearly $1.50 a litre in many cities in Quebec, including Quebec City, people are saying that they are paying too much. They are right.

I am calling on the Conservative government to follow the NDP's recommendations and create an ombudsman position to monitor gas prices and receive the growing number of complaints from drivers about this. Of course, that would allow us to put more pressure on the Competition Bureau, ensuring that there is more vigorous, aggressive follow-up.

The NDP also suggests that we strengthen Industry Canada's rules, to more effectively combat collusion among oil companies. The existing rules need to be more vigorously applied. It is unacceptable that the Competition Bureau's collusion cases result in sentences to be served in the community or in fines that rarely exceed $10,000. We are talking about collusion here. I think we need to be a lot tougher.

The federal government continues to subsidize the big oil companies and has significantly reduced their taxes in recent years. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians, the consumers and taxpayers, are being relentlessly gouged at the pumps, which is appalling. Canadians are being hit with a double whammy, because their taxes are being used to subsidize the Conservatives' gifts to the oil companies. That is essentially what is going on.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how excited I am to be here tonight at five minutes after midnight to respond to comments made earlier by the hon. member for Québec regarding gasoline prices.

Let me begin by saying that this government understands the importance of gasoline, both to Canadians' everyday lives and to the Canadian economy. Canadians work hard to make ends meet and expect their government to have their interests front of mind. That is why our government has taken action in light of rising energy and commodity prices by making retailers more accountable for the accuracy of their gas-pump scales and other measuring devices.

Specifically, we have passed the Fairness at the Pumps Act. It is designed to protect consumers from inaccurate measurement at the pumps by introducing mandatory inspection requirements.

We also made substantial amendments to the Competition Act in 2009 that strengthened the powers of the Commissioner of Competition to take action against anti-competitive behaviour, including price fixing. The new provisions make it illegal for competitors to conspire, agree, or arrange to fix prices, or restrict output of a product. They also increase the penalties upon conviction, including jail terms of up to 14 years, fines of up to $25 million, or a combination of both.

Enforcing the law in order to protect consumers and competition is the Competition Bureau's mandate. When the bureau finds evidence of behaviour that violates the Competition Act, it does not hesitate to take action to protect competition and consumers. We saw evidence of this when a gasoline price-fixing cartel was charged in Quebec in 2008, 2010, and again in 2012.

In June 2008, following a Competition Bureau investigation, 13 individuals and 11 companies were charged with fixing the price of gasoline at the pump in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog, and Sherbrooke. In July 2010, an additional 25 individuals and 3 companies were charged with fixing the price of gasoline at the pump in the same four local markets. Most recently, in September 2012, one additional individual and company were charged with fixing the price of gasoline in three of these markets. A total of 39 individuals and 15 companies are accused in this case. To date, 33 individuals and 7 companies have pleaded guilty. The resulting fines totalled over $3 million and six individuals have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 54 months.

In Ontario, charges of fixing the retail price of gasoline have resulted in four guilty pleas and the resulting fines have totalled over $2.5 million.

I would like to remind the hon. member that contrary to what some people may think, the federal government does not control the price of most goods and services sold in Canada, including gasoline. With the exception of a national emergency, only the provinces have the authority to regulate gasoline prices. That is why we will use the tools at our disposal to ensure that consumers are truly and effectively protected against these types of illegal activities. We will continue to stand up for consumers in this and all sectors of our economy.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is still something to be done.

According to Desjardins, the lack of competition in Quebec's gasoline market can drive prices up for motorists, but this still does not explain the widening gap between prices at the pump and the price of oil.

To quote a few figures, in 2008, the price of a barrel of oil was roughly $140 U.S. At the time, fear of a global shortage had pushed prices up. The same barrel today trades at the much lower price of $107 U.S. or thereabouts. Gas prices, however, keep skyrocketing.

This gap in prices is plain for all to see, yet it remains unexplained. Consumers wonder why prices at the pump keep rising. We cannot understand why they keep rising while the price of a barrel remains relatively steady.

I believe there is cause to establish an ombudsman mandated to more closely oversee the Competition Bureau and the enforcement of its rules. That is what the NDP is calling for.

I would like to hear the member's comments on the issue.