John Solomon

[Natural Gas, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be speaking on this motion, but at this time I would like ask for unanimous consent to ask the member for Vancouver Island North a question on his remarks.

[Natural Gas, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to the member from the Canadian Alliance talk about unfettered market forces, that he does not support this motion and so on. I would seek unanimous consent to ask the member a question.

[Gasoline Pricing, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of competence. The Liberals' left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Meanwhile, record gas prices could rise even further.

The government and the oil companies have had years to work on these problems. Here were are down to the wire. Both sides have dug in their heels and consumers are supposed to pay for the Liberals' incompetence.

A litre of gas costs 78 cents in St. John's today. They can little afford it. Do the Liberals really want to be the ones on guard when gas hits $1 in Newfoundland, or will they finally agree that it is time to establish a federal energy price review commission?

[Gasoline Pricing, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the big oil companies that are earning record profits are now threatening to hold consumers ransom in their fight with the government over sulphur levels in gasoline.

The government should be protecting consumers and our air quality and supporting the latest environmental technologies, but the responsible departments cannot even agree on their bottom line. Meanwhile, consumers who are already being gouged now face shortages at the pump, independent retailers face bankruptcy, and gas prices are set to rise by yet another 10 cents a litre. Why are the oil companies and the government holding consumers up for ransom?

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to my question of February 24 to the Minister of Natural Resources on the issue of energy costs.

In February gasoline, diesel and home heating fuel prices skyrocketed to record levels for two reasons: OPEC cut back oil production, and a bitterly cold winter in the northeast U.S. hiked the demand for crude just at the minute it reached over $30 U.S. per barrel.

Canada is a net exporter of oil. That means we produce more oil than we consume and, therefore, we export the difference. These reasons which were given to us back in February, which are now still affecting our price of energy, are very unacceptable. There is no information which can prove that is driving up the prices. I think it is a result of unjustified price increases by oil companies.

Canadians were badly hurt by the resulting record price increase, in particular those on the east coast and truckers who already struggle with very thin cost margins.

I raised this issue many times in the House to almost nothing but blank stares from the Liberal government. It was as if the Liberals were completely unaware that Canadians were hurting, completely oblivious that Canadians were hopping mad. This is another example of how little the Liberal government is in touch with Canadians.

I guess that is what happens when we give cabinet ministers a government car and a government driver. They have no idea what the price of gas is any more.

Meanwhile, south of the border, the U.S. administration was convening energy summits in the northeast with refineries, trucking associations, suppliers, consumer groups and industrial users. President Clinton said that his administration found the problem “deeply troubling” and was monitoring it daily. He announced a 17 point plan to help consumers, truckers and business people get through the crisis. He defended his economy and dispatched his energy secretary, Bill Richardson, to meet with OPEC ministers around the world.

By the way, a New York Times story some weeks later pointed out that Bill Richardson, the energy secretary I mentioned, earned very high marks for his decisive action on this file and is now a leading contender for the vice-presidential candidacy on the Democratic ticket. This is a lesson on how to listen to people and take their concerns seriously, one the Liberals could learn a lot from.

Back in Canada, the provinces and territories were not having much more luck with the government than we in the opposition were, as it turns out. They tried to convince the federal government that it was only reasonable, if it was going to conduct a credible study on gasoline retailing, to do it with someone other than just the integrated oil companies. They finally agreed to go in on a study with the federal government, but then the feds let the contract out and it wound up going to the same contractor that the big oil companies use, M. J. Ervin, so half of the provinces, plus the independent gas retailers pulled out again.

This was the moment at which I put my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Would he finally call an energy summit of affected parties to consider urgent assistance measures and consider some long term preventive measures to ensure such price spikes and supply problems do not threaten our economy again?

The minister indicated that he would canvass his provincial colleagues. I would like to know tonight what the result of that canvass was, fully three months after the question.

Moreover, the federal government has subsequently announced a new study of the oil industry. Initially I thought that if it contributed some independent data and had some real teeth, it might be worthwhile in terms of contributing to the debate, but then I learned that the price tag was $750,000. That is outrageous, since the study is going back to the same consulting firm which the big oil companies use, M. J. Ervin, which the provinces and the independent gas retailers raised concerns about previously and rejected.

Most of the cost is not going to research. Most of it, 60%, is going to public relations. I quote from the terms of reference for the study: “A highly structured/facilitated session of only invited stakeholders to conduct a dialogue on the intransigence of the public's perception on gas prices”. They are going to Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. They should go to Whitehorse, Regina and St. John's, Newfoundland instead and let the doors be open wide.

The entire premise of the study by the Conference Board is that the issue has been studied to death but the public just does not understand the research.

In summary, I think we have a different problem in this country. First, the refineries have a monopoly. Second, the Liberals rely on the integrated oil companies for campaign contributions. Third, the public is paying higher prices at the pump now when crude is at $26 a barrel than it was during the gulf war when crude hit $35 U.S. a barrel. What is the answer?

[Trans-Canada Highway, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Highway once proudly symbolized the national yearning to unite our country from coast to coast.

Sadly in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan it symbolizes injury, death and the indifference of the federal Liberal government. On this one stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway alone there have been 900 accidents in the last 12 years resulting in 26 deaths and 356 serious injuries. In fact some 40 people have died on this one stretch of highway since 1979.

On Thursday, April 13 Saskatchewan highways minister Maynard Sonntag demanded again that the Liberals participate in the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway. Tragically the next day there was another accident killing three people and closing the highway for over 12 hours.

The province of Saskatchewan carries 96% of highway spending. Canada is the only industrialized country with no national highways program.

Saskatchewan can finish the twinning on its own by 2012 or it can finish it much sooner with federal money. We need the Liberals' urgent help to save lives now.

[Patented Medicines, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Recent WTO rulings on patented drugs will again increase drug costs for Canadians.

The Liberals broke their 1993 promise to protect generic drugs, so brand name drug prices have soared adding billions to our health costs. More health dollars are now spent on drugs than on doctors' fees and too many people have to choose between filling their prescriptions or buying food.

Will the Liberal government at least draw a line in the sand and appeal the WTO ruling on drug patents or, better still, will the Prime Minister finally stand up for Canadians and kill Bill C-91, like he promised seven years ago?

[I Am Canadian, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I do not spend millions to run for office or hire American consultants or go negative. I do not know Stockwell or Tom or Joe but I am sure they are very nice. I have a health card, not an insurance card. I listen to Cross Country Checkup, not Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh. I speak for people, not multinational corporations. I believe in inexpensive generic drugs, environmental protection and fair trade deals. I believe that Canada can have an independent foreign policy. Canadian taxpayers are citizens too who value our social programs. And it is pronounced medicare, not Bill 11, okay? Canada is the home of public health care, curling, Codco and the NDP.

My name is John and I am Canadian.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister at that time how Bill C-31 would impact on closing the door to criminal elements and gangs.

For example, on the front page of the Globe and Mail on the weekend there was an article about the Chinese triads who are infiltrating our country, or who have infiltrated our country, and are establishing a very complex criminal process which is taking advantage of our citizens, and certainly taking advantage of being allowed to operate in our country as citizens.

I would hope that this bill would stop these sorts of very terrible organizations from forming in our country. We have enough crime as it is without having to import it from China and other places.

We have some reservations about this bill. It is essential that the rules apply in the name of fairness and justice and do not result in a travesty of justice. The best example is that we will not allow people who have been convicted of crimes to enter our country.

I think that is a good standard; however, I do not think we should be totally inflexible about it, because a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than 10 years, and who has served more than two years, someone like Nelson Mandela, would not have qualified as a refugee to Canada under the proposed bill. I think we have to look at what sort of criminal records these individuals have and whether they were standing for human rights in their country, charged and put in jail. We have to look at those on a case by case basis.

Other examples are the people who hid Anne Frank and the brave Canadians who helped build the underground railway for American slaves. They would have qualified for stiff criminal penalties under Bill C-31. We believe that there are some problems with that, and I hope that in committee we would be able to resolve some of those issues.

We also look forward to the minister's invitation to review and have some input into the regulations. She indicated in the House earlier today that all stakeholders, caucuses and political parties would have an opportunity to mould the regulations of this bill. I am looking forward to having our critic, our caucus and our party make recommendations with respect to streamlining the regulations, making them as fair as possible.

In summary, we in the NDP believe that the Immigration Act has to be modernized. It has to be toughened up. The two approaches this act takes, being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, are important elements, but we should also open the door for those who legitimately have grounds for immigrating to our country to allow those people in.

We have to have the resources backed up by the treasury of Canada to allow that to happen. This means more resources in the consulates and embassies of Canada around the world. One of the biggest problems we have had, for example, is with our embassy in Beijing. We cannot talk to people there. We only get a recorded message. Anybody who wishes to make application from China to Canada has to go through a very complex and frustrating process. We are hoping that because of the increased resources that will be provided with the bill this will allow the process to be streamlined and allow potential new Canadians to actually talk to existing Canadians on a one to one basis.

[Petitions, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of western Canadians who are disgusted with the lack of a national highway program.

Canada is the only country out of the 28 OECD countries in the world that does not have a national highway program. We have experienced very significant problems in western Canada such as deaths on the roads where we have not been able to twin them.

The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons and the Liberal government to establish a national highway program which the federal government could fund to help build our country from coast to coast to coast. They are calling upon the government to do something quickly with respect to an action plan on building a national highway system.