Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act

Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

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.

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.

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.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

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.

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.

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.

This bill is good for Petro-Canada, good for Cameco and good for all Canadians. I urge my colleagues to adopt the legislation.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-7, the Liberal government's latest attempt to replace the Young Offenders Act with new youth criminal justice legislation.

All my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have tried hard to improve the youth criminal justice legislation. In particular, I would commend my neighbour, the hon. member for Surrey North, for his contribution in this area.

The bill provides principles, procedures and protections for the prosecution of young persons under criminal and other federal laws. It is the third attempt by the government to bring forth young offenders legislation. The bill, with very few changes, is the same as what has been introduced previously. This version of the bill has been updated just to include over 160 technical amendments from the last government.

Here are some specifics. The list of offences for which adult sentences may be imposed is severely limited. The goal of sentencing is solely to contribute to the protection of society by having meaningful consequences for young persons which promote rehabilitation and reintegration, so the goal of protection of society is hardly a concern.

Even for offences that could be treated in adult court, the judge must first consider the least restrictive sentence and only impose adult sentencing as a last resort. Maximum sentencing has not changed for youth sentencing purposes. It is still ten years for murder, with six years in custody and four years under supervision in the community; seven years for second degree murder, with four years in custody and three years under supervision; three years for any offence having an adult sentence of life imprisonment, with two years in custody and one year under supervision for all others.

The deterrent that society demands and needs to cause resistance to commit a crime is effectively not there. Rather, the lack of serious consequences, commonly called the slap on the wrist, acts as a motivation for the youth to commit a crime or for the youth to be used to commit a crime.

I will read from the Canadian Alliance policy book, which of course is dictated by our grassroots membership, unlike the policies of any other political party in the House. Sections 28 and 30 state:

We will make providing safety and security for Canadians, their families and their property the overriding objective of the criminal justice system. We will support rehabilitation programs designed to safely restore offenders to society.

We will introduce measures to hold young lawbreakers accountable to their victims and the larger community. We recognize that custody is not always the most effective way of dealing with young offenders. Detention facilities for youth will be separate and emphasize skills training, responsibility, and community service. Violent or serious repeat offenders 14 and over will be tried as adults, as will all offenders 16 and over.

In various ways this legislation seems to place the safety and security of Canadians behind the interest in rehabilitating and reintegrating the offenders back into society.

We have attempted to encourage the government to amend the bill to make it clear that protection of the public is to be the paramount principle behind this legislation, but the minister refuses.

The legislation does not ensure that violent or serious repeat offenders will be tried as adults. We have proposed amendments to previous portions of the bill to limit extrajudicial measures to first time non-violent offenders. This means no court, no criminal record and community designed informal types of sanctions or punishment. Again the minister refuses to accede to this request. Repeat and violent offenders may never have to see court, be convicted and receive a criminal record.

It was the justice committee and the Canadian Alliance through its former version, the Reform Party, that first endorsed alternative measures for first time non-violent offenders. The minister claims credit, but she once again fails to restrict this form of conditional sentencing. It is open to repeat offenders and it is open to violent offenders.

The list of presumptive offences for which an adult sentence may be imposed is severely restricted. The list includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious violent offences.

In Bill C-7 the minister has further weakened the legislation by limiting presumptive offence procedure even more. Through clause 61, any province may decide that only 15 year old or even 16 year old offenders who commit offences such as murder could be transferred to adult court, while 10 year olds and 11 year olds would still not be held criminally responsible for their crimes.

The legislation will create a patchwork or checkerboard system of youth justice, as many of its provisions permit the provinces undue discretion in whether to seek adult sentencing, in publication of names and in access to records, to name just a few.

The legislation provides some movement toward victims' rights, but even they are not ensured and are still woefully inadequate.

The government has not been open to change for any aspect of the legislation except for some technical amendments. All of the opposition parties except the Bloc presented substantive amendments to the former bill, Bill C-3. Those amendments did not receive debate in parliament and do not appear to have been considered by the government. In fact, the government is not serious about discussion, so the Liberals are ignoring those amendments.

The provinces would be tasked to administer this legal nightmare, but the federal government does not seem to care. The Liberals have promised $206 million over the first three years for the implementation of the bill, but this would not even come close to meeting the responsibility of providing 50% of the funding for the youth justice system. The Liberals have allowed federal funding to slip to about 20%. The provinces have to carry the can financially for these proposals, costs of which are going to dramatically rise through legal argument and procedure.

An initial review of Bill C-7 indicates that the government has made it even weaker, likely to appease the Quebec government and the Bloc Quebecois. For instance, the presumptive offence provision that moves youths 14 years of age and older automatically to adult court for murder, et cetera, now permits the provinces, Quebec in this case, to raise the age to restrict the transfer to only 15 year old or 16 year old offenders.

Restrictions on naming of violent offenders are still not taken into consideration. The bill still has an emphasis on attempting to understand the circumstances underlying the criminal behaviour and rehabilitation and reintegration. Protection of the public takes second fiddle. Denunciation and deterrence seem to be foreign words for the government.

If the legislation passes, its complexity and its loopholes will cause horrendous delays. The costs to our youth criminal justice process in legal bills will be phenomenal.

In conclusion I would like to say that the official opposition carries on with its job of holding the flashlight and showing the Liberals their darkness. We gave the Liberal members a chance to improve on the legislation. They should look at our amendments through the lens of issues, not political stripes.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank our justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for the work he has done on this which extends way beyond this parliament.

As hon. members well know, this bill has been introduced and reintroduced. In fact, it goes back to three parliaments ago when it was originally brought in to update the Young Offenders Act, which we know has been a very troubled piece of legislation since its inception. I point out that the Young Offenders Act has gone beyond the life of young offenders. It is 17 years old.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out on a number of occasions that the present Young Offenders Act does not deserve much of its present reputation. The government could do a number of things to improve the act.

He pointed out that Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, from the outset looked very encouraging. It talks about early intervention. It talks about preventive measures on youth who could be embarking on a life of crime. That is of course what we want to prevent. A reversal of one's behaviour can come about only by interventionist activities on the part of professionals that can help steer young people in the right direction. That is very commendable.

However it is the shear complexity of the bill with which most of us have some major concerns. The previous speaker had a copy of the bill in his hands. The physical size of the bill is double the size and the complexity of the existing legislation, the Young Offenders Act.

Quoting from a previous speaker, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, in remarks made in the House on February 14:

This particular bill in its current form is so complex, so convoluted and cumbersome that were it to be enacted it its current form, the delays, the interpretations, the legal jargon and the manipulations that would result would be astronomical.

He and other members have mentioned the convoluted nature of this piece of legislation. That has been borne out by judges and others who have worked in the youth criminal justice system over the years. A number of opinions have been rendered on that. They simply say that interpretation of the act would be very difficult for some of our most skilled members of the legal profession.

We have other examples of what we should do and how the bill could be reconstructed, but basically the problem we see is that the present government has refused to give to police the tools needed to do their jobs and the proper resources to effectively implement the present act, let alone any new act. The government's failure to address the problem has allowed the Young Offenders Act to become synonymous with the problems involving youth crime in Canada. There is a need to restore public confidence in the system.

As I mentioned earlier, we have had over seven years of delay and numerous promises in regard to the bill. Originally the government, back in the early nineties, introduced it as Bill C-3. That was replaced with Bill C-68 in the last parliament. We are still talking but nothing is happening.

The bill was criticized by all parties, including the Liberal Party, and all youth justice experts around the country. The reasons were that the bill was too long, too complex and too expensive for the provinces to implement. If the provinces do not have the financial resources to implement the bill, what good would it be, despite its good intentions?

As a result of the frustration of members of parliament in the last parliament during committee hearings on the bill, the member for Berthier—Montcalm filibustered for 27 hours in a determined effort to derail this particular bill. The bill to which we are speaking has only minor technical amendments. Experts still think the bill is too long, too expensive and too complicated.

One of the models we often point to is the province of Quebec. Certainly in terms of the treatment of young offenders, it has a lot of which to be proud. Quebec is certainly miles ahead of the rest of the provinces. The bill attempts to reflect that but without giving the provinces the resources to do it. It is going to complicate and exaggerate the differences between a province like Ontario with that of Quebec.

Bill C-7 does not offer any real disincentive for youth criminals. The Liberals say that crime rates are falling and that opposition parties are only fearmongering when speaking about the need to crack down on violent crime in Canada. Last July Statistics Canada announced that crime rates had fallen to their lowest level in 20 years. However, it did not mention youth crime.

The overall decline in crime masks a sharp increase in violent crime and a staggering rise in youth crime. While less serious crimes have petered off, violent crime is actually up by 57% over the last 20 years and violent youth crime is up by over 77% in 10 years. It is quite obvious that this is not fearmongering. It is a real problem when we look at an increase of 77% in 10 years.

I will not end there because the numbers get even more disturbing. Violent crime by young girls has risen 127% since 1988, with most of those statistics coming from categories such as murder and hostage taking. Obviously we have read about stories like that. There was one in the National Post on July 20, 2000, if anyone is interested.

Lack of accountability for the crimes committed by young offenders is no deterrent. Even when young criminals are convicted, they are often given a custodial sentence which can often be served at home. They are sentenced on average to a single month. It is not much wonder that 40% of all young offenders are repeat offenders.

Almost half of the convicted youths between the years 1998-99 were simply placed on probation. Seventy-five per cent of custody sentences were for three months or less, and 90% of those sentences were for six months or less. Only 2% of these convicted offenders got more than a year. We are talking about serious crime, not petty crimes. Only 0.1% of youth crimes made it to adult court between 1998-99. I believe the last point or the numbers are precise. Forty-eight per cent of those convicted had at least one previous conviction.

If we ask frontline police officers if things are getting easier, their answer is absolutely not. They say so called minor youth crimes are not being reported due to an overworked police force that is stretched to deal with too much crime. Too many young offenders are being dealt with through what they call extra judicial measures. They do not become part of the government's statistics. If it is not reported, it did not happen.

Frontline victim groups are upset that under Bill C-7 crimes such as common assault are not considered by the government to be violent in nature. That would not be included in the violent crime statistics, thus helping to further massage the government's statistics to support its theory that violent crime is decreasing.

It is hard to believe that children under 12 years old are committing serious crimes and many of them are not being charged at all. I would like to give the House an example.

On August 23, 2000, Ms. Margaret Moore, an elderly woman in Calgary, was mugged and beaten at noon hour by two young girls aged 11 and 13. The 13 year old faces one charge of robbery and the 11 year old is too young to be charged under the Young Offenders Act. That is an important point to make. It is obviously a flaw in the Young Offenders Act.

Another example is an 11 year old boy walked into an Edmonton bank in broad daylight a few weeks ago and proceeded to rob it. The young boy was wearing a ball cap, sunglasses and carried a knapsack. He handed the teller a note demanding money. Being only 11 years old, the system has no means of dealing with this young offender.

Children under 12 and older youth are expected to be dealt with through provincially administered programs which are supposed to receive 50% of their funding from the federal government. Obviously they do not because every province, including my home province, is complaining about the lack of funds from Ottawa to help in rehabilitation. Under the present government, the provinces have seen their 50% share drop to as little as 30%. This decreased funding equates to children not receiving the services they need and rehabilitation does not occur. That is the key. If we want to look to any part of the country where rehabilitation has worked we would obviously look to the province of Quebec.

Victims of youth crime could give us stories behind these statistics. They could give us stories about the lives that have been taken and the hurt that has been caused. They could give us stories about the victims who have been left behind to fight for recognition from a Liberal justice system which is concerned more with the rights of the young offender than with the pain of the victims and the need to be accountable to the public, which is scared that these young offenders will continue to get off with a slap on the wrist.

There are not many weaknesses in Bill C-7. However, if we are reintroducing or bringing in a new bill, we have to provide the provinces with the tools and resources to implement it. The bill simply puts an impossible burden on the backs of the provinces, especially the poorer ones.

We have a couple of things that could happen.

First, judges could be given more power to impose mandatory treatment or therapy for troubled youth. The key is obviously treatment and therapy.

Second, serious violent crime offences involving young offenders could be automatically transferred to adult courts.

Third, we should enact a parental responsibility act to make the parents of young offenders financially responsible for the criminal acts of their children.

Fourth, we should lower the age of accountability to include violent criminals of all ages. Currently, as we well know, violent offenders below the age of 12 face no punishment for their crimes. At least in cases involving serious crime, the justice system should be able to bring a child under the age of 12 into the youth justice system in the same manner that a young offender can be transferred into the adult system for serious crimes.

Our party, although we risk being accused of this when we speak in such terms, does not intend to incarcerate youths in inhuman or cruel facilities. None of us want that. However we do support mandatory youth access to adult criminal rehabilitation resources and increased accountability for violent youth crime.

Through such services we hope to prevent young adults from continuing a life of anti-social criminal activity. We can make a positive change in the area of law enforcement by making a commitment to action in at least three areas.

First, we should reform the youth criminal justice system.

Second, we should build safe communities through the promotion of anti-violence and by providing adult mentors for our young people, especially our youth at risk.

Third, we should give law enforcement agencies the resources they need to do their jobs.

In the last parliament, as the House is well aware, we put forward a number of amendments. We will do the same in this parliament. We put forth amendments to Bill C-3 and Bill C-68, and we plan to do the same for Bill C-11.

The bill should be scrapped, but Liberal members are obviously unwilling to listen to the public. We hope they will at least take a close look at our amendments which aim at improving this piece of legislation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time.

This debate by and large generates more heat than light and has, over the past seven years of these last three parliaments, generated a great deal of heat. I do not know how much light we actually came to over the course of those three parliaments, but this occupied the 35th parliament. The justice committee reported in May 1997 on this issue and that formed the basis for the 36th parliament's Bill C-68.

In the course of dealing with Bill C-68, parliament was prorogued and that bill became Bill C-3. In the course of dealing with Bill C-3, we in the justice committee had extensive hearings, as did the previous justice committee, hearings that were nationwide. In the course of those hearings, we heard from pretty well every corner of the country and from every interested jurisdiction. Bill C-3 has now become Bill C-7 and we are now in the 37th parliament and back to debating this issue.

While I have some discomfort at times about time allocation, there comes a time when time should be allocated. I believe this is one of those occasions where we finally have to deal with the evidence we have heard, the testimony we have heard and the manner in which the government has put it forward in a bill after extensive hearings.

May I say that at the point where we were just about to get down to clause by clause in the justice committee, the Bloc Quebecois decided that would be a good time to filibuster. The Bloc took up something in the order of 27 hours of the committee's time on a filibuster which ultimately had to be returned to the House, with the net result that the bill was not heard and not dealt with prior to the election in November 2000.

I submit that we are not going to make everybody happy. There are times at which government just has to be government. Parliament does its thing and expresses its view because, after all, this is a talking shop. We do talk and we do advise, but ultimately it is the government that makes decisions.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice on her willingness to listen to evidence and to change significant portions of the bill based upon the evidence she heard at committee.

The first change is in the area of the preamble and principles of the bill. Members will notice that clause 3 has been changed. Again, this is as a direct result of what she heard at committee.

The first statement of principle will now read as follows:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to

(i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour,

(ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and

(iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence—

As I say, a number of people before the committee said that we had the principles in the preamble as a declaration of principle and that was not correct. The Minister of Justice listened and the Minister of Justice has put that into the bill.

Second, the importance of timely intervention is recognized in the principles. In some respects that may be stating the obvious, but in testimony after testimony we heard that a youth would commit an offence in May of one year and not be dealt with until a year or 18 months later. At the best of times one has difficulty bringing together the consequences of one's activity with the punishment, and the result is that the youth loses all appreciation for the justice system, so the importance of timely intervention is right in the declaration of principle. Again, the minister changed this.

There is another change. A reference to the needs and level of development of the youth has been added to the principles. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(iii) reads:

(iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family—

and so on.

Those are significant additions and, again, are based upon evidence we heard. Again I have to commend the Minister of Justice. She listened to the testimony. The changes were made in the bill.

When she attempts to come before the committee members opposite filibuster. I cannot quite see how that is being a responsible parliamentarian. Members are forever saying that they have no impact on legislation. Frankly, the justice committee did have an impact on this legislation. Frankly, the justice committee spent a lot of time listening to the evidence. Frankly, the minister reacted with significant amendments. Yet members opposite say that we have to debate this some more and that members opposite are irrelevant and do not have any impact on legislation.

With reference to the interests of victims, that was probably a flaw in the previous bill and has been referred to in the preamble of the bill where it has been incorporated by reference. It states:

Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice system that commands respect, takes into account the interests of victims, fosters responsibility and ensures accountability—

I do not know what else can be said in terms of how to incorporate those kinds of principles into a bill.

We heard a great deal of testimony about how Canada treats its youth when they come in contact with the law. What became clear in the course of listening to our evidence was that we overrely on incarceration, particularly on incarceration for aboriginal youth. I can recall the testimony of one youth justice of the Northwest Territories who gave a rather sad commentary on our youth justice system. He said that one of the reasons he puts aboriginal youth in jail is that he knows they have no real alternatives, that they either go back on the street to dysfunctional families or go back on the street to no families at all. As a consequence, he saw it as his only option to put kids in jail. That is a pretty sad commentary on our situation.

Canadians would be interested to know that we incarcerate youth at twice the American rate. That is a pretty shocking statistic and is frankly something I had not heard prior to becoming a parliamentarian. That contrasts quite distinctly with the fact that Americans incarcerate adults at four times the rate Canadians do.

The other point of interest that came up in testimony had to do with learning disabilities. It became clear that a disproportionate number of youth offenders have learning disabilities. The low estimate was something in the order of 35%. The higher estimate was something in the order of 80%. More than one out of every two young offenders cannot read. In this society, people who cannot read will likely be marginalized. If they are marginalized, they are likely going to be hanging out with people they should not be hanging out with and doing things they should not be doing. The consequence is that they will be involved in conflicts with the law.

We also heard that young offenders drop out of school at twice the rate of their peers. At some level this is not really news and at another level it is a profound recognition of societal failure, which brings us into conflict between the needs of criminal justice and the needs of social justice. That is a kind of philosophical divide that we all straddle in some manner or another.

One of the pieces of testimony that really caught my attention was that of professor Allan Leishfield of the University of Western Ontario.

I know he is not from Queen's, Mr. Speaker, but he still probably has something to say in this area.

He states:

There is simply not enough evidence to support the notion that incapacitation through incarceration of relatively large numbers of youth is an effective way to promote community safety. The second is partly drawn from the first and that is that the cost of providing custody for large numbers of youth is considerable and not justified given the poor outcomes recorded in the vast majority of the programs that rely on incapacitation.

Members opposite should know that it costs about $106,000 a year to keep a youth in jail, whereas referrals to other non-custodial situations cost somewhere in the order of about $9,500.

When something is costly and is not working, there is something wrong. When we are faced with that situation we have to look at other alternatives.

I respectfully submit that this bill has looked at other alternatives, that this has been completely and thoroughly debated by members opposite, and that it is time to deal with the issues that criminal justice presents to all of us.

Committees Of The House

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources relating to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act. It was agreed on Thursday, March 22, to report it without amendment.

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue of parliamentary reform. It is the backbenchers who are most affected by the way this place has been operating in the past while.

The fact that we are debating this issue at all is, I believe, a strong indication of the frustration that we are facing in attempting to represent our constituents in this place.

In an effort to place my individual concerns on the record, I would like to take a few moments to outline how I have been personally affected by what has been going on over the past few years while I have had the fortune and the honour to represent the constituency of Surrey North.

A couple of years ago, in carrying out my parliamentary duties and my responsibilities, I was developing a number of amendments to a government bill. It was my understanding that I was working with the staff of the House of Commons in a confidential manner in an effort to bring forth proposed amendments and changes to a government initiative concerning its youth criminal justice law. I found it more than a little disconcerting to discover that the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was in possession of my amendments prior to my submitting them to the committee for consideration.

I immediately embarked on a question of privilege in this place. To make a long story short, it appears that there had been a restructuring within the organization of the people whose considerable expertise and valuable assistance we rely on to do our jobs. I also note that after much debate and deliberation the Speaker at the time ruled that my privileges were not harmed by what had occurred.

The government side explained that the restructuring was necessary to enhance and promote the team concept of providing assistance to members of parliament. Let me be clear that I certainly do not question the Speaker's ruling, as he could only decide on the basis of the information that was provided to him at that time. I would be remiss if I did not add that there was subsequently quite an extensive debate and investigation by the procedural and House affairs committee into this operational change that had occurred without the consent or knowledge of the members.

I also note that while everyone involved in the decision making finally decided that nothing was wrong and the members of this place were not disadvantaged by the change, we have since reverted to our former status quo. In short, although it was decided that nothing was broken, we decided to fix it anyway. It is my understanding that now when I as a member employ legislative counsel to draft proposed amendments, those amendments will no longer be placed on a database for numerous employees to use and potentially abuse.

The listener may well question these comments. One could wonder, I suppose, just why I am raising the issue when everything is back to normal and the battle appears to have been won. My concern is that what should have been a fairly straightforward example of breach of confidentiality of lawyer-client privilege was never formally recognized as such. Politics had come into play. The government, the ultimate controller of the staff in this place, refused to accept that harm had occurred and refused to hold anyone accountable for that harm.

We had a manager within this institution who unilaterally changed the operation of the solicitor-client relationship between a member of parliament and House legal counsel. That person was able to avoid censure, and through the failure to properly address what happened, I wonder when something similar will again occur and which member of parliament will be on the receiving end of it. I have had my turn, but I do not wish anyone else to be similarly affected.

As an aside, I should point out that my relations with the clerk of the justice committee at the time were somewhat negatively affected by that situation. It was my sense that he took the position that I was attacking him and trying to cause him some grief for having access to my confidential amendments. I assure members that nothing could have been further from the case. It was the system as it was set up within the legal department of the House of Commons that permitted, and for that matter required, the clerk to become involved as he did. The clerk was not responsible for that.

I would suggest that the standing orders include the concept of solicitor-client privilege to protect the information that passes between individual members of parliament and their assigned legal counsel. Members of parliament are entitled to an expectation of confidentiality with counsel in order to do their job, especially in the political environment that exists in this place.

Another concern I have and would like to discuss has to do with committee work. We hear time and time again about the importance of our committees in threshing out the problems and nuances of all forms of legislation before it comes up for a vote in the Chamber.

I take my committee duties seriously, as I am sure all members do. I am present at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights quite regularly. I also understand the importance of presenting amendments through the committee so that its members are provided with the opportunity to review and debate those proposals. It is, after all, the committee members who are tasked by parliament to conduct indepth review and analysis of legislation through witness testimony, debate, proposing amendments, et cetera. The committee members gain a more thorough knowledge of the issues raised by the legislation and use that gained experience to assist the House with improving the legislation.

It is my opinion in the time that I have been here that some of the best work of the justice committee was accomplished during the time that the late Shaughnessy Cohen, rest her soul, occupied the chair. While we did not always agree, as I am sure members know, she was a most determined individual. I do believe that she always tried to do what was right and what was fair. The fact that the two parliamentary secretaries sat as members of the committee did not appear to intimidate Ms. Cohen. She took control of the committee's work.

Too often I can see that a committee chair can become intimidated by the presence of a parliamentary secretary. Too often I can see that the committee's work becomes a mere formality. It is the parliamentary secretary who gives the government members their marching orders on how to proceed and ensures that no one strays from the government's agenda.

However, I understand that this particular issue will be discussed further by others and perhaps even in another venue; of course I am referring to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

My real concern over committee work relates to what happened during the last parliament with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-3. The committee conducted an indepth, extensive review and heard from many witnesses. The committee members then presented a number of amendments, approximately 250 in all, of which about 150 came from the government itself. Instead of dealing with those amendments, the committee sent the bill back to the House unchanged.

To my mind, the committee failed the House, as it did not fulfil its function. It spent a large number of tax dollars to hear from witnesses. It occupied parliamentary staff and tied up government officials for months on an important piece of legislation, but in the end it essentially accomplished absolutely nothing. The House was deprived of the position on the bill from the very people it had tasked to review and return with their advice and experience.

Surely there is something wrong here. Surely it is more than an inconvenience. It is an abject failure. I fully appreciate that there was a filibuster of sorts going on in the committee but filibusters are nothing new in this place or in the committees. They are addressed one way or another. We do not run away from them. The government had the same type of majority on committee as it does in this Chamber. It had a number of ways in which it could have addressed that problem.

By abdicating its duties, the committee forced the reintroduction of all those amendments in this Chamber and we are all aware that the number of amendments then swelled, up into the neighbourhood of 3,000, which had to be addressed by all members of parliament. The actions of the committee made a bad situation worse.

When members of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP and yes, even the government itself, lose their amendments in the shuffle, so to speak, it is an injustice. For the members of those parties to be denied the opportunity to debate those amendments with their peers in committee is also just not right.

At times I left with the distinct impression that work done in committees was merely a game or a sham. The government was going through the motions to make it appear as though legislation was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. I regret feeling compelled to adopt this attitude, and that is why I wanted to speak to this important matter of parliamentary reform.

I implore all members to take a serious interest in improving the way we do things around here. We have been elected to represent Canadian citizens. At times the burden can become heavy, but we knew that or we certainly should have known it before coming here. There is much work to be done but we need the right tools to do the job properly. We need significant changes to our procedures to do just that.

Standing Orders

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say the government is responsible because it is gagging the opposition. In gagging the opposition, it is also gagging democracy. Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs think this is a responsible government? I understand he is the best liked minister in Quebec as well.

Why is the motion today, and I think it must be read, borrowing from the United Kingdom's house of commons? Even though we have a British history, the United Kingdom's house of commons does not have the same legislation as we have.

Before speaking, I was wondering. The government wants to gag the opposition, because we are doing our job. Yes, I plead guilty to bringing forward 3,000 amendments on a bill. Once again, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is applauding.

If I brought forward 3,000 amendments on the young offenders bill, it is because, in Quebec, no one wants the minister's bill. Thanks to my 3,000 amendments, the government did its homework even further, because it moved 170 to 200 amendments on the same bill. In some of these amendments, and I invite members to read them, it changed some commas. Are these frivolous amendments, as the motion implies?

Mr. Speaker, when you will rule on this issue, will you reject one of the government's amendments? No. The government House leader is staring at his papers, and so he should, because if I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed of doing this.

This is a strange country indeed, where the opposition can be gagged. I can be denied my constitutional rights, my freedom of speech in the House.

When it comes to the Hell's Angels, the government does not dare to do anything. They have constitutional rights. The mafia and organized crime have constitutional rights too. But members who have been democratically elected are denied these rights. It is ironic. I cannot understand how Quebec members can vote for this.

Nowadays, under the charter of rights, just about everything can be done. You can even have a website with slanderous comments. The supreme court even ruled that one can draw pornographic pictures at home if it were for personal use. That is what is called freedom of expression.

Members of the House have been given a legitimate mandate in an election. We are here to stand for our constituents. That is what I did with my 3,000 amendments to the young offenders bill. It was not a kind of power trip. I wanted to represent adequately the people of Quebec, something the ministers from Quebec are not doing at this time. They just sit on their behinds and keep an eye on their limo.

They should be supporting the Bloc Quebecois on this kind of bill, but they are not. Where are the members from Quebec in the government caucus? Where are they, when they should be standing for Quebec?

It is even worse than that. The issue today is above partisanship. It is a matter of democracy. Some day, you will be back on the opposition benches.

Where is the member for Laval West when it is time to fight for the interests of Quebec on an issue like the Young Offenders Act? She hides behind the curtains like all the ministers in the front row, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Where is he? Today, he will hide behind a motion in which the Liberals refer to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom does not have the Canadian constitution, the magnificent constitution of the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister says, with the mounted police and whatnot.

Sincerely, and I will repeat what my leader said, I do not envy your situation, Mr. Speaker, once the motion is carried. I am anxious to see what the words repetitive, frivolous and vexatious mean for you.

Was the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice to move a coma in Bill C-3 frivolous? Was that vexatious? We know that the legislator does not speak for nothing, a small comma can make a big difference in the interpretation. I do not say that the minister should not have made that change or changed words as she did. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that you will be in a very uncomfortable position when time comes to decide what is to be considered frivolous and what is not.

Honestly, you are going to have a very hard time ruling on that. and eventually, that will turn against one person: the one in your chair.

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment, and the new Speaker on his election. I am sure you will show fairness and impartiality in your work.

This is my first time speaking in the 37th parliament. I would have liked to rise before, but I was unfortunately gagged during the debate on Bill C-2. I wanted to speak on behalf of my constituents from Sherbrooke, but unfortunately I was unable to do so.

I would also like to salute my constituents and to thank them for the trust they put in me last November. I know many members talked about their majority when they rose for the first time and I will limit my comments to the fact that I increased mine 11 times. Figures should be interpreted when they are most favourable.

The bill before us today had been introduced before parliament was dissolved. It was then know as Bill C-46. The new Bill C-4 aims at establishing a foundation to fund sustainable development technology. Incidentally, the word foundation is reminiscent of the sad chapter of the millennium fund.

At the beginning of this session, it is difficult to see in what direction the government is aiming. Of course, the throne speech and its promises could provide interesting leads. We realize that all that can be found in that document looks like déjà-vu.

In fact, the legislative program looks the same as what it was before the election was called. Just consider the legislation concerning young offenders and the employment insurance program. Even with regard to Bill C-3, a minister's assistant said only the cover page was changed. That is a nice program. Even the Cabinet remained unchanged. The old federal reflexes of interfering in everything and anything are likely to carry on.

Let us put things briefly in context. Bill C-4, formerly Bill C-46, sponsored by the Minister of Natural Resources, would create a corporation, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. The objects and purposes of that foundation would be to provide funding for projects to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues.

The establishment of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology is one of the initiatives that the federal government announced in its February 2000 budget to promote environmentally desirable technologies and practices. The foundation would operate as a not for profit organization. It would consist of a chairperson, six directors and eight members, some of them appointed by the government.

The foundation would have to table in parliament an annual report of its activities. The foundation would also have to administer a sustainable development technology fund, which would be provided with an initial amount of $100 million.

According to the backgrounder entitled “Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology”, which was released by the government when the bill was introduced, the foundation would provide funding in two dominant areas: new climate-friendly technologies that hold the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and technologies to address clean air issues. This undertaking is not as clear in the bill, however.

The funding would be for specific projects. In order to benefit the maximum number of innovative sources, the foundation would accept proposals from existing and new collaborative arrangements among technology developers, suppliers and users, universities, not-for-profit organizations, and organizations such as industrial associations and research institutes. Small and medium size enterprises would be strongly encouraged to participate and lead projects supported by the foundation.

The foundation's activities would complement other government programs encouraging technological innovation, such as the Technology Early Action Measures component of the Climate Change Action Fund, and Technology Partnerships Canada in the case of environmental technologies.

The creation of a funding agency responsible for promoting the development of ecological technologies was recommended by the Technology Issues Table. In its December 10, 1999, report on the development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Technology Issues Table recommended the creation of a fund to develop climate change technologies in order to encourage the development of target technologies with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas effects and stimulate international sales.

The technology issues table called for an initial investment of $20 million annually, to be increased to $200 million annually starting in the fifth year. It also recommended that 50% of the funding come from federal sources, 25% from provincial sources and 25% from private sources, although it felt that this could vary from one project to another.

Noting that one of the major challenges of innovation is the initial introduction of new technologies and new services in the market, the issue table also recommended the creation of a climate change technology demonstration program that would offset some portion of the financial risks involved in early domestic commercialization of greenhouse gas mitigation technologies.

According to the issue, this option should ramp up from $60 million per annum for year one to $300 million per annum for year five. The federal government should provide, on a portfolio basis, up to 30% of the investment, with the remainder originating from provincial and industry sources. The federal component would be repayable.

In this context the government decided in its budget 2000 to create the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, which would support both development and demonstration activities but would not limit itself to climate change technologies.

Instead, it would fund various projects aimed at promoting technologies that contribute to sustainable development. Thus, this is a category of much larger projects.

While the government said it intended to put the emphasis on the funding of new technologies relating to climate change and clean air, the bill does not reflect this priority. It simply deals with the funding of sustainable development technologies, particularly those that are aimed at bringing solutions to climate change and air pollution issues.

Under the definition of “eligible project” in clause 2, the bill does not give express priority to the latter type of projects. Therefore, it might be up to the foundation alone to determine, under clause 19, what types of projects relating to sustainable development it would be prepared to fund.

It is important to note that the definition of eligible recipient in clause 2 refers to an entity that meets the criteria of eligibility established in any agreement entered into between the government and the foundation. It is not clearly indicated if this power, whose concrete aspects are not defined anywhere in the bill, could be used by the government to restrict the definition of “eligible recipient” to those claimants that carry on specific types of projects, thus influencing or restricting the foundation's funding decisions.

In other words, could the government and the foundation agree on eligibility criteria that would impact on what is an eligible project? It would be appropriate to get some clarification on that point, particularly since the government said that the foundation will not be an agent of Her Majesty.

The round table on technologies recommended initial funding of $80 million for the two phases of the projects, that is $20 million for development and $60 million for demonstration. It also recommended that this amount be increased to $500 million after five years, or $200 million for development projects and $300 million for demonstration projects.

Under the bill, the foundation would get an initial amount of $100 million to support development and demonstration projects. Now, since the foundation's mandate goes beyond the financing of technologies linked to climate change, one could come to the conclusion that the financing provided is insufficient, at least for the initial period.

I would also like to talk about some Liberal commitments regarding the environment. I would like to remind the House of some promises made by the Liberals during the last election campaign and contained in the third edition of the red book. However, the events of last week have shown the real usefulness of such documents. They do not seem to stand the test of time, since the authors of the promises contained in the red book voted against a motion containing one of those promises word for word.

Here are some of those promises which are directly linked to the subject matter of today's debate. Again, these are promises made by the Liberal government. They are the following:

(1) A new Liberal government will help the private sector by maintaining R&D tax credits that are already among the most generous in the world, and by working to commercialise discoveries made in government and university labs.

(2) A new Liberal government will act to significantly improve air quality for all Canadians. We will make special efforts to clean-up the air of our cities, where the population and the pollutants are most highly concentrated.

(3) A new Liberal government will continue to support the development of cleaner engines and fuels, and we will strengthen emissions standards for vehicles. We will greatly reduce sulphur in diesel fuel.

(4) A new Liberal government will attack the problem on several fronts under our Action Plan on Climate Change. We will promote increase energy efficiency in industry and in the transportation system. We will fund the development of new energy technologies, such as fuel cells, and help farmers to reduce agricultural emissions through improved farming methods.

Those are promises still. I continue:

We will increase Canada's use of renewable energy, such as electricity from wind and ethanol from biomass. We will encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient products by providing information and setting high product standards.

That makes a lot of promises. In the throne speech, the government essentially repeated the same things. It said, for instance.

As part of its efforts to promote global sustainable development, the Government will ensure that Canada does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will work with its provincial and territorial partners to implement the recently announced first national business plan on climate change.

I am not going to comment on these statements and promises one by one. A number of them, however, were already known. For instance, the action plan on climate change was announced last October 6.

In the 1997 and 1999 throne speeches, the Liberals announced that they would make the environment one of their priorities, that they would address the matter of climate changes and commit to promoting sustainable development on an international scale. Yet the budget allocated to the environment has done nothing but decrease since 1994-95.

How then can the Liberals be believed? We have no choice but to conclude that there is a lot of difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. For example, Environment Canada announced several months ago that it was going to call for tenders for the design of an import-export policy for PCB contaminated waste. This was made necessary by budget cuts at Environment Canada. As a result of these cuts, the private sector was entrusted with the mandate of designing policies on the import and export of hazardous waste. Really now.

I have, nonetheless, retained a few words from the vocabulary used in the promises and the throne speech: “on several fronts”, “provincial and territorial partners”.

Several fronts suggests a shotgun approach, in all directions and none at the same time. I presume that the government has good intentions and is acting in good faith. However, what does such concern hide? We saw the government move on several fronts in the case of the millennium scholarships and other initiatives in the education area, but its partners are given very little consideration. The federal government always acts as if it was the holder of absolute truth.

Let us now turn briefly to what the environment and sustainable development commissioner said. If the federal government really wants to take the path of sustainable development, it should start by examining its own operations to identify the areas it could improve before telling people that they should consume more ecological and energy efficient products. In his report for the year 2000, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said:

Since 1990, the federal government has made commitments to Canadians that it would green its operations. Yet, a decade later, there is a lack of rudimentary information about government's vast operations, the costs of which are likely more than $400 million annually for water, energy and waste disposal. We found that the government does not have complete and accurate data on the annual cost of running its buildings and on the environmental impacts of its operations.

When compared to Liberal commitments, this statement by the commissioner reveals that what is probably lacking the most at the federal level is concerted action. After the fiasco of the heating bill visibility operation we see clearly that the government does not have a long term vision.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not underline the recent findings of the auditor general on various appointments. The establishment of a foundation necessarily implies the appointment of a board of directors. I hope that the ministers who will make the appointments will base their decision more on the competence of the candidates than on their political allegiance.

Another point is the fact that Canada clearly will not fulfil its Kyoto commitment. Not only does Canada not appear to be on the way to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but it actually appears to be increasing them.

In the February edition of Le Monde diplomatique , it is reported that Canada is part of group of countries called the umbrella group. Reference is made to the November 2000 conference held in The Hague, which ended in failure due to these countries' intransigence.

These countries are attached to loopholes such as the unlimited emission rights instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and insist on taking forests into account in the determination of efforts made by each country. Organizations have already denounced the hypocrisy of Canada, which is hoping to boost its reactor sales by trying to include nuclear energy among clean tools of economic development.

At the Vancouver environment and natural resources ministers conference, Ottawa tried to address only public awareness measures and investment projects in less energy consuming technologies. And yet, if the trend holds, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada could be 35% above what they should be.

We must therefore conclude from these examples that what Canada is lacking is the firm political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Resorting to its age old strategy of invading provincial jurisdictions rather than developing a joint strategy, Canada will not be able to meet its international commitments.

The establishment of foundations and other similar initiatives will only ease the Canadian government's conscience without leading to any tangible result.

Would this be a new hobby aiming at shrinking the provincial role? Quebec does not need anybody's advice. As Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to say:

One way to offset the attraction of separatism is to put time, energy and huge amounts of money at the service of federal nationalism.

No doubt, the environment will be the next area to be invaded by the federal government to try and shrink Quebec's role even more. After the Canadian millennium scholarships, education, the health minister's plans for a family medicine program, the new federal hobby may well be the environment.

In this respect, the bill under consideration, which establishes a foundation to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, appears to belong to the Canadian government's continued effort to have its way in many spheres of human action. What will the foundation do? How much money will it have at its disposal? The news release announcing the bill states:

The new Foundation will administer the Sustainable Development Technology Fund for the development and demonstration of new technologies, in particular, those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

We are told as well that the foundation will have a budget of $100 million. How will the federal government reconcile the many efforts being made in the area of climate change and sustainable development? How will the money allocated for this foundation differ from the climate change action fund? Part of this fund is intended for cost effective technological projects promoting a reduction in greenhouse gases.

The Liberals have a long tradition of unfulfilled promises with respect to the environment. More specifically, in the area of greenhouse gases, not only is Canada not sufficiently reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, it is significantly increasing them. Rather than making a serious commitment to reduce them, Canada is now one of the group of countries that is looking more for loopholes in the Kyoto protocol than it is for sustainable ways to reduce emissions.

In this regard Quebec's energy choices are exemplary, and Quebec is resolutely committed to reducing greenhouse gases.

Will this foundation support initiatives in the nuclear sector? We could think so, since Canada has lobbied vigorously to have nuclear energy considered green.

In our election platform we noted that an investment of $1.5 billion was required for the environment. The federal government must attack this problem seriously. Had it not implemented the policy of $125 for heating oil, for example, it could have saved $1.3 billion. Will the foundation's $100 million be enough? Only the future will tell.

The Bloc Quebecois of course would support this bill because our party is concerned about the environment.

We would support the bill if it were amended on six factors giving rise to concern and opposition from the Bloc.

The first one is the division of powers. We see this as an underhanded way for the federal government to intrude once again in provincial jurisdiction.

The second one is that Quebec already has such a foundation. The creation of this foundation comes as a surprise, since a $45 million action fund for sustainable development already exists in Quebec.

Instead of creating this foundation, the federal government should transfer the money to Quebec's agencies, which are already working along the lines recommended by the table and which have a good understanding of the issue.

Concentration of powers is another factor. Practically all the directors of the foundation are appointed by the governor in council. Under the bill, the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, appoints seven of the fifteen directors. However, the eight other directors are appointed by the very members appointed by the governor in council.

Finally, the chairperson and all directors may be removed for cause by the governor in council. This method of appointment seems to be a roundabout way of allowing the federal government to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction and to have control over an organization that is not accountable to parliament.

The fact that the governor in council has the authority to enter into agreements with the foundation to set eligibility criteria regarding eligible recipients shows that this organization would not really operate at arm's length from the federal government. The latter would, in a roundabout way, have a say as to how funding is granted to eligible recipients.

Another factor is the dangerous definitions contained in the bill. For example, since the term “eligible project” deals with technologies that include, but are not restricted to, those to address climate change and air quality issues, this could allow funding for nuclear technology projects justified as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which would be contrary to the commitments made by the federal government in Kyoto.

The fifth factor to consider is the disparity between the recommendations from the table and the bill. The foundation would be responsible for managing funds to support technologies to promote sustainable development. It is certainly a lofty goal, but it is rather vague when used in a bill.

The establishment of such a foundation would not reflect the main recommendation of the table which was to allocate money for the development of technologies to reduce greenhouses gas emissions and to stimulate international sales.

The bill does not reflect the general direction of the recommendations of the technology table, mainly because it does not include a goal oriented implementation strategy. Also, the bill does not promote co-operation between the federal government, the provinces and industry and does not contain a qualitative definition of the benefits and factors contributing to our quality of live for each of the options.

The bill only focuses on two of the eight options brought forward by the technology table.

The last factor has to do with the level of funding. We are concerned about the small amount allocated to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In 1998, the Anderson strategy had a budget totalling $1.3 billion over a period of five years to fight this problem.

On December 10, 1998, the table released a report on the development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in which it recommended that a fund be set up, with an initial contribution of $80 million for both stages, development and demonstration, and that the funding be increased to $500 million after five years.

Since the terms of reference of the foundation are not limited to technologies addressing climate change, the funding for the initial phase is not enough.

In conclusion, I would say that, through its environmental policy, the Bloc Quebecois does support positive and proactive actions, provided they take into account the fact that Quebec is an important stakeholder.

Therefore, we will be moving amendments at committee stage.

Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to talk about Bill C-3 pertaining to Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and also to Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, Bill C-39.

Basically the bill allows both companies greater access to sell themselves and to get more outside shares.

The Canadian Alliance has no problem with the bill as such. Our natural resources critic will allay whatever fears he has when the bill goes to committee. We will be supporting the bill as it now stands.

The bill also talks about Petro-Canada and the attempt by the government to increase individual share ownership and remove non-resident ownership. I wish to draw attention to the oil sector as we are talking about Petro-Canada.

Sometime last summer the Calgary caucus, the members of parliament from Calgary, showed through calculations how much money the federal government was taking from Canadians through taxes on gasoline. It was interesting. We highlighted that there was a tax on a tax. The GST on gasoline was a tax on a tax. The government levied the excise tax and whatever the other taxes were, and then the GST came in on top of every other tax.

We came out and said that it was double taxation and it should be removed. We called on the federal government to reduce taxes on gasoline. This was a cry that went out when gas prices went up.

When gas prices went up the government resisted reducing taxes, despite what we showed them. It did so because it was reaping benefits from the tax on gasoline prices. Who was benefiting from increasing gas prices? The federal government. It benefited because of the way the tax structure is set up on gasoline. As prices and the excise tax went up, the 7% GST on top of that started to reap windfall profits.

At no time did the government think it necessary to return the money it was getting, the windfall profits, back to the taxpayer by reducing taxes. No, the government kept the money.

Then the government tried to offer what I will call a band-aid solution to the rise in heating oil prices. My colleague from the Conservative Party indicated to the government that it was a very ill-conceived program.

Let me give an example. I got over 50 calls to my office from Canadians talking about their heating bills and how unfair they were. People say that when the government wants money from them, it takes the money right away through Revenue Canada with no questions asked. However when it comes time to give the money back the government brings in a stupid, ill thought program

Here is what happened. The government decided that those eligible for the GST refund would receive the rebate. Just for a second let us think about the GST refund. It is the goods and services tax imposed uniformly across the country. That is fine. We can understand the government giving GST rebates across the country.

The government is now trying to give money to homeowners, a segment which is not uniform across the country, but which needs money to pay for heating costs. Suddenly people who did not pay heating costs and had no heating bills were receiving the cheques. Those who paid heating costs were not receiving the cheques. Children were receiving the cheques while parents, who paid the heating bills, were not. Naturally they phoned our offices to say it was unfair.

Another point is that the GST rebate is based on the previous year's income. In this case it was based upon income from 1999. The heating oil crisis is in the year 2001, not 1999. Why is the government basing the rebate on the year 1999? There were changes in 2000 where people were not earning the same amount of money and needed help. However they did not qualify because their income from 1999 was slightly higher than it was in 2000.

The government in its haste, without thinking, brought in the plan. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say that the government has given money to 11 million Canadians. It may have given money to 11 million Canadians, but were they the 11 million who needed the relief? Were they the ones paying the heating bills? No, they were not. That is why even prisoners were getting cheques. Does the government think prisoners pay heating bills in penitentiaries?

We now have an ill conceived program, as is normal. Half the programs coming from that side are like that. All my colleagues here have received numerous calls from their constituents on this foolhardy program.

The government gave back $1.2 billion to the Canadian public without thinking. What an idiotic program. If it wanted to really help there were ways it could have done so. It has a huge bureaucracy. Could all those bureaucrats and mandarins not have thought up a plan where those who were paying would get a cheque? No, they did not. They used a quick solution without thinking about it.

The government has wasted $1.2 billion. Canadians notice the unfairness of the system, the unfairness of the high taxes they pay. The government has stated that it will reduce taxes, but the way taxes are being reduced is not uniform.

On behalf of my constituents I needed to bring up the point of the heating oil and let the government and those mandarins know that this is a wrong and ill thought out program that is wasting $1.2 billion.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks with a comment on the remarks from the member for Winnipeg Centre. He led us through an interesting discussion though I am not quite sure that he was completely on subject. Still, it was a very interesting discussion.

I think the question is not whether Canada wants to have a private crown corporation run oil firm, but how much that firm cost us. Is it responsible and reasonable to continue in that direction today? Is it time to get out from under that burden of debt?

I would like to see a tally sheet of what Petro-Canada has cost us on one side and the profits that we made on the other side. I expect to have that information before we finish the bill in committee. I think then we could get into a very interesting and hopefully enlightening debate on whether or not we should keep the company in Canada.

Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, will allow for greater foreign ownership of the two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco. That is plain and simple.

As previous speakers have said, the proposed legislation would provide greater flexibility to both companies in their respective industries. It should allow them to continue as well-respected participants in the oil, gas and uranium fields. It should also provide them with increased opportunities for strategic management and positioning within those sectors.

I would like to repeat something that my colleague from St. John's West said when he spoke to the bill in its previous life as Bill C-39. Speaking as a member from Newfoundland, where Petro-Canada has a large involvement through its development of the Hibernia project and other potential oil and gas fields, he said “Even though we can appreciate, perhaps more in Newfoundland than anywhere else in the country, what Petro-Canada has done for oil and gas development in our province, we also must realize that to grow, companies need investment. We cannot restrict that investment or we are putting companies at a disadvantage.”

I could not agree more with my colleague. We all know that we operate in a global environment. Free trade agreements, technological advances and developing countries and markets require innovative and evolving responses to new challenges and opportunities. It is not in Canada's best interest to restrict any company from taking advantage of those opportunities or from moving into new and unexplored areas and markets.

However, there are other issues respecting the legislation that still need to be studied and examined as the legislative process continues.

First, Petro-Canada is an oil and gas company in a market where the price of crude oil has significantly increased over the past year. Petro-Canada has announced record earnings for the year 2000. In a press release the company says “Petro-Canada's performance reflects both an exceptional business environment and our success in capitalizing on that environment.”

No one would argue that if the government is going to take steps to get out of the oil and gas business, now could be one of the best possible times to do that. The industry is on a high and prices reflect that reality. With annual net earnings in 2000 of $893 million, the company far exceeded its previous high of $306 million in 1997.

We all know that the price of oil and gas has increased. We are reminded of that on an almost daily basis when we fill up our cars and pay our heating bills. While this points out the reason why companies like Petro-Canada are experiencing record highs, it also begs the question of what do Canadian taxpayers get out of this deal.

If the government has indicated that it is going to divest itself of the 18% stake it continues to hold in Petro-Canada, taxpayers who funded the purchase of this former crown corporation in 1975 need to benefit directly from the government's decision to get out of the energy sector. Many Canadians are ready to let Petro-Canada be privatized completely and have that money either paid on our national debt or invested in alternative and sustainable energy.

We can stipulate certain requirements in the privatization process, in this case the location of headquarters, Canadian directors and a limit on individual ownership.

The province of Nova Scotia recently announced that it is selling its share in Nova Scotia Resources Ltd., a company established in 1981 to allow the government to participate in the oil and gas industry. Over the course of time a debt of almost $800 million has been amassed. This is a debt that Nova Scotia taxpayers have had to assume. If the $425 million deal that the government announced goes through it will be one less burden on Nova Scotia taxpayers and the government will reduce its debt load. That deal allows the government to cut its losses.

I would suggest that now is a favourable time to get out, just as it is for the federal government with respect to its position in Petro-Canada. If we are going to privatize, now is the time to do it. It also shows that unless there are public policy reasons for direct involvement, the risk inherent in the oil and gas industry may outweigh the benefits for governmental involvement.

In both cases, Petro-Canada at the federal level and Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. at the provincial level, the decision to get directly involved in the oil and gas industry stemmed from global conditions of the day, namely the energy crisis. Petro-Canada was established as a crown corporation in 1975 by an act of parliament to allow Canada to have a stake in the oil and gas industry and improve exploration and development of new oil and gas sources within Canada. This is precisely what happened. Petro-Canada went on to make purchases that led to a share in the Hibernia project and the gas discoveries off Nova Scotia, as well as the tar sands in Alberta. These are still some of the company's primary areas.

However, the federal government divested its interest over time to the point that today it controls exactly 18.2% of the shares but it has no management involvement. With no public policy reasons for its continued participation in the company, the time is seen as appropriate for a complete divestiture. This bill is one more step toward that objective.

The bill deals with two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco. While many of the points I have already made also apply to Cameco, their respective industries are significantly different. I would like to discuss those differences for a few moments.

Cameco is involved in the uranium business. In fact, it is the world's largest uranium company. As I mentioned, the similarity with Petro-Canada is that this legislation will increase the percentage of foreign ownership on both an individual and aggregate basis, again stipulating that the head office remain in Canada, in this case Saskatchewan, and with Canadian directors. However, the nuclear industry is quite different from the oil and gas industry and Canadians remain skeptical about the safety issues surrounding nuclear power, perhaps with good reason. The auditor general recently reported to parliament and he highlighted some concerns respecting risk assessments at Canada's nuclear power generators. As well, the issue of disposal of radioactive waste remains largely unanswered.

I have been told that the legislation in no way affects the non-proliferation policy and uranium will continue to be sold only to those countries that are signatory to the non-proliferation agreement.

World markets are changing dramatically, and by loosening rules on foreign ownership, it is anticipated that this will provide Cameco with increased opportunity to take advantage of new opportunities and new market conditions.

What both of these companies highlight is Canada's and the world's dependence on energy sources, whether those sources be oil and gas or nuclear. There are a lot of exciting developments taking place in both of these sectors. The Mackenzie Delta pipeline looks like it could soon become a reality and new nuclear reactors have increased safeguards.

Canada needs to be in a position to take advantage of these new prospects and new technologies. I look forward to studying the legislation more closely at committee to see whether the legislation will benefit Canadian taxpayers and be one step toward helping these companies position themselves for future growth and productivity.

In closing, the issue here is exactly that. Does the legislation benefit Canadian taxpayers? It would be my position that the legislation does benefit Canadian taxpayers. There is a significant difference between developments in the petrochemical and petroleum industry energy sector and the nuclear and uranium industry sector.

That is what we have to take a look at in committee. This is only the first time the bill has been debated. We will have an opportunity to discuss it further, and we plan to have some more numbers to look at when we come back to parliament the next time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-3. Most of the country is seized with the issue of energy as we speak. Many homeowners and small businesses are reeling with the shock and the horror of the rising, out of control, skyrocketing fuel prices, so it is timely that we are having this debate now.

It is timely but maybe not fitting, given the content of the bill. We see Bill C-3 as the death rattle of a national dream. There was a time when Canadians believed that the federal government had some role to play in looking after the interests of ordinary Canadians in terms of access to energy.

In 1975, the minority Trudeau government, held up by the David Lewis NDP, saw fit to enter into the energy industry with some presence, whether it was as a watchdog or a producer. It saw that the whole oil and gas industry was owned by offshore interests.

We really did not know if Canadians were getting gouged. We did not know if we were paying a fair market price or a grossly inflated price. Given that Canada is, first, geographically challenged in that it is huge and, second, that it has a cold northern climate, this was no small issue.

However, in 1975 people had the vision and forethought to try to do something about it. They still believed in the nation state of Canada that we could do something to control our own future and destiny.

When we raise the subject, people look at us as if it is heresy to even recommend that the federal government might be able to do something to help Canadians. Government shrugs its shoulders and says that it actually traded that away in the last free trade agreement it signed, that it used to be able to influence and dictate domestic market prices for our energy resources but it traded that away and cannot help us any more.

Frankly that is why I think it is sad today that we are dealing with the death rattle of a national dream, when people with vision actually had some idea and some awareness of how critical access to reasonably priced energy resources would be to the economic stability of the country.

It is even more galling to Canadians when they realize that our energy resources are part of our common wealth. There is that old term. We used to use that word that in the name of our party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Our natural resources are part of our birthright as Canadians. They are in the ground. They are under our feet. They are something we all need and we all should be able to share.

We believe some things should be regulated. We all know that capital has no conscience as such, so it is government's role to introduce regulation on the free market to make sure that it meets ordinary people's needs. We could certainly argue that the absence of any national energy strategy is not serving Canadians well. We could ask any homeowner in this country what he or she thinks about the way the free market has served the interests of Canadians when it comes to energy supply. We could ask any small business person or any trucking company representative how he or she likes waking up in the morning not knowing if the price of fuel has arbitrarily fluctuated by six, seven or ten cents.

What really annoys Canadians most is this seemingly arbitrary nature of the wild price fluctuations. That is what really galls people. That is why, when we did have Petro-Canada, when we did actually own a piece of the action, we knew what the real cost of production was. Then we could tell if we were paying the real cost or if we were being gouged like most Canadians feel they are being gouged now.

I am not at all impressed with Bill C-3. It is a huge step backward. It is the end of an era in terms of the nation state of Canada being able to dictate its own domestic price for energy strategy.

There is a growing interest, of course, in the whole issue of energy resources. As prices skyrocket there is a growing realization that we have to do something about energy conservation. We have to get more involved in the demand side of our resources rather than the supply side.

I am a carpenter by trade. I used to build hydro dams and oil refineries. I worked on megaprojects of that nature. It used to be heresy for a tradesperson to advocate demand side management because we wanted the jobs. We wanted to build hydro dams to put people to work.

In actual fact, the more people dig into the subject, we are pleased to be able to say that there are far more job opportunities in demand side management in terms of energy retrofitting buildings like schools and hospitals than there are in building a hydro dam. We have to start considering that a unit of energy harvested from the existing system by demand side management measures is indistinguishable from a unit of energy generated at a generating station except for a number of key things: it is available at about one-quarter of the cost; it creates as much as seven times the number of person years or jobs; it is available and online immediately instead of the 10 year lag time there is to build a new generating station; and it does not degrade the environment, but in fact rehabilitates the environment by reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

That is the type of message we should be getting from our federal government as we enter into an era of energy supply crisis. Instead of throwing money at it with a dysfunctional rebate system, why are we not hearing about a progressive approach to serving the needs of Canadians by demand side management energy conservation? If I heard the government say that even once, it would be of some comfort. Instead we have a token gesture.

Let us start with the federal government itself as a demonstration pilot project. The federal government owns 68,000 buildings in Canada, many of which are absolute energy pigs because they were built in an era when people did not worry about energy conservation. These buildings waste energy like crazy.

All the empirical evidence now shows that we can reduce the operating costs of those 68,000 buildings by as much as 40% by working on the building envelope. I am talking about new insulation, smart thermostat controls, basic caulking and sealing of windows, and smart lighting systems that dim and light up as the day brightens and darkens. All of these measures are easily done and would serve as a demonstration project to the private sector that it too can reduce its fuel consumption and operating costs. We all have to realize that our energy resources are extremely finite and that Canada is the most wasteful country in the world when it comes to energy consumption.

David Suzuki was quoted recently as saying that for the rest of the world to live in the same manner we do or use the same level of energy we do, seven more plants would be required to provide the raw resources. There are not enough energy resources in the world for every man, woman and child in developing nations to live the lifestyle that we enjoy with our energy use.

Let us face it. Essentially the jig is up as far as our cheap access to unlimited energy use is concerned. Conservation is going to be the key and will ultimately save the planet. Sooner or later we are going to have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels altogether.

In regard to the demand side management I described, possibly there would be some optimism and hope on the part of Canadians if they heard our government make visionary statements like that. Frankly, we could show the world how to do it. We could be a centre of excellence for energy retrofitting technology because we are a harsh northern climate and we have challenges in terms of energy supply now. We could develop and export the technology and become world leaders in the sensible use of energy resources instead of showing the world just how wasteful we can be, which is our practice, frankly.

I started by saying that there was a time within living memory when Canadians still believed that we were not impotent as a government, but now as we sign more and more trade agreements we are locking ourselves in deeper and deeper, to the point where we can no longer dictate our own domestic energy strategy. We cannot give preferential pricing to our own customers, our own citizens, our own kids. We are not allowed to because somebody traded it all away. I call it economic treason to trade away our birthright and our ability.

In the 1980s and 1990s in the private sector, in the Business Council on National Issues and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, everybody wanted to deregulate everything. The idea was to let the free market prevail and get government out of business because it was tying up the free hand of the marketplace. The government sold Petro-Canada. It sold the goose that laid the golden egg. Why did we want to get out of the energy sector just at a time when world prices were going through the ceiling? We sold it off.

Last year, $800 million in profit would have been in the coffers of the federal government, but no, we had to let the free market handle things: all things private, good, and all things public, bad, and the public sector could not organize a peanut stand. Although frankly, with the way the government has managed its energy rebate system there is not much room for confidence in its ability to run anything else.

However, the really galling thing is that we used to own it. We used to have a piece of it. It was called Petro-Canada. Bill C-3 puts to bed any idea of ever getting involved in that kind of thing again because the powers that be simply will not tolerate it.

We are not being served well. Ask Californians with their energy problems how much they like deregulation. They are trying to re-regulate as fast as they can to save their bacon, to save their industries, to save their economic base. Ask Albertans how much they like deregulation. They always say they do, until the price of natural gas goes up 125% in one year. Thanks a million. The free market is really servicing them well. These outrageous gouging costs have to be offset by energy rebates to Albertans every month.

However, we never get to the root of the problem. Rebates are just offsetting the profits of the oil companies. If we are in fact being gouged—and we do not know if we are being gouged or not—rather than the government intervening to try to put some semblance of order into the industry, it is telling us that if we are being charged too much it will help us by giving us a little bit of money, a $125 lump sum payment.

That does not even heat one house for a week in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I had phone calls from people in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut—I spoke about it in question period today—who were complaining that the fuel oil delivery guy will not deliver now unless customers have cash up front. Many people are defaulting on their monthly bills. They have to pay cash in advance to get oil to heat their homes. That is a desperate situation when it is 40 degrees below zero or worse in Nunavut.

We are not being well served with what is our common wealth, with what we used to consider our birthright and our property. We are not being well served when we cannot even afford to heat our homes or we are paying $500 or $600 a month for an 800 square foot house in Nunavut. The $125 rebate will not even heat that house for a week. One cannot be without heat for more than an hour in that part of the world.

Deregulation has hurt ordinary people. The previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois was saying that the average joe, the little guy, the working person, has suffered in all of this. People who own shares in the oil companies have benefited while the rest of us have suffered. Who will stand up for us? Who will be our champion, our advocate? Who will say on behalf of the Canadian people that enough is enough?

Who will say that they will find a way to produce and distribute energy resources in a way that is fair and equitable so that all Canadians can share in the benefit of what is ours, not theirs but ours collectively? That was the dream of Petro-Canada. The government is putting the final stake through the heart of that dream as we deal with Bill C-3. That is nothing to celebrate. I have heard other speakers saying it is great that we are moving forward with a whole new way of dealing with our energy resources. We are not. We are moving backward.

People cannot survive without energy. It is one of the fundamental basics. It gets to be an economic development issue because he who has the energy can attract the business. This is why in all the free trade agreements the Americans have been quite up front. They are after our energy resources and our water because without those two resources no country will move forward. They are two resources that we used to have in great abundance.

Now, frankly, that natural gas might as well be in the United States because we have to sell it to our own domestic customers at the same price we sell it to our export partners south of the border, who have an insatiable appetite for our resources. Even if we run short and are freezing in the dark, we are not allowed to turn off the tap once it is turned on. That is the miracle of NAFTA.

This is the frustration that Canadians are feeling. They feel that we are no longer in control and that their freely elected representatives, like us in the House of Commons, cannot even help them. They are right, because in my opinion somebody committed economic treason by signing away our economic sovereignty and giving it away for next to nothing in a trade agreement that we neither wanted nor voted for. It does not serve ordinary Canadians. It only serves the powerful and the elite or maybe those who have shares in oil companies.

We are worried that we have lost the ability to have any kind of national energy strategy. That is why I recently introduced a private member's bill calling on the government to create a national energy price commission. On energy issues the commission would at least be an advocate on behalf of ordinary Canadians. It would champion their issues, so that if the oil companies wanted to raise the price of gas or home heating fuel or whatever, they would have to come before this independent tribunal and justify why the increase is warranted. What is so wrong with that?

Granted, it would be a regulation, and maybe it would be the first tentative step toward a new national energy policy that would in fact set policy which would provide for ordinary Canadians. Maybe that same energy price commission would say that charging the GST on home heating fuel is not only wrong but amoral and fundamentally antithetical to anything Canadians should be standing for.

Maybe that energy price commission would say that we need to start investigating more sources of alternative energy. Maybe it would be the think tank that would actually set some energy policy. Perhaps it would say that the real value of a barrel of oil is not $25 or $27 but that the whole cost of a barrel of oil is about $150, because we have to factor in the price of the American military to keep supertankers in the Persian Gulf to get the oil out of there and then we have to factor in the environmental degradation and the cleanup afterward.

If we look at the whole cost of burning fossil fuels, all other sources of energy seem cheap in comparison. Even if solar energy and wind energy need some investment before we are ready for them, that seems like a bargain when we start really viewing what burning fossil fuels does to our planet and our environment and what the whole cost of that is.

We are ready to move on. We would hope that most Canadians are also ready to move on and into an era of progress and new maturity about our energy resources. That includes taking the bull by the horns and not saying that we cannot do it. We are always making excuses about why we cannot shape our domestic policy. There is a saying I heard that “there are no more prizes for predicting rain, that from now on we are only giving prizes for building arks”. There should be no more excuses.

The government should not tell us that it cannot help us. It must get creative and find a way to make sure there is a reliable supply of affordable energy so that Canadians can heat their homes without breaking the bank.

We do not want more repeat situations like Cambridge Bay where people have to go down to the fuel dealer with five gallon jerry cans and pay in advance to get ten gallons of fuel oil to heat their homes. That is a disgrace.

It is a complete abdication of responsibility by the federal government in not representing the interests of Canadians in this way. Bill C-3 takes us one step further from the complete abdication of responsibility by the government. It simply does not think it has a role in any kind of a national energy strategy, and we think that is wrong.

I look back fondly on the days when David Lewis had the official balance of power in a minority government. He could influence government and demand that government exercise its sovereign right to manage the affairs of the country in terms of energy supply. That was 1975. This is 2001. Bill C-3 will drive a stake through the heart of any national dream we might have in taking care of our own interests.