Bill C-66 (Historical)

Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act

An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts

Part 1 of the enactment authorizes the making of payments to families who are eligible for the National Child Benefit Supplement, and to seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance under the Old Age Security Act, in order to deliver one-time relief for energy costs.
Part 2 authorizes payments of up to $500 million for the period beginning on April 1, 2005 and ending on March 31, 2010 to provide assistance for reducing housing energy consumption. It also authorizes additional funding of up to $338 million for the EnerGuide for Houses Retrofit Incentive Program.
Part 3 authorizes payments of up to $400 million for each of fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for public transit infrastructure.

Competition Act (Inquiry into Industry Sector)

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

moved that Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-452, which we will be debating today, is to give the Competition Bureau more powers.

In my speech, I will talk about oil companies, but the same applies to banks, whose interest rates are practically identical.

In 2008, those poor oil companies made mind-boggling profits. That year, Exxon Mobil raked in record-breaking profits for an American company: $45.2 billion.

The oil giant's net profits fell by over half in 2009 to $19.3 billion. So far in 2010, Exxon is making up lost ground. The company was hit by plummeting crude prices last year, but now recovering prices have netted the company a first-quarter profit of $6.3 billion.

They lost money because of the economic crisis triggered by commercial paper, but I think that they themselves played a part in the crisis. Allow me to explain.

The price of a barrel of oil rose steadily. In June 2007, it was $51 a barrel; in January 2008, $99; and in July 2008, $150. The price at the pump skyrocketed for all consumers and businesses. Companies raised their prices to compensate for the cost of fuel, and that pushed prices on consumer goods through the roof.

Bank losses combined with rising prices on consumer goods triggered an economic crisis. That is why the parliamentary committee needs to study the possibility of giving the Competition Bureau more powers.

The parliamentary committee will have to look at the price of crude oil, the refining margin, taxes and the retail margin.

The retail margin is the difference between the price retailers pay for gas and the price they sell it for. In Quebec, the retailer margin is not really a problem because it is usually between 3.5 and 6 cents per litre.

Even if some find that the taxes are too high, they do not vary much and certainly cannot account for the fluctuations in the price of gasoline. Most of these taxes are set and do not vary. Taxes are not the cause of increased gas prices; oil companies are.

To lower refining costs, oil companies have shut down a number of refineries and increased production capacity. The gap between supply and demand has narrowed, and so the slightest weather-related or technical problem leads to a price increase to maintain the balance between those two factors.

Long weekends and vacations are not unforeseen events. However, oil companies never seem to be able to prepare for them. They have nothing in reserve, and they tell us that the price increase is due to scarcity.

Can we imagine a small businessperson failing to keep any inventory in the lead-up to Christmas, and then claiming scarcity to raise prices? Yet the oil companies do it. Because they sell an essential product and there is little competition, they profit from our dependency.

The Bloc Québécois moved a motion, asking that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology pass it quickly and in full so that it would be in force by the summer since prices tend to increase during summer holidays. But the Liberals and Conservatives were opposed to it at that time.

This was the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

We can conclude that the inability of the refining industry to deal with the slightest unforeseen event is responsible for recent increases. Is that situation intentional or not? We do not know, because the Competition Bureau does not have the tools that would enable it to carry out a serious, complete investigation; and that is the reason for Bill C-452 today.

One thing is certain, however: the structure of the oil industry encourages sudden price increases, and that is why it must be monitored.

However, I should note that some increases in the refining margin are hard to explain. For example, the refining margin increased slightly in January and February 2009. Since this happened in the middle of winter during a global recession, the traditional short-term or even long-term factors do not seem to apply. Winter is typically when the refining margin is at its lowest.

Furthermore, the data clearly indicate that Canadian demand for gas decreased in late 2008 and the first half of 2009. We can surmise that use of refinery capacity was probably not a factor in the increase in refining margins in January and February.

Gasoline price crises may be the result of the lack of competition in the oil industry. The three largest refiner-marketers have 76% of the market share. The five largest account for 90% of the market.

The Competition Act must have teeth. Measures have been proposed to discipline the industry, and that includes strengthening the Competition Act. At present, the Competition Act has shortcomings. The Competition Bureau cannot conduct an investigation on its own initiative. It can only respond to complaints or a request from Industry Canada. The Competition Bureau is sorely lacking in powers when it conducts a general review of the industry: it cannot summon witnesses and offer them protection to encourage them to speak out. It cannot require the disclosure of documents.

Without these tools, it is virtually impossible to prove collusion or other anti-competitive practices. Even when competitors reach an agreement, the burden of proving collusion is on the bureau.

Near the end of its mandate, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-66, which was for the most part inspired by a comprehensive plan tabled one month earlier, but never adopted.

When the competition commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on May 5, 2003, he identified shortcomings in the Competition Act:

...while the bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study....

It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a study on the overall situation carried out by an independent body that would have authority, that would be able to summon witnesses and gather information. It should also have the power to protect confidential information that someone is not necessarily going to want to share, but which would be vital in order to reach a conclusion based on the real facts.

I stated at the beginning of my speech that it is important for a parliamentary committee to examine the Canadian oil industry. The reason is simple. A similar study was conducted in the United States and the resulting report by the U.S. Senate dealt with whether or not refiners attempted to raise the price at the pumps.

So it is important for consumers in Canada and Quebec that the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology conduct the same study here in Ottawa,

An article in the May 25, 2002 issue of Les affaires refers to the report I mentioned. On page 16, François Normand said that from 1999 to 2001, refiners tried to drive up gas prices at the pump in the U.S. by deliberately reducing supply.

At least that was the main finding of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate in a report entitled Gas Prices: How are They Really Set? The report was released in late April 2002 by the subcommittee chair, Democratic Senator Carl Levin from Michigan.

To reduce supply, refiners kept inventory very low. This also had an indirect impact on Quebec. Low inventory in the northeastern United States, one of the areas the report focused on, drives up market prices in New York, which refineries in Montreal use to set their rack price.

The Senate subcommittee looked at the practices of refiners in three areas of the U.S.: the west coast, especially California; the Midwest, particularly Michigan, Ohio and Illinois; and the east coast, particularly Maine and Washington D.C.

The subcommittee used statistics, such as wholesale and retail gas prices, which it got from the Energy Information Administration and the Oil Price Information Service.

Some refiners and pipeline operators also had to provide stacks of documents—103 boxes containing about 265,000 pages—on their refining and marketing activities from 1998 to 2001.

The subcommittee made some troubling findings. For example, an internal BP memo mentions a series of actions that could help keep prices high in the Midwest, including shipping gas to Canada and limiting gas coming into the area.

Testifying before the subcommittee, BP marketing vice-president Ross Pillari stated that the recommendations in the memo were inappropriate and that the company had not acted on them.

Let us talk about the decrease in the number of refineries. The American oil industry, which has been on the defensive since the report was released, acknowledges that inventory is low, but claims that there is no collusion—which would be a crime—between refiners to keep inventory low. According to the industry, there are two reasons for the low inventory: the decline in the number of refineries and the growing demand for petroleum products in the 1990s.

The subcommittee noted that mergers in the oil industry and the closing of many refineries over the past 20 years have increased the concentration in the refining industry. It also noted that during this period, the margin between supply and demand became tight. The subcommittee stated that higher retail prices, for example, in California, were the result of having a highly concentrated market.

The subcommittee did not discover any evidence of collusion among the oil companies to reduce supply in order to drive up prices. However, Senator Levin pointed out that the industry was so concentrated that collusion was not necessary to artificially impact supply. That is why it is important that the House of Commons examine this issue.

However, we have other options available to us, such as creating a petroleum monitoring agency. In its November 2003 report on the price of gas, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology proposed the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency.

It is quite incredible that, while the oil industry supported this initiative, the Conservatives were against it. The Conservatives are even more inflexible than the oil companies when it comes to defending the interests of the oil companies. They really do not need lobbyists, when they have the Conservative government.

To make it look as if it was doing something, the government set up an Internet site that gave the price of gasoline in major cities. It was just an Internet site. It did not conduct any studies on the oil industry and was unable to recommend any course of action. In other words, it achieved nothing. It takes a real office to monitor this industry.

We have to redistribute resources in order to stop the oil industry from making our society poor. We have to impose a $500 million surcharge on the oil companies' profits. We have to repeal the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in the oil sands, when the price of crude exceeds a threshold of somewhere between $40 and $50. The government announced this measure in its last budget, but it will not come into effect for another three years. We have to make the oil companies pay for the environmental damage they cause by establishing emissions caps, together with a carbon tax and a permit trading system.

On December 9, 2009, I invited some officials from the Competition Bureau to my Ottawa office to explain to them that Bill C-452 would give them more investigative powers but, to my surprise, they told me that they did not want more powers.

This is why I think it essential that this bill be carefully examined in parliamentary committee, and I hope my colleagues will allow that to happen.

Price of Petroleum Products

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, mention was made of Bill C-66, which was introduced during the last Parliament and sought to improve how the Competition Bureau functioned and to put in place stricter rules to keep Canadians informed about gasoline price fluctuations.

When the Conservative government took power in January 2006, it decided to scrap that. Earlier, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Competition Bureau had already conducted studies or investigations to analyze the situation. But the reality is clear. The Competition Bureau is currently saying that it is Canadians' responsibility to prove that there is collusion on the part of the oil companies. When the price of gasoline suddenly goes up by 10¢ a litre and all the oil companies raise their prices by 10¢ a litre as if by coincidence, this is not collusion, and it is still up to us to prove that they are getting together to increase the price of gasoline.

When we look at these things and this reality—and I would like to know what the member thinks about this—I feel that it would be much simpler and more effective to make changes to the Competition Bureau and bring in new, stricter rules to make sure people are treated fairly. In that way, people could be sure that at least the price they are paying is fair and reasonable. When we look at the situation today, and I mentioned this earlier, the companies are making huge profits, but the public is paying the price.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share my time with my colleague, the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

Let me begin by saying that during my time as minister of natural resources, I learned firsthand that energy costs are particularly difficult for lower income Canadian families, who pay a disproportionately large amount of their disposable income on home heating costs and other forms of energy. That, I think, is why so many of us in this House are concerned about the effect of the rising costs of fuel and home heating oil on all Canadians and particularly on lower income Canadians. To date, we have seen little, if any, action by the Conservative government. In fact, what we have seen is that it has taken things that the Liberal government had put in place or set in motion and soon after taking the power of government scrapped those things which would have been helpful to lower income Canadians and helpful for monitoring energy prices or taking action in the case of anti-competitive behaviour.

In October 2005, shortly before I became the minister of natural resources, the previous Liberal government tabled Bill C-66, which included a provision to create the office of petroleum price information. The office's principal responsibility would have been to monitor energy price fluctuations and provide clear current information to Canadians. The bill received royal asset in November, just before the last election.

Unfortunately for Canadians who are eager for the federal government to ensure that gasoline is competitively priced, as soon as it came to power, Canada's new government, so-called, decided to gut the bulk of Bill C-66. I find it somewhat disingenuous that the government now professes such concern for Canadians in this environment of rising energy prices while one of its first acts upon assuming office was to cancel the office of petroleum price information. The reason that office would have made such a difference is it would have provided up to date information to Canadians.

What Canadians see now are oil companies pulling in larger and larger annual profits while the price Canadians pay at the pump goes up and up. They see prices go up between competing gasoline retailers at virtually the same time and wonder if it is collusion.

Another thing that Canadians lost when the Conservatives gutted Bill C-66 was greater power for the Competition Bureau to examine anti-competitive behaviour in the energy sector. Apparently, ensuring strong competition in Canada's marketplace is not a priority for the Conservative government. The minister, when he was in the House, pointed out that a number of investigations into this in the past revealed the absence of collusive behaviour. However, that is no reason not to give the Competition Bureau more powers in the event that those powers are needed to control such behaviour. If such behaviour did not exist, the powers would not be needed. However, if the Competition Bureau is to do its job, it would certainly be better placed were it to have those additional powers.

There were other Bill C-66 casualties after the last election. The Conservatives completely revamped the home energy retrofit program in order to ensure that lower income Canadians would largely be excluded from the program. The essential principle of the program was to reduce your home heating costs by identifying possible energy savings through an energy audit. The government would pay for half the costs of the audit and then pay for half of the costs of renovations to make your home more energy efficient. The Conservative government, however, decided that paying half the costs of the energy audit was not an effective use of taxpayer dollars.

The big problem with this is that lower income families simply do not have the money to pay for these energy audits on their own. That means they cannot qualify for the retrofit program and they cannot make their homes more energy efficient. They cannot realize the savings and they cannot help the environment by using less home heating oil or natural gas, for example. However, that is not what Canadians got from the Conservative government.

I want to really emphasize this point about the energy audit because I think this was one of the most reprehensible acts of the government. On the one hand, it is common knowledge that lower income families pay a much higher fraction of their income on energy, so they, of all people, need access to energy audits and more energy efficient home heating.

When the government says it will no longer pay for the audit and thereby excludes lower income Canadians, that is a meanspirited and reprehensible action because it excludes those who need this help most. I cannot accept the argument that audit costs are administrative costs and the government did this to save on administrative costs. Audit costs are absolutely essential to help lower income Canadians pay for the audits which they otherwise would not be able to afford.

The Prime Minister, while in opposition, used to talk about axing the tax on tax, that is to say, to ensure that the GST was not levied on the 10¢ per litre excise tax. In fact, as recently as four months before the last election, the Prime Minister pledged to eliminate all GST on fuel sold for over 85¢ a litre. That, however, was when the Conservatives were in opposition. Once they assumed power, they quickly discovered that Canadians really did not need those tax savings quite as much as what has become Canada's biggest spending government in history. I will concede that it does take an awful lot of tax dollars to increase government spending by $35 billion in just three years.

Now what we hear from the Prime Minister is “the ability of governments to affect the price of gasoline per se is so small that it is not worth doing”. He might be the only leader of a political party to ever profess to have less power to do something after becoming Prime Minister than the power he thought he had before.

These broken promises are simply a part of a larger pattern. Just before and during the last election, the Conservatives used to say, “We will axe the tax on tax and fix high gas prices. We will not tax income trusts. We will honour the Kelowna accord. Do not worry, the Atlantic accords are safe with us”. After the election, every single one of these promises turned out to have been made in bad faith with the Canadian people.

What Canadians need is more money dedicated toward building efficient systems of public transportation so that they have a real option to take public transportation in cities and towns of even modest size. We need to strengthen the Competition Bureau to ensure that it has all the powers it needs to investigate any suspicious pricing in the energy sector. It needs also to have the power to administer appropriate penalties to deter such behaviour.

What we also need to understand is that the demand for oil is not going to lessen on its own. Rapidly growing economies all over the world, especially India, China and other Asian countries, are going to be buying more and more of the world's oil supplies to meet the demands of their growing industries and middle classes.

The Canadian government needs to take a leadership position, something the government should try to understand. It has to take a leadership position, not an obstructionist position, and help our economy transform itself into an energy that relies less on fossil fuels to drive it. We need to invest in the development of technologies that will help to make Canada a global leader in alternative forms of energy not only for the sake of our environment but also for our standard of living and the standard of living of our children.

At a very minimum, if the government is not able to take a leadership position in this important area, it should at least explain to the people of Canada why, on coming to power, it cancelled three important and positive measures in the area of energy. Why did it cancel the creation of an office to monitor prices? Why did it cancel the proposal to give the Competition Bureau more powers in this area? Why did it deprive the most vulnerable of Canadians from the help they needed in carrying out an energy audit in order to produce more energy efficient housing? I would like the government to answer those three questions, at a minimum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because I am an economist that I am particularly sensitive to false numbers. With all the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts, one reason why the Conservatives cannot possibly be right is that they began by increasing the income tax rate from 15% to 15.5% and labelled that a tax cut. Then they brought it back down to where it was: a double tax cut. By that example alone, they are at least $15 billion too high in their claimed tax cuts over five years.

I have a question for the minister. Speaking in my capacity as the member's predecessor as minister of natural resources, I note he would remember that as part of our own bill in 2005, Bill C-66, we Liberals committed $13 million to give Canada's Competition Bureau more powers and to strengthen the Competition Act in response to high energy prices. What did the Conservative government do when it came to power and that member became Minister of Natural Resources? They scrapped that strengthening of the Competition Bureau.

Another thing Liberals did in that bill was commit $15 million to establish an office of energy price information, whose job it would be to monitor energy price fluctuations. What did the Conservative government do? It scrapped that office of energy price information.

Therefore, if the minister claims to be so much on the side of consumers and cares so much about gas prices, why was the first act of his government and of his time as minister to scrap the office that would have monitored prices and the provision that would have given additional powers to the Competition Bureau to deal with non-competitive behaviour by oil companies?

Opposition motion--Gas Prices

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must first inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Everywhere in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, people are saying that consumers really feel they are being taken for a ride by the oil companies. How is it that the price of gas can jump every Thursday, just before the weekend, only to come back down on Monday, when everyone goes back to work? We must absolutely find out what is going on behind closed doors.

That is also the intention of the Bloc Québécois motion here today. The Bloc presented this motion in order to shed some light on gas prices, which are constantly going up, while no one understands why and we are left to imagine the schemes behind these increases.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

As we all know, the price of gas results from adding the cost of four factors: the price of crude oil, the cost of refining, taxes and the retail margin. The concentration of refining activities during the 1990s caused an increase in prices. These increases are profitable to the oil companies, whose profits continue to grow astronomically. The public therefore has the right to know how these prices are calculated and, above all, what is behind the refining margin.

Prices are skyrocketing. Refining margins are three times too high. Oil companies are making obscene profits. Last week, the price at the pump for regular gas was $1.15, on average, in Quebec City. The average refining margin reached a record high at 23¢. That is three times too high, when we know that a profit of 5¢ to 7¢ is enough for the oil companies to earn a reasonable profit on refining. The price of petroleum products could remain high over the summer, especially since the cost of crude oil continues to rise.

The oil companies pocket the profits. There are six major oil companies in Canada: Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada, Husky Oil, EnCana, Suncor and Shell. These companies had record profits of almost $12 billion in 2006, a 25% increase over 2005 and a 70% increase compared to 2004. Is there collusion? It is impossible to say. However, the five major oil companies supply 90% of the gas sold in Canada and get along so well that they even supply one another.

Therefore the oil sector must be brought into line. The whole economy is threatened by the increase in value of a strategic resource. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to limit, at least in part, price increases for gas and other petroleum products. Given the record profits of oil companies in recent years, there is a transfer of wealth in the order of billions of dollars and that worries us. First, the industry must be regulated to ensure that the middleman does not take advantage of his position or circumstances.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing measures to discipline the industry. First, it proposes to strengthen the Competition Act, which presently has some shortcomings. The Competition Bureau cannot undertake an investigation on its own unless it receives complaints or is requested to do so by the Minister of Industry. The Competition Bureau is severely lacking in powers to undertake a general review of the industry. It cannot summon witnesses or guarantee their protection to get them to talk. It cannot ask for the release of documents. Without these tools, it is almost impossible to prove collusion or any other anti-competitive practices. Even in the case of agreements among competitors, the Competition Bureau bears the burden of proof for the collusion. the Competition Act must be strengthened by giving real investigative powers to the Competition Bureau. At the end of its mandate, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-66, which was based for the most part on a complete plan tabled one month earlier. The bill died on the order paper and the Conservatives did nothing.

To bring the industry into line, a real petroleum monitoring agency must be created.

In its November 2003 report on the price of gas, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology proposed the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency. It is quite incredible to think that the oil industry supported this initiative and the Conservatives were against it. The Conservatives are even more inflexible than the oil companies when it comes to defending the interests of the oil companies. They hardly need lobbyists, when they have the Conservative government.

To make it look as if it was doing something, the Liberal government—which was no better—set up an Internet site that gave the price of gas in major cities. It was just an Internet site. It did not conduct any study on the oil industry and was unable to recommend any course of action. In other words, it achieved nothing. It takes a real office to monitor this industry.

Oil is making Quebec poorer. We have to stop this bleeding. All the oil Quebec consumes is imported. Every litre it consumes is money out the window that makes the province poorer and the oil industry richer.

In 2006, Quebec imported $13 billion worth of oil, an increase of $7 billion in three years. At the same time, Quebec went from a trade surplus to a $7 billion deficit in 2006, not to mention that the increase in Albertan oil exports made the dollar go up, which hit our manufacturing companies and further emphasized our trade deficit. The increase in the price of oil alone plunged Quebec into a trade deficit. Last year, every Quebecker consumed $1,000 more than he or she produced. Oil is making us poorer.

We have to redistribute resources in order to stop the oil industry from making our society poor. We have to impose a $500 million surcharge on the oil companies' profits. We have to repeal the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in the oil sands, when the price of crude exceeds a threshold of somewhere between $40 and $50. The government announced this measure in its last budget, but it will not come into effect for another three years.

We have to repeal the changes made to the 2003 natural resources tax system, which allows oil companies to lower their taxes by another $250 million a year. We have to make the oil companies pay for the environmental damage they cause by establishing emissions caps, together with a carbon tax and a permit trading system.

But in the long run, the solution is to reduce our dependence on oil.

Prices of petroleum products have been on the rise for several years. The figures I am going to quote come from the Régie de l'énergie du Québec. The price of crude oil is increasing and today is fluctuating between US$60 and US$62 a barrel. It has gone up 13% since the beginning of the year and 83% since the beginning of 2004. It is even exceeding the level reached in September 2005, when hurricanes in the southern United States pushed the price up to $69 a barrel.

The price of heating oil is also going up. It has averaged 70.7¢ since the beginning of 2007, up more than 10¢ or 20% over two years ago. According to Statistics Canada, roughly 500,000 households in Quebec still heat with oil or another liquid fuel.

The price of gas is rising. Two years ago, in April 2005, a new record was reached in Montreal when the price of regular gas topped $1. Fluctuations aside, gas prices in Quebec are rising steadily.

Until we put measures in place, one by one, to decrease our dependence on oil, we need to clean house and find out who is making unfair profits. The government therefore must move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition has the power to initiate investigations into the price of gas and the role of refining margins in determining gas prices.

Opposition motion—Gasoline Prices

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding are asking themselves some serious questions. A year ago, a barrel of oil was worth $73, and gas sold for $1.06 at the pump in Quebec. Today, gas sells for $1.15, while the price of a barrel of oil is much lower, at $61. If a barrel was worth $73 a year ago, how is it that a year later, when it is $61 a barrel, we are paying more for a litre of gas? The difference lies in the refining margin. While a reasonable refining margin is 4¢ to 7¢ a litre, last March and April it was over 15¢ a litre. As well, it climbed to 23¢ a litre last week, four times the reasonable margin.

There are four factors that can explain the rise in gas prices: the price of crude oil, the refining margin, taxes and the retail margin. The latter varies from 3.5¢ to 6¢ a litre, depending on the region. Apart from that, the retail margin is stable.

Some will say that this is because of taxes, but taxes are also stable: the excise tax is 10% and the GST is 6.5%. The same is true at the provincial level. Taxes are not what make oil prices fluctuate.

Refining, on the other hand, is a different story. To reduce their costs, the oil companies have closed a number of refineries, and as a result have been able to increase their production capacity. The gap between supply and demand has narrowed, and so the slightest weather-related or technical problem leads to a price increase to maintain the balance between those two factors.

As my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, long weekends and vacations are not unforeseen events. And yet the oil companies do not seem to be able to prepare for them. One would think they were unaware that such events will occur and the price will fluctuate. And yet every year, and every time there is a vacation period or statutory holiday, we see their prices go up.

Can we imagine a small businessperson failing to keep any inventory in the lead-up to Christmas, and then claiming scarcity to raise prices? He or she could do just that; that is what we are experiencing, and yet it is the oil companies doing it. Because they sell an essential product and there is little competition, they make off with it all, while we depend on them.

We can conclude that the inability of the refining industry to overcome the slightest hitch is responsible for recent increases. Is that situation intentional or not? We do not know, because the Competition Bureau does not have the tools that would enable it to carry out a serious, complete investigation; and that is the reason for our motion today.

One thing is certain, however: the structure of the oil industry encourages precipitous price increases and provides the opportunity for abuse. That is why it must be monitored. In Halifax, Esso refines for all the companies; in New Brunswick, it is Irving; in Quebec City, it is Ultramar; and in Montreal, it is Petro-Canada and Shell. The refineries have all cut their gasoline supplies, and in so doing have caused the price to climb about a month earlier than usual.

However, the oil industry is making huge profits. Some may say that the oil companies are not making money, but let us look at the profits they are making. Petro-Canada made a net profit of $590 billion in the first quarter, which is twice as much as the $206 billion it posted last year. It doubled its profits in a year. ExxonMobil took in an enormous net profit of $9.3 billion for the first three months of 2007 alone, which is a 10% increase over the same period last year. However, its sales were down 2% because the market price of oil went down. As I was saying earlier, the price per barrel of oil went from $73 to $61.

How was ExxonMobil able to exceed the record profit of $39.5 billion it posted in 2006? Thanks, in large part, to its refining margin which increased substantially. If the price per barrel of oil goes down, the oil companies lose a bit of money. They then increase the refining price in order to more than compensate for any loss.

The gas crises may be a result of lack of competition in the oil industry. The three largest refiner-marketers have 75% of the market share. The five largest represent 90% of the market. The net profits combined of the six major integrated oil companies in Canada, Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, Husky Energy, Petro-Canada, EnCana and Suncor, reached $12 billion in 2006. In three years, they doubled their profits. It is incredible. The net profits of the entire oil industry have gone from $17 billion in 2003 to $20 billion in 2004 and $35 billion in 2006. That is a 100% increase. After all that, they complain when we want to take back a bit of that money. Give me a break!

Furthermore, the oil companies that are investing in tar sands development in Alberta—the representative of the governing party and especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry were wondering about that—can deduct 100% of their investments from their income from the first year onwards. They can invest a dollar and deduct it the same year. It does not cost them much; things are going all right for them; life is beautiful.

A recent study prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers did a three-year projection of the impact of all the tax breaks given to oil companies. I am talking about breaks, but we could call them gifts. In 2005 they paid $5.1 billion in taxes; in 2008 they will pay $2.3 billion. The income tax they pay has been cut in half. These are tax breaks from this government. We have to get our feet back on the ground. This is a federal income tax reduction of 54%. I would like all the citizens of Quebec to receive such tax reductions, not just the oil companies. The Bloc Québécois has often criticized these tax breaks for oil companies, but no one has made a move. It is time to do so now.

There are proposed measures for disciplining the industry. First of all the Competition Act must be strengthened. I am going to target the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry again. Because he misunderstood, I am going to explain to him so that he understands. The Competition Bureau cannot conduct an investigation on its own initiative; it must receive a complaint or a request from the Minister of Industry, who will doubtless be asleep again, since has been asleep at the switch all this time.

The Competition Bureau is sorely lacking in powers when it conducts a general review of the industry: it cannot summon witnesses. How can it operate? The bureau cannot even summon people as witnesses to find out whether there is any collusion. That is not right. It cannot ensure their protection so as to get them to talk. They cannot even be summoned, they cannot even be protected so that they will tell the truth. And then we are told that the Competition Bureau can do its work. Somebody should wake up. There is something missing here.

Without these tools, it is almost impossible to prove collusion or any other anti-competitive practices. And even when competitors reach an agreement, the burden of proving collusion is on the Competition Bureau. Imagine that! This is a long way from burden of proof reversal. But that is what is being asked for.

We must reinforce the Competition Act by giving real powers to the Competition Bureau.

Near the end of its mandate, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-66, which was for the most part inspired by a comprehensive plan tabled one month earlier. That bill died on the order paper. Why? Because, once again, the Conservatives did nothing.

When Konrad von Finckenstein, the competition commissioner, appeared in front of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on May 5, 2003, he identified the following shortcomings in the Competition Act:

—while the bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study.

It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a study on the overall situation carried out by an independent body that would have authority, that would be able to summon witnesses and gather information. It should also have the power to protect confidential information that someone is not necessarily going to want to share, but which would be vital in order to reach a conclusion based on the real facts.

Hence, the motion from the Bloc:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

Government Policies

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current Conservative government seems to have forgotten that it voted unanimously, in this chamber, for Bill C-66, which contained specific projects such as the EnerGuide program and all sorts of projects to help the environment. The Conservatives voted for it at the time. They should not now be saying that they have not cut these programs. They cut them outright without an assessment.

We demand to see the assessment of the programs cut.

Supply

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the critical need for a change in the leadership, government and culture in how this country has been run.

Today, we have a corrupt and arrogant government that does not believe in democracy, accountability, and has learned nothing from the Gomery report or the Auditor General of Canada.

First and foremost, I stand on behalf of the honest hardworking men and women, the families across our country, the seniors who after a lifetime of work deserve better, and our children and youth who will inherit this country as the next generation. The government has made a mockery of the democratic process and robbed the public purse with which it was entrusted. This is not the legacy we should be creating.

The citizens in my riding of Durham want the same things Canadians in Nova Scotia want. They want the same things Canadians in Quebec and B.C. want. Honest Canadians want honest government, principled and accountable to the people. However, my constituents know that this is not possible with the government. They know this country has a sorry future with a government that has been found guilty of criminally stealing public funds and makes promises it has no intention of keeping.

If we allow the government to continue in office, what does that say about us as a country? What does it say to our children whom we want to grow into adults with integrity and principles, who see a purpose in hard work and earning an honest living, who enjoy the fruits of their labour, and will willingly contribute to the well-being of fellow Canadians and to this country's future?

If we allow the government to stay in office, we are saying that bribery, criminal activities, and deception are the basis on which we choose to build our country, making us no better than countries based on corruption and thievery, countries many of our newer Canadians have left behind. The Conservative Party is not prepared to let that happen.

We believe that Canadians deserve a government that earns their trust, not abuses their trust, and a government that believes it is accountable to every voter and not entitled to break laws and deny it when caught. This Liberal government is about sponsorship, HRDC boondoggles, Shawinigate, and remember our subs and helicopters.

For years members of the Liberal Party have been abusing taxpayers and using our money for their own purposes. The Liberal Party ignores laws and does nothing to strengthen laws to protect Canadians. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to clean up government, like his other promises, the scandals and abuse just keep happening. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Canadians want an open, transparent, and accountable government that cares about the issues that they have to deal with every day, such as jobs, the environment, education, public security, and rising energy prices and taxes. These are the issues that we should be debating in the House of Commons.

The seniors in my riding are facing rising costs, lost income and struggling to stay in their homes. Why did the government keep Bill C-66 off the order paper for so long, a bill that would provide them with the help they need? Why threaten income trusts which are the retirement savings of thousands?

Why did the government cancel the take note debate last week on the agricultural crisis requested by a member of the opposition? Why did the government vote against so many motions to help farmers in Canada? Why did the government vote against the bill to protect young children from sexual predators? Why has the government not delivered its promised auto strategy only to see the announcement this week that almost 4,000 auto workers in Durham are facing job losses? I could go on and on.

The government has to be held to account for its inactions on so many issues challenging Canadians today. Conservatives have shown good faith in trying to make government work. Of the 72 government bills put before the House of Commons, the Conservative Party voted to support or indicated it supported over 60% of those bills. Canadians have given each of us in this chamber their trust, a trust that we will look to their concerns, well-being and futures.

Canadians' tax dollars are an investment in a prosperous future for our nation. That prosperity will not become a reality under the government. Why? Canadians' tax dollars are being wasted on a $2 billion gun registry, but gun violence increases.

Payments to advertising agencies end up in envelopes to pay for Liberal election campaigns and millions are lost and unaccounted for in contracts to Liberal friends. Now the government is on a free fall spending spree with no more forethought than the spectre of the upcoming election.

As each day passes the amount goes up and up at a rate of a billion dollars a day. This frantic frenzy has to stop. This is craziness. It is no more than bribery for votes. The Liberals are trying to bribe Canadians with their own money.

Canadians will not be fooled by these shabby tactics, nor will they be deceived by the threats that seniors will lose their GIS increases that have already been passed by the House.

The military knows that as of last April it has been receiving the raises in salary the Prime Minister claims will be lost if an election is called. The municipalities in Durham can be assured that their infrastructure dollars are not in jeopardy.

I am certain that these final, desperate attempts to cling to power will only reinforce the resolve of Canadians to elect an honest, principled and more accountable government. We need leadership that will not close its eyes or deny its culpability in these acts.

The Gomery report may have exonerated the Prime Minister from responsibility for the operation and management of the sponsorship scandal. Sure, he was not the shop foreman, but as the finance minister, the second in command at Treasury Board, in control of the Liberal Party in Quebec, how could he have not known? Either he was involved or he was incompetent. Either way, we know that this is not leadership.

Let us remember, the Prime Minister was there for the GST flip-flop. He was there for the tainted blood scandal. He was there for the APEC inquiry, Pearson airport and David Dingwall.

Now is the time for principled Conservative action. Now is the time for the Leader of the Opposition's federal accountability act, a contract with Canadians, to clean up government and put Canada back on the track to prosperity.

I came to this chamber with a deep sense of pride and the weight of the responsibility given to me by the voters in Durham. Each of us has a duty; the duty of public service, not entitlement. I was honoured to have the opportunity to work for my constituents, for all Canadians and for my country. However, there is no honour in allowing corruption, mistrust and inaction to invade the core system of our nationhood, the federal government.

At the beginning of this new millennium it will be a Conservative government that will fight to bring honour and pride back to Canada. Under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservative Party is a powerful and effective force in Parliament, a party of principled direction, honesty and vision.

We are a party with a plan for Canada. We have a plan to give families jobs and the right to the rewards of their earnings; a plan so seniors can live in their retirement without worrying about access to health care, paying bills and safety in the street; a plan for economic prosperity and growth; and a plan so our children and youth will care about their neighbours, their community and their country because they are proud to be Canadians.

We believe in and hold the same values as Canadian families, communities and individuals. We believe each one of us deserves the same opportunities to a good job, an education, and to the economic well-being for families and seniors in safe, strong communities.

Let the people of Canada define themselves as a people who want trust and integrity, not corruption; action, not only promises; a prosperous future, not financial woes. Canadians must have the opportunity to decide the kind of Canada they want and the future they believe the next generation deserves. That is why I am confident Canadians will choose to elect a Conservative government.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

I am sure the House is glad to hear the news, but I do not think it is a point of order.

(Bill C-53. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 16, 2005--The Minister of Justice--Consideration at report stage and second reading of Bill C-53, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, without amendment.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed)

(Bill C-54. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 3, 2005--Resuming consideration of the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that Bill C-54, An Act to provide first nations with the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and exploitation and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada, be read the third time and passed.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-55. On the Order: Government Orders:)

October 5, 2005--Minister of Industry--An Act to establish the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-66. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 1, 2005--Resuming consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance that Bill C-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw to your attention the fact that the House has just expressed confidence in this government once again through the passage of Bill C-66.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:

That Bill C-53 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division;

That Bill C-54 be deemed to have been read a third time and passed on division;

That Bill C-55 be deemed to have been reported from the committee with the following amendments presented by the government:

That Bill C-55, in clause 131, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 127 with the following:

as provided in this section or under the laws of the

That Bill C-55, in clause 131, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 129 the following:

(8) For greater certainty, any collective agreement that the company and the bargaining agent have not agreed to revise remains in force, and the court shall not alter its terms.

and that the said bill be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division;

That Bill C-66 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division.

Old Age Security Act

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-301, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, monthly guaranteed income supplement.

At the beginning I would like to make it very clear I have some serious reservations about some of the things that have been happening lately. The Liberals claim that spending outlined in the supplementary estimates will be lost if an election is called before Parliament is able to pass the supply bill. Examples of the spending cited by the Liberals include a pay raise for the military and the increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

I would like to make it very clear for all seniors that this is not the case. This is not true. They will not lose the guaranteed income supplement. The money was voted on by Parliament early last summer as part of Bill C-43, the budget implementation act. It never needs to be voted on again. Rest assured, this will take place for every senior in Canada, regardless of the rhetoric they may hear due to a pending election.

The bill before us today amends the Old Age Security Act to allow eligible pensioners to receive a monthly guaranteed income supplement without having to make an application every year. It also repeals the restrictions respecting retroactivity. I applaud any legislation that enhances the quality of life for Canada's seniors. The intent of Bill C-301 does this. Although a few details require a review, I am quite prepared to support the intent of the legislation and look forward to it being discussed in committee.

Amending the Old Age Security Act to ensure eligible pensioners receive their monthly guaranteed income supplement is something that should have been done a long time ago, but it was not. Therefore, let us get moving forward with this and make it happen.

We continually see the Liberal government making every attempt to extract every last nickel from Canadian taxpayers. A perfect example is the attempt to freeze income trusts and the resulting uncertainty for investors. This uncertainty has cost seniors money that they are dependent upon. These responsible seniors have invested in money for their retirement years and the government cannot stand not having its hands in their pocket. Liberals feel they are entitled to a portion of the pie. They are not and they should be ashamed of itself.

Canadian seniors now live in fear that their nest eggs will be eroded by the government's indecisiveness on income trusts. Because the government has cast a shroud of uncertainty over them, Canadian seniors deserve to see this bill go forward for further study. There must be some degree of certainty for seniors.

Seniors and low income families are facing unprecedented hikes in home heating costs this winter and it is incumbent upon the government to mitigate these increases as much as possible. While Bill C-66 seeks to do this, we all know what happened in a similar circumstance five years ago when deceased persons and prisoners received cheques while many in desperate need received nothing.

Under Bill C-66, single seniors must be receiving the guaranteed income supplement to get their paltry $125 in assistance. I would suggest that very few seniors are aware of this fact and are expecting this assistance from government. Imagine their disappointment when they discover, because they did not fill out a form to receive GIS, that they will not receive any assistance.

This brings me to another point. It has been reported that between 300,000 and 380,000 eligible seniors do not receive the guaranteed income supplement because they do not know if they are eligible for it. Why is this? Many do not understand the eligibility requirements. Nor do they understand they must apply for it annually.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “guarantee” as “a formal assurance that certain conditions will be fulfilled”. There is no guarantee that they will receive the supplement. There is no guarantee that they will receive the home heating rebate. The only guarantee seniors have is the incessant paper work required to get what is rightfully theirs.

As shadow minister for veterans affairs, I know all too well the hoops that veterans are required to jump through to get a disability pension or any of the benefits to which they are entitled.

Imagine having the double whammy of being a veteran and a senior, and trying to deal with the bureaucratic quagmire to get even the smallest bit of assistance? Instead of enjoying their retirement in dignity and comfort, many Canadian seniors are struggling to meet the most basic of life's needs.

It is incumbent upon us as a nation to ensure that those who helped build this nation live out their lives in relative comfort. Neglecting to ensure that seniors eligible for the GIS are receiving it has other repercussions as well. They are also losing out on the programs offered by many provinces, such as prescription drug plans, other income supplements, heating oil subsidies, and home care assistance programs that are available only to individuals receiving GIS. This is unacceptable.

It has a trickle down effect. When eligible Canadian seniors do not receive their guaranteed income supplement for whatever reason, they also lose out on other services that are essential to their quality of life.

This legislation would enable automatic processing of the guaranteed income supplement based on information from the Department of National Revenue, thus ensuring eligible pensioners receive their monthly GIS and without the annual application. I support this measure without question.

There are other aspects of this bill that require and deserve further investigation. With respect to the retroactivity, we need to look at how far back this would go, who it should apply to, and how it will be implemented. They are all important questions that need to be studied and this can be done best at committee.

I would like very much to see this bill go to committee, so it can be carefully examined and given the detail it needs. We need to ensure that it is a strong and viable piece of legislation that endures the test of time, as have our seniors. They deserve no less.

I am certain this legislation can be reinforced and strengthened for the benefit of our seniors. The need is unquestionable. As the Conservative critic for veterans affairs, I have consulted with seniors across Canada and can say unarguably that there is a broad consensus from coast to coast to coast that seniors need to automatically receive any and all benefits as they become eligible.

Let us not deny seniors their rights. I ask that we as elected representatives do what is right and necessary to ensure that those individuals who helped build this nation receive what is rightfully theirs.

For clarification, I will repeat my earlier statement. There is no need for any senior citizen to worry about the loss of GIS income if an election were to proceed. Those are scare tactics that are being used in a very unconscionable way against one of the most vulnerable groups of Canadians in this country. This money was voted on by Parliament early last summer as part of Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act. It never needs to be voted on again and it is assured for the seniors of Canada.

Supply

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Hamilton Centre for sharing his time with me and I want to begin by echoing something that the member said.

One of the elders from the Cowichan tribes in my riding has expressed a concern over the years about how often we talk and how we do not listen. He said, “I know you can hear me, but are you listening?” In the great tradition of Parliament, we have often thought that this was a place for debate, discussion, the exchange of ideas and thoughts, and sometimes for compromise.

I want to put compromise in the context of the kind of language that is important for parliamentarians to bring to this discussion. According to the Oxford English dictionary, compromise is a coming to terms or arrangement of a dispute by concessions on both sides; partial surrender of one's position for the sake of coming to terms; the concession or terms offered by either side.

It seems that is what we are talking about when we talk about compromise today. We are talking about various parties coming together and coming up with a solution that will work for all Canadians, not just for one particular group who are desperate to hang onto power for however many days they can do that.

In the tradition of other great parliamentarians, I want to quote from Lester B. Pearson's Nobel acceptance speech. This is a good reminder of the kind of tradition that we have the opportunity to bring here, the kind of discussion and debate that we could have the opportunity to engage in. Mr. Pearson said:

In his response to the situations he has to meet as a person, the individual accepts the fact that his own single will cannot prevail against that of his group or his society. If he tries to make it prevail against the general will, he will be in trouble. So he compromises and agrees and tolerates.

It seems to me we have 37% of the House unwilling to compromise. We have 37% of the House unwilling to tolerate the kind of discussion that brings another view to the table, that says there are important issues before the House right now that we want to clear up. There are important issues such as Bill C-55, Bill C-66, and the first ministers and aboriginal meeting next week.

These are important issues that we are willing to stay at the table and work together on to ensure that these issues are passed satisfactorily for Canadians. This is an opportunity for the House to demonstrate its goodwill in meeting the needs of Canadians.

Let me briefly speak about Bill C-66. We are coming up to wintertime. We have snowflakes falling in Ottawa as I speak. This is an important bill to ensure that Canadians who are the least advantaged and who are at most risk in our world have access to the benefits that are available under Bill C-66. I would urge all members to look at this very good compromise solution that has been offered by the NDP and work hard together to pass this important piece of legislation.

We have heard much talk over the last several months about democratic deficit. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about how important it is for the government and for all parties to look at electoral reform. The member for Ottawa Centre put a very good proposal before the House. We thought we had a commitment to move forward on electoral reform that would make a difference on how each and every one of us behaved in the House, and how each and every citizen was represented in the House. Have we had any action? None. We are still waiting for that process to be put in place.

The reason I specifically wanted to talk about electoral reform is because the very premise of having electoral reform, a proportional representation system in the House, would mean that every one of us would have to come to the House with a willingness and a tolerance for compromise. It would be the very foundation of working together around a collaborative consensus kind of a way. It would be the very foundation of ensuring each and every Canadian voice was heard when members voted.

It would be the very foundation of working together around a collaborative consensus kind of a way. It would be the very foundation of making sure each and every Canadian voice was heard when they voted.

We have had a Prime Minister who has thumbed his nose at electoral reform. He has thumbed his nose at the democratic deficit and it appears that he will thumb his nose at this very sensible compromise that the House has proposed, a compromise that would allow us to clear the business, avoid a holiday election, avoid Liberal campaigning at taxpayer expense in January and have us go to the polls in February. That seems like a very excellent compromise.

I want to talk a bit more about electoral reform and how important it is for the House to address this democratic deficit. Many of us are very well aware of the fact that only 65 out of the about 300 seats in this House are held by women. We know from studies that have been all over the world that electoral reform increases the equality of representation in our democratic systems. Again, we had this opportunity to do this. Have we had any action? Absolutely not. The Prime Minister has not said one about moving forward on these kinds of initiatives.

In these last days, whether there is other action that happens over this next couple of weeks or whether we reach our natural conclusion in the middle of December, we have heard much talk over this last couple of days about how the sky is falling. We have heard much talk from the government, the Liberal benches, about how if we do not do this the world will come to an end and if we do not do that the world will come to an end. The Liberals have been around for 12 years and all of a sudden, with a few weeks left in the sitting of the House, all of this business is going to be done at the very last minute. I am shocked.

The Liberals have had 12 years to get on with this kind of business. We have had 18 months for the Liberals to get on with this kind of business and we still wait.

Today I met with the National Farmers Union and they were talking about the kinds of issues that must be taken care of in the next 10 days. I asked them how long the discussion had been going on. It has been eight years that we have been talking about these very important issues for farmers and in the last week the deal is coming very close to fruition.

What has been happening for the last 7 years and 51 weeks? All of a sudden the deal is coming to a conclusion. What a miracle. Of course it is just before Christmas and perhaps miracles do happen at this time of year, but it seems like there are so many miracles that are happening all of a sudden.

It is beyond belief that the work that could have been done over the last 12 years has not been accomplished. We still do not have enough affordable housing in the country. We still have women who do not qualify for employment insurance. We still have women who are living on substandard wages because of the Canada pension plan that does not recognize their needs. We still have farmers who do not have a decent income. We still do not have any resolution to the softwood lumber issue and many other issues, such as the BSE. I could go on and on about the failure of the government to meet its commitments to the Canadian people.

Why would we now not come to this compromise solution that would allow us to finish the business that is currently before the House, go into an election that misses the Christmas period and give Canadians a chance to talk about the kind of government they want, the kind of solutions that the NDP brings forward, of government that truly puts the interests of Canadians first.

We talk about the common sense compromise which is actually predicated on the fact that people are willing to come to the table and talk to each other. It is predicated upon the fact that we listen to people in a meaningful way and that we are willing to take our agendas and park them at the door to really work on solutions in the interests of all Canadians.

However we can see that is not been what has been before us. I would urge all members of this House to support the motion that is before the House today so we can give Canadians an opportunity to see the business concluded, enjoy Christmas with their families and then call an election in January.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on a very important motion. I wish to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

This is one of the more important things that we will debate during the time and life of this minority government, for the simple reason that we are trying to find an agreement on when we can hold the election. Nothing can be more important to the life of a Parliament than its ending, because at that point, of course, all stops.

That is the whole issue. We are trying to prevent the grinding down of the House to the point where nothing happens. We will quickly get to that point if we do not find an agreement. We are almost there. We now have the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP in agreement through a process of compromise. It has been stated by MPs from each of those other two caucuses and our caucus that everybody indeed gave a little. It is the nature of compromise. For the most part, it is what makes Canada tick.

Here we are, in the most Canadian tradition, three-quarters of the way to a compromise that would meet all the requirements that everyone has, at least to the point that they could live with it. Everybody gets their main points and gives a little on a few other things.

The Gomery report was mentioned by the previous speaker. Our compromise today allows that to come out. People will have the Gomery report, part two, even though I would say with all due respect that I could not imagine members of a caucus in the House saying that they are going to disagree with any recommendation that Justice Gomery makes in part two. Notwithstanding that, it will still come out prior to election day. The Prime Minister said that was important. We disagreed with him on his point, but the compromise provides that part two of Gomery will be in the hands of voters before they go into the balloting booth. That meets one of the government's requirements.

More important, this compromise allows us to get through a number of bills that we have all agreed need to get through the House. As an example, I will mention Bill C-55. Again, it is not a perfect piece of legislation, but thanks to the work of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, there are things in there that are definitely going to benefit working people. We are prepared to see that it gets through.

Now, with the amendment to it, I would hope that we are not going to get bogged down in voting procedures, but I hear that is possible. That would be a shame. It is an important bill. With the minor amendment, to which the government has agreed, we definitely will have moved the yardsticks forward, at least notionally.

It does not, however, address the issues that are contained in Bill C-281, the workers first bill. Again, it was introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. This is the bill that in the case of a bankruptcy takes pensions and puts them to the top of the list so that workers and the decades of work that they have done are not lost and they are the first ones to receive whatever money might be available afterward. The banks, the suppliers and the government right now stand in line ahead of the workers. Bill C-55 does not do what Bill C-281 would, but it will make some improvements if the common sense compromise that the opposition is putting forward today passes that bill.

Another example is Bill C-66, the energy rebates. I do not imagine there is anybody in the House who is opposed to the notion that we would try get some relief to those individuals and families who are in most need given what is happening to fuel prices and the fact that we are heading into a Canadian winter. That bill can pass under this compromise. There are two other bills that are equally important to other Canadians. I will not get into the details. They will pass the House under this compromise.

We might ask ourselves why it is not happening. I would have to say it goes to the same reason why there was a Gomery report in the first place and why there is a rage across the land. It is the arrogance of the current governing Liberal Party. It is pure arrogance.

The Prime Minister of the day does not have the support of almost two-thirds of Canadians and almost two-thirds of the House, yet the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party believe that under their culture of entitlement they are entitled to govern as if they were almost imperial. They are there and there they shall stay, they believe.

All we are asking is for a little humility and a little compromise and for them to recognize the fact that even though they have been driving around in the limos for a dozen years without a break, in the last election the party that is currently in power was not returned with a majority. The people of Canada sent that party a message. The problem is that the Prime Minister will not listen to that message. He will not listen to Canadians. He will not listen to other parliamentarians. He will not listen to anyone except other Liberals and their strategists, who, by the way, are still doing quite well in Canada, thanks very much.

Notwithstanding Gomery, and I am not suggesting there is anything wrong, but boy it did raise the eyebrows when we saw another article today about another contract to Mr. David Herle, who is with Decima Research, to do work for the recent mini-budget.

I will just say parenthetically that what is interesting is the fact that the limit for having to go to tender is $25,000. Under that, contracts do not have to go to tender. Is that not interesting? It is pure coincidence, I am sure.

I am absolutely certain it is a mere coincidence that even though $25,000 is the limit, Mr. Herle managed to just tuck underneath at $23,112. Therefore, there was no need to bother going out to ask anyone else if they might want some of that work. The government can continue to give it to whom? To the key strategist for the Liberal Party of Canada. It does not stop.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party ask what the difference is. Eight weeks, they say, and they ask why the opposition is getting all cranked up about this. We are very concerned about continuing to give the keys to the Challenger jets and the limos and all the other perks and tools of office to a party that clearly is prepared to use Canadians' money for their own partisan purposes. We want to bring it to a halt. We think that Canadians want to bring all of this to a halt, but we will let the election decide that part of it.

It has been mentioned that this is somehow unconstitutional, that we are doing this horrible thing to the traditions of Parliament, that it is terrible what we are doing in breaking with tradition and almost being illegal in what we are doing.

First of all, let us make the record very clear. It has already been mentioned that a challenge to this motion was placed this morning. By whom? Let us ask ourselves who would challenge it. Oh, right, the Liberals. They challenged it and tried to deny this motion even coming to the floor. The Speaker ruled that it was entirely in order. Nothing that we are talking about right now vis-à-vis this motion is out of order.

As for the issue of the constitutionality of what we are attempting to do, I am not a parliamentary expert, but I was the Deputy Speaker in the Ontario legislature and I have some notion of how the rules of Parliament run. I have to say that when the Prime Minister stands up and makes a public commitment to a particular date or time period for an election, that is all it is. He does not have to follow that. The Prime Minister can change his mind any time he wants. There is nothing to hold him to that. There is no constitutional trigger, no legal lock-in, to this position. It is just that the Prime Minister has said that he is going to have this election sometime in the early spring.

All we are asking is that it be recalibrated. All we are asking is that the Prime Minister stand up and say that in the interests of Parliament, out of respect for the minority Parliament Canadians sent here, out of respect for the need to get these bills through, out of respect for the first ministers conference with the aboriginal leaders, out of respect for all those things, he is prepared to revise the date on which he said he would call the election, at which point he will trigger his constitutional authority and ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and issue the writs for an election. That is all.

It is not a big parliamentary deal, but it does seem to be a big personal deal for the Prime Minister. We are asking, we are imploring, we are pleading, and we are demanding that the Prime Minister of the day respect the majority of the House and the majority of the country. We are demanding that the Prime Minister give us an election timeframe that we can all live with, that is fair to everyone, and gets the important business of this House done. That is a good common sense compromise.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition motion.

On Tuesday, November 22 and Thursday, November 24, we will have allotted days. The opposition House leaders are in fact considering a special House order to expedite Bill C-53, Bill C-54, Bill C-55 and Bill C-66 through all stages with a recorded vote at third reading. I hope we can come to an agreement on that special House order and proceed in that fashion.

If we cannot agree on that special order, then tomorrow we will begin with reference before second reading of Bill C-71, the first nations commercial bill; report stage of Bill S-37, respecting the Hague convention; second reading of Bill S-36, the rough diamonds bill; and reference before second reading of Bill C-72, the bill amending the DNA legislation. We will continue with this business next week, adding the report stage of Bill C-57, the financial governance bill, and other unfinished items.

With respect to the comment about the Chamber of Commerce, it is very clear, and I said this earlier, that Bill C-66 and the ways and means motion are in fact confidence motions. Although I am not sure I should do this, I am taking at the hon. member's word the public statements that in fact those members do support Bill C-66 and the ways and means motion with respect to taxes. Given his comment, I guess I should reconsider and speak to him once again since his party has flip-flopped on a number of occasions.

With respect to prorogation, I have to say that this rumour created by the Conservative Party was merely to keep the NDP in line with its confidence motion that it will put forward in the coming weeks.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the government House leader, all of which concern future business.

My first question is the usual question. Could the government House leader enlighten us and, by extension, Canadians as to what business he has planned for the remainder of this week and on into the following week?

Second, at the annual meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on September 25 of this year, the Prime Minister said, “Under no circumstances will my government attempt this autumn in any way, shape or form to precipitate our own defeat to force an early election”. I would ask the government House leader this question. Does this mean the Prime Minister does not consider Bill C-66, the energy rebate bill, and the ways and means motion currently before the House to be confidence measures?

Last, in a recent signed letter, the government House leader committed to the opposition parties that they would have opposition supply days on November 15, 17, 22, 24 and 29 and December 1 and 8. As everyone knows, these are the opposition days that he withheld from us all fall. Does his commitment mean that the government will not prorogue this Parliament as it is currently rumoured to be considering? I would suggest that a simple no would suffice.

Supply

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton--Leduc who highlighted one of the government bills, Bill C-66, the energy cost assistance measures act. We believe it will bring great benefit to some of the lowest income seniors and low income families across the country. It is urgently needed. That is why in a number of discussions in a meeting with the House leaders this week, we have been looking at ways to ensure that the bill is accelerated for exactly the reasons outlined by the member for Edmonton--Leduc. If parliamentarians can work together on such an important measure as providing energy relief to low income seniors and low income families, then we should do so.

However, we should not stop there. We should use the example of the willingness of parties to work together to pass that important bill and send it to the Senate. The member for Edmonton--Leduc knows if the House comes together to pass that bill, it also must pass the Senate and receive royal assent. Therefore, in his rush to the election next week, I hope the opposition members are conscious of that fact as well.

However, on this side we think that it should only be the beginning of a cooperation to pass many important legislative measures that currently sit on the order paper.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question specifically relates to government business.

The Prime Minister referred to was Bill C-66, the energy rebate bill. He said that it would give rebates for some low income Canadians. It is a bill that we and the NDP would like to see passed, even though there are imperfections with the bill. However, the Prime Minister specifically blamed the opposition parties for the bill being unable to pass if the election were to occur eight weeks earlier.

Here are the facts. The government pulled this bill on October 19, 24 and 27 from debate in the chamber. Further, it has not put the bill at the top of the order of precedence. Yesterday, it did not put the bill forward first. We debated animal cruelty on Monday. The government knows that a majority of MPs in the House support that bill and would gladly see it pass even though it is an imperfect legislation.

How can the government continue to state to Canadians that we on the opposite side of the House are not being constructive and are not willing to pass legislation? How can it pass on the argument that seniors will not get rebates because of the opposition early election, an accusation that is clearly false?

I would like the parliamentary secretary to stand up and address that bill specifically. Why did the government pull it at least three times and two more times not subjected it to the top of the list but to second on the list? It is the government members who are not passing the bill, not the opposition parties.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

The NDP leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, referred to this as an historic day, thanks to this motion, to get things done for Canadians over the next few weeks and to advance a reasonable compromise that three parties, the majority of the House, support. We can get important legislation passed, such as Bill C-55 to protect the pensions of workers. We can get the fuel rebates in Bill C-66 to the people who need them the most.

We know nothing prevents the Prime Minister from setting a date at the advice of this Parliament. The motion provides a real opportunity to address the democratic deficit that the Prime Minister promised to fix. An election delayed until the spring would only make that democratic deficit worse. The Liberals would like taxpayers to fund an extra two months of pre-election spending announcements and travel around the country. This is wrong and it will not happen.

I would like to speak about the first nations conference because it has been raised here as a difficulty that we may in fact be creating. This is important to me, my caucus and my riding where there are two great first nations communities, Garden River and Batchewana. I want to address the aboriginal concerns regarding an early election.

First nations leaders have been in touch with me with regard to concerns about an early election disrupting the first ministers meeting in Kelowna next week. The NDP has a long, proud and clear record of support for first nations, Métis and Inuit objectives, unparalleled by any other party.

The member for Winnipeg Centre campaigned against the first nations governance bill. My entire caucus stood behind his aboriginal affairs committee filibuster to bring attention to Indian residential school abuse. New Democrats believe we must finally achieve fair compensation for survivors and lasting reconciliation for all of us.

The whole compromise will have the effect of protecting that first ministers meeting. All the opposition parties now agree that meeting should be protected. It also honours the principles of first nations of consensus and compromise.

I came to Ottawa wanting to do politics differently, to work positively with elected officials locally at all levels and from different parties. We came to the House of Commons in a minority Parliament to make it work and to be productive. To the best of our ability, we have done this. Our better balanced budget produced results for working Canadians in housing, protecting pensions, post-secondary tuition, the environment and aboriginal communities.

The government did not want to recognize what Canadians told it on June 28 of last year. Canadians said no to the Liberals ruling again as a majority government. Canadians elected the House with the majority of MPs from different parties other than the Liberal Party. We have had confirmed by the Gomery report the width and breadth of the culture of entitlement that has Liberals putting themselves and their party before the Canadian people or our country.

I have come to work but have not seen much of the government's recognition of a minority Parliament or working collaboratively.

First, there is a paucity of legislation, except for housekeeping bills. Even the housekeeping bills, like the ones to give legal standing for the Departments of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development, came a year after those departments were up and running and budgets were being spent. Even when we tried to bring amendments to that bill, every last one of them was turned down.

In committee we see the lack of recognition of a minority Parliament, refusing to work productively to get things done for Canadians.

We raised the deplorable treatment of the voluntary sector by the government's new call for proposals process. For the longest time, rather than getting to the bottom of this, the Liberals were more interested in censuring me than in doing the investigation. God help the whistleblowers under any legislation if this is the way people who bring out grave injustices that need righting will be treated.

My motion to conduct hearings across Canada on the Canadian social transfer was passed in June in the human resources committee. Roy Romanow said that these hearings would be the most important dialogue Canadians would have, even more important than health care. However, since we came back in the fall we have seen nothing but foot dragging in the committee not to have these hearings actually take place. These hearings have not happened and it looks like they will not happen before the government falls.

The Liberals' culture of entitlement has them believing in some divine right to rule and to ignore the will of Canadians and the will of Parliament. This Liberal culture is alive in my own riding, as well, with riding executives sending statements to the media that voters should elect a Liberal MP if they want to get anything in the riding.

Has the Liberal Party learned nothing from the sponsorship scandal, of government ministers ignoring the will of those who were elected by voters and not inviting those members of Parliament to announcements of the federal moneys being spent, Canadian money, I might add, not Liberal money, as they believe? In my riding this has lead to the unprecedented resolution of city council to ensure that politicians at all levels of government, regardless of their party, are invited to these announcements.

This motion introducing this compromise is a hallmark of what can happen in a minority Parliament. Usually, with a compromise, it takes people a little while to get around to accepting it. I hope the government will listen to Canadians and to the majority of the members of Parliament and agree to this sensible approach.

The Prime Minister himself said that he wanted to get some work done this fall, including the first ministers' meeting with aboriginal and first nations. The second thing he said was that he did not want an election over Christmas. The third thing he said was that he wanted to ensure that Gomery's second report was in front of the voters before an election. Those were the things he wanted.

We said yes to all those things and our proposal to have the election called in January for a vote in mid-February would accomplish all those goals.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day in this Chamber in that a proposal is before the House that could bring all parties together in a spirit of compromise in a minority Parliament to achieve a number of key shared objectives. When that happens it is a salutary moment in this chamber. It is one that we need to consider very seriously. We need to examine the arguments why such a course of action is not only sensible, in the sense of being very much a common sense proposition, but also serves the interests of Canadians which is after all why we are here.

The objective is to get things done for Canadians over the next number of weeks and then move into an election after the holiday season in January for a voting day in the middle of February.

Three parties in the House have indicated that spirit of compromise in coming forward with this proposal. The only party so far that has refused to exercise that spirit of compromise, that sense of working together to find a common sense road ahead in order to achieve important objectives for Canadians, sadly is the very party whose unethical conduct has created the situation that we are in today.

The fact is that nothing, but nothing, prevents the Prime Minister from setting an election date on the advice of Parliament. It is, if I may say so, typical Liberal arrogance that a majority vote of Parliament is seen somehow to be irrelevant or an obstacle.

Just because something has not been done before does not mean that it might not be in fact a very good idea. The Prime Minister promised transformative change and suggested that it was required in order to fix the democratic deficit. We agree. However, now he refuses to compromise even though a majority of the House is going to be voting in favour of this advice. In other words, the Prime Minister will not be respecting the will of Parliament.

That does not sound to me, nor do I believe it will sound to Canadians, as though the democratic deficit is being addressed in a positive way. In fact, what it does is it leaves us with a sense that the democratic deficit is growing. We have a political party that received only 37% of the vote wishing to ignore the views of the House as expressed by parties representing almost two-thirds of Canadians. That, I would submit, is not the appropriate conduct for a Prime Minister of this country or for his political party.

Let us examine some of the issues here. First, we have been told by the Prime Minister and members of his party that what we are talking about is “only eight weeks”. In other words, the difference between the date that the Prime Minister has already set. He has already taken the view that there needs to be an election to determine whether his party can carry on in government as a result of the findings and recommendations of a respected justice who has examined a scandal and reported on it.

The Prime Minister has said that Canadians need to have the opportunity to judge on the findings, the recommendations, and the political party about which the investigation was conducted. We agree. The only question is when.

His proposal is on or about March 1. Our proposal, which will be coming from the majority of members in the chamber when we see the vote next week, suggests the beginning of January. Those are the eight weeks that we are speaking about.

What is to happen in those eight weeks? First, the House is not sitting for five of those weeks. In other words, the democratic process of members rising in the House to propose actions on key issues affecting Canadians, the process of questioning the government on its actions and holding it to account, the idea that we should be considering spending or legislation to correct the many unsolved problems that have been left to fester for 12 long years, is simply unable to be conducted during five of those weeks.

Is the Prime Minister suggesting that somehow those five weeks in particular are irrelevant to Canadians? We submit that by having the election in March those weeks are lost as working weeks for parliamentarians to work for Canadians. Therefore, there is no effective and good argument not to be having an election because during those five weeks we are literally shut out of this place in any event.

Of course, there will be something going on during those five weeks. We can be sure that vehicles such as the Challenger will be regularly booked, that there will be a number of press releases and announcements, probably from coast to coast to coast in this country, all paid for, by the way, by the taxpayer. These announcements and spending decisions will already be made by the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, what will be happening during the five weeks that we are talking about is a public relations campaign, not the actions of anything relevant to this particular House.

We will be having a publicly financed public relations campaign. Then the House will return for three more weeks. What is to take place in those three weeks? A budget will be tabled on which a vote will not be able to happen because the Prime Minister has said there will be an election on or about March 1, a budget which will not precipitate or produce any positive action whatsoever and will dominate the three weeks.

Our proposal is simply that this business of the eight weeks being somehow significant or relevant to addressing the issues of Canadians is false. The work that needs to be done by the House should take place between now and the holidays, and that is what we want to see.

There is a solution to the situation confronting Parliament today. It is a matter of common sense.

In the spring, we managed to keep Parliament going because the Liberals agreed to some of our good ideas. This fall, we submitted proposals, but unfortunately the Liberals chose to not work with us to obtain results beneficial to people.

The Liberal Party cannot decide when it will be judged. The people did not elect a majority government, and all parties must be prepared to make compromises.

I believe there is a reasonable solution. There are options other than an election during the holiday period, which no one wants. In addition, no one wants a Liberal Party that thinks it alone can decide when its comportment should be judged.

With this motion, we are requesting an election be called in early January and the vote held in mid-February. This proposal will thus permit Parliament to pass housekeeping legislation, including some very important bills, and will make it possible for the first meeting between first ministers and native leaders to be held. It will also provide an opportunity for the clean-up in Canadian politics that is needed in order to get back to basics, to produce specific results of benefit to the public.

The difference between last spring and this fall is this. In the spring Liberal corruption created a parliamentary crisis. When the NDP offered good ideas to get things done for people, the Liberals were forced to agree. In the fall, Liberal corruption again created a crisis, but this time the Liberals refused to get things done for people, as the NDP suggested, such as protecting public health care in this country.

This minority Parliament is unusual in that the governing party's unethical conduct has hung over it throughout its life, creating an artificial limit to Parliament's life as established by the Prime Minister. Nothing will happen after the holidays except an expensive taxpayer-funded Liberal pre-election campaign. Let us just formalize when the election will begin. It will be underway, at taxpayer expense, so let us have it conducted under the rules of Elections Canada, with a formal initiation of the electoral process in January.

In the meantime, let us get Bill C-55 passed, a bill to protect workers' wages and pensions when there is a bankruptcy, something our party has urged for many years. It is a bill that three straight Liberal majorities did not produce. It only has come forward in the context of a minority Parliament because the NDP gets things done for working people.

Let us get Bill C-66 passed to get energy rebates to people. Parties from all sides have called for action from the government dealing with the energy price crisis.

Let us let the public transit money and energy efficiency money flow. I remind the House that this money is only there because of the NDP proposals with regard to the budget last spring. That is when we took out the corporate tax cuts and replaced them with precisely these investments that people need.

Let us allow the first ministers meeting with the aboriginal leaders to occur. Twelve years of Liberal government have left aboriginal people often living in third world conditions, and it is about time something was done about it.

The culture of entitlement to which Justice Gomery referred is, unfortunately, alive and well. The Liberal Party thinks that 37% of the support of Canadians entitles it to 100% of the power. There is no sense that there is any need to work with the representatives of Canadians from various other parties who, collectively, have the support of 63% of Canadians.

The common sense compromise that we have proposed would allow people to hear the second Justice Gomery report, which will arrive before voting day. This would enable Canadians to incorporate the recommendations in their thinking and parties would be speaking about those recommendations. In fact, some parties already have advanced proposals for reform. I am very proud of the proposals that have been brought forward by the member for Ottawa Centre, just to name an excellent example of what is before us.

However, the proposal from the Liberal Party to set the date on March 1 essentially establishes a timeline that is in the hands of the Liberal Party to be in charge of pretending to fix its own scandal and then graciously allowing people to vote.

It is true that the common sense compromise is exactly as originally promised by the Prime Minister last spring. He was under the impression at the time that Justice Gomery would deliver his final report on December 15. Our proposal would have an election taking place exactly when the Prime Minister promised Canadians it would.

The Prime Minister is taking advantage of the fact that Justice Gomery has asked for some extra time to prepare his recommendations, and the House will not be sitting during this extra time period. This simply would provide a free opportunity for Liberals and their cabinet ministers to fly all over the country, at public expense, and talk about how terrific they are. There would be no work done in that period because the House would not be sitting.

It is shameful. What we call for is the spirit of compromise.

I ask this simple question, and I have asked it in this House before. Why, when three party leaders of the four in the House are willing to compromise, as one should in a minority Parliament situation where no party has a majority of the support, is the fourth party is withholding that consent and sense of compromise?

It is not that the Prime Minister cannot compromise because of some rule that exists. We hear this spurious notion that somehow the motion is not constitutional. Those who would take a look at it now that it is written and before the House will realize it is. I can cite some sources. Members do not have to take my word for it.

Julius Grey, a prominent constitutional lawyer, says that there is nothing that prevents this from happening.

Here are some quotes from Hugo Cyr, a constitutional law professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

I quote:

There is nothing unconstitutional in this motion.

Parliament may be dissolved for a number of reasons following a vote of censure, a vote of non-confidence and a decision by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister or simply because the end of the five-year period has been reached. In other words, loss of confidence is not the only reason for the dissolution of Parliament.

Since nothing prevents the Prime Minister from announcing ahead of time the date he will ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, something the Prime Minister has done on a number of occasions, nothing prevents him from stating ahead of time in a motion put before the House the date on which the request will be made.

Nothing prevents the House from telling the Prime Minister what it considers the appropriate time to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.

I also can quote a law professor from the University of Alberta, one who is also the former attorney general of the country, now the Deputy Prime Minister of our country, who indicated that there was no obstacle to the Prime Minister accepting such advice.

I simply draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have an historic opportunity in a minority Parliament to do what Canadians and the Prime Minister have said that they want to see happen: first, get work done during the fall; second, avoid an election over the holidays; and third, have in the hands of voters the findings and recommendations of Justice Gomery about Liberal corruption. All these things are worthwhile objectives.

There is much work that can be done this fall. It would be better for Canadians not to have to participate or pay attention to electioneering in a season where their children are at home and they are able to spend time with family, thinking about values and about the future in ways that are celebratory and important.

The compromise suggestion respectfully submitted in the House would accomplish those objectives. The only objective that would not be accomplished is one that has never been stated publicly. The government has never referenced or submitted the business it would do in the wintertime. This is period of time when the House would not sit and when no meaningful business could be conducted. The only plan we have had is a plan for the fall. We propose that we work on that plan together. The Liberal Party and its leadership has suggest they do not want to participate. They would rather simply be on their own in January to sell themselves at our expense. We will not have it.

We want this compromise adopted and we call upon Canadians to urge the government to abandon its arrogance of 12 years and to begin to work with the members of Parliament whom they elected.

Fuel Rebates

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is debated in an ordinary course in the time that has been allotted to it and available to us.

It is my recollection that when I left the House just before the break week, the House was being filibustered by that party over there. When I turned on the television this morning it was still being filibustered. We cannot proceed with government business, including Bill C-66 and the payments that would flow from Bill C-66, as long as the opposition parties decide to filibuster this Parliament.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 has been on the order paper for a number of weeks now and has been debated in the normal course. The only thing that has changed in the payments to the guaranteed income supplement, the national child benefit and money for public transit is that in the break week the opposition parties decided to get together and postpone the orderly passage of legislation.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that energy payments for low income Canadians have not been a priority for this government. In fact, the government has postponed debate on the bill that would authorize these payments, Bill C-66, three times over the past month. This is a bill that has had majority support of the House since it was introduced.

Will the Prime Minister admit today that he did not give a second thought to low income Canadians in their struggle to pay their bills until he was threatened with an election?

Privilege

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear my colleague from the NDP say that his party was not entering into an alliance, an unholy alliance, with the Conservative ideologues and the Quebec separatists. So I am just curious what in fact this is. Is this a political ménage à trois? It is a pretty scary thought.

More interesting, the member mentioned that in the spring they were not allying with the Liberals, but in fact were helping to govern to ensure that very important legislation would get passed. We have some 30-odd bills on the order paper that, if there is a non-confidence motion, will not get passed. Following that logic, I would assume the NDP is now saying that these are not important bills for the people of Canada.

What sort of bills are these? There is Bill C-66, the energy relief bill, which would provide relief in January for people on fixed incomes, our seniors and families on low incomes. It would fall to the side. Does his party not feel that is important legislation? There is Bill C-69, the agricultural marketing programs act bill; or Bill C-64, the vehicle identification bill or, as some would call it, the Chuck Cadman bill. It would unfortunately fall by the wayside. There is Bill C-16, the impaired driving bill and Bill C-54, the oil and gas exploration bill. I am sure that the members opposite from Alberta will be happy to see that one fall by the wayside. There is Bill C-11, the whistleblower protection bill, and Bill S-39, the sex offender database bill. Which of these bills does the member feel is not important enough to be passed?

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate at third reading of Bill C-54, the first nations resources bill.

When this is complete, we will consider reference before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals. I expect that this business will carry over to tomorrow. We will then add to the list second reading of Bill S-36, respecting diamonds and second reading of Bill C-44, the transport bill.

When the House resumes on November 14, we will return to second reading of Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill; Bill C-66, the energy bill; and Bill C-67, the surpluses legislation.

We will also then return to any business from this week that is unfinished and if time permits, consider second reading of Bill C-61, the marine bill.

November 15 and November 17, as the hon. member across the way would have known weeks ago had he been at the House leaders meeting, will be allotted days. On Tuesday evening, November 15, we will have a take note debate on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Accordingly, I will propose the required motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.1(1). I move:

That a debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place on Tuesday, November 15 on the subject of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 is an act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure. The bill states:

Part 1 of the enactment authorizes the making of payments to families who are eligible for the National Child Benefit Supplement, and to seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance under the Old Age Security Act, in order to deliver one-time relief for energy costs.

Part 2 authorizes payments of up to $500 million for the period...ending on March 31, 2010 to provide assistance for reducing housing energy consumption. It also authorizes funding of up to $338 million for the EnerGuide for Houses Retrofit Incentive Program.

Part 3 authorizes payments of up to $400 million for each of fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for public transit infrastructure.

The short title of the act is the “Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act”.

The plan is to act on three fronts, providing direct financial assistance to low income seniors and low income families with children, helping families lower their future household heating costs by making their homes more energy efficient, and providing money to municipalities for investment in public transit.

In general, the income thresholds are as follows. We need to look at these. A single senior receives the benefit up to an income of approximately $19,300, including the OAS benefit. A senior couple in which both spouses receive the GIS receives the benefit up to an income of approximately $29,000, including the OAS benefits. A couple in which only one spouse receives the GIS receives the benefit up to an income of approximately $38,700, including the OAS benefits.

In addition to being available to low income individuals aged 65 and older, the energy cost benefit will also be available to those aged 60 to 64 who are entitled to receive payment in January 2006 under the allowance or allowance for survivors programs. These individuals receive the benefit for incomes up to $25,536 and $18,744 respectively.

Delivering payments to families and individuals in this way poses a number of challenges, but the government hopes to ensure that relief is delivered to Canadians in need. That is what it claims.

Making homes and buildings more energy efficient is a key way for Canadians to offset higher energy costs. The incentives will help Canadians save energy and money, but it is a small gesture.

The measures include $500 million to provide direct financial assistance of between $3,500 and $5,000 to low income households to defray the cost of items such as draft-proofing, heating systems upgrades and window replacement under the new EnerGuide for low income households program. For multiple unit buildings and rooming houses, financial assistance will range between $1,000 and $1,500 per unit. Cost savings will average about 30% per household.

We know that the cost of energy is a major factor in housing affordability. These measures, in addition to the residential rehabilitation assistance program, may help reduce energy costs.

However, in B.C. we have some very interesting small programs that hint at innovative directions. They hint at what could be done to help energy consumers shift their consumption patterns. They are bottom up rather than bureaucratic and top down.

One B.C. program is called Car Heaven British Columbia. It deals with vehicle purchase and scrappage. Participants who donate a car of 1994 vintage or older that is currently on the road will receive a $1,000 certificate toward the purchase of a new General Motors or Saturn vehicle. All participants who donate their old gas guzzler car through the program will receive a charitable receipt for a minimum of $50 and the car will be towed away free of charge. Cars and their parts are then disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner.

In addition, between June 1 and November 30, 2005, anyone can enter Car Heaven's draw to win a new car or rail tour package. There is no requirement to donate a vehicle to enter the draw. This program is an initiative of the Clean Air Foundation, not government. It can be found at the website carheaven.ca and the phone number is 778-371-7123.

In B.C. we also have an exemption for non-motorized, two-wheeled bicycles. These bicycles, non-motorized, two-wheeled, and their repair, as well as bicycle parts, bicycle accessories and their installation, are all exempt from provincial sales tax.

Tax exempt parts include most normal bicycle components. Tax exempt accessories include pumps, carriers and other items. Accessories and equipment are exempt from tax if installed by the seller at the time the bicycle is sold. Safety equipment such as lighting, including batteries, reflectors, helmets, safety vests and bibs, are exempt regardless of when purchased. This is a small but meaningful help to promote the use of bicycles. All we need now is for the feds to make it GST free. For more information, people may call 604-660-4524.

Then we have that scrap it in B.C. program. Owners of cars and light duty trucks of 1993 vintage or older currently insured in the lower mainland can trade them for one of the following incentives: $1,000 toward a new hybrid vehicle; $750 toward a new vehicle; $500 toward a 1998 or newer used vehicle; 50% of the purchase price of bicycle up to $500; $750 toward van pooling or car pooling with the Jack Bell Foundation; $500 toward a member in car sharing cooperatives; TransLink monthly passes, 18 months concession, 12 months in one zone, 9 months for two zones, 6 months for three zones; and the West Coast Express, 28-day passes. These are all incentives that are available.

To be eligible the vehicle must have been continuously insured in the last 12 months on the lower mainland and failed an air care test at some point in its history. Simply go to the website called “incentivesandrebates.ca”. There is also the Vancity clean air auto loan, up to $3,000 per vehicle in reduced interest payments. The Vancity Credit Union offers its members prime rate loans for the purchase of gasoline, electric, hybrid and dedicated natural gas vehicles. As of September, the prime rate was 4.5% and the loan is up to five years.

In B.C. Terasen Gas, in cooperation with the British Columbia ministry of energy, mines and petroleum resources and Natural Resources Canada, now offers a program to encourage the use of high efficiency natural gas hydronic space heating systems in new construction and retrofit applications. The program will provide incentives to gas customers to help offset the cost of installing high efficiency boilers in commercial applications. In retrofit applications, additional incentives may be received for monitoring boiler performance and gas savings when an efficient boiler replaces a less efficient one.

Free workshops on the design application, installation and maintenance of high efficiency heating boilers in commercial buildings also are offered. The program began April 4 and runs until December 31, 2006. Simply call 1-888-477-0777.

The feds always seem to want to drive a big program from the top. I have given the example of small programs from the bottom. They spend a lot of someone else's money, taxpayer money, for a general objective.

The bureaucratic approach eliminates market forces and individual choice and flexibility. That style of administration is inefficient and sometimes is even outright wasteful. Generally it does not deliver any lasting improvement. The preferred choice is to not to take taxes in the first place to reward certain habits. Then taxes should be structured to reflect the true flow through cost of historical and external subsidies so the true cost is the consumer cost.

Retrofitting is good, but we need to stop building energy hungry office buildings and homes in the first place. In this case there needs to be a higher level playing field across the country for energy efficiency standards. The bill would deliver some dollars to some people. In the long run, it will do little to actually alter the underlying problem of the rates of energy consumption and the relentless trend of increasing energy costs. Governments should not be congratulated for just stop gap measures, for that is all we have seen from these Liberals.

The bill would not assist students, those receiving disability benefits, farmers, low income seniors who do not get the supplement of the OAS, childless poor Canadians or many who are close to the poverty line. Rather, raising the standard basic exemption on the income tax form would have zero administrative cost, unlike this program, and would help all who are in need.

People today are using energy like never before. Such items as dishwashers, microwaves, washers, dryers and a counter full of kitchen gadgets, personal computers, fax machines and modems have allowed us to save valuable time, but it does not come without a cost. It is increasingly important to manage the amount of energy we use, not only to save money but also to be kinder to the environment.

In conclusion, the bill may buy some votes in the short term, but it does little to help the Canadian dilemma of long term adjustment to the future cost of energy for the efficient movement of goods, capital and labour, or to heat our homes. Significantly, on this day of the release of the Gomery report, this is a money bill that is a confidence measure of the government.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-66 today. The bill represents a commitment to assist the most vulnerable of Canadians with a major challenge, which, in some ways, is almost uniquely Canadian, and that is the Canadian winter.

The challenge to keep themselves and their families warm is a big one for many Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable among us. At the same time we are contributing to a greener environment and better housing, particularly for those who are most in need.

Canada is a great country and there are many benefits to living here. However there are a few challenges that go with that privilege and one of those challenges can be our weather. I do not think anybody would deny that.

I think Canadians appreciate better than most the change of seasons. The transition from autumn to winter can be particularly striking to the senses as the distinctive colours of autumn give way to the stark beauty of a Canadian winter. In addition to its unmistakable splendour, the Canadian winter brings an obvious challenge and that is staying warm.

For many Canadian households, businesses and communities, winter means increased energy consumption to heat homes, offices and public buildings. With the sharp rise in fuel costs, Canadians are bracing for a particularly costly winter.

The Government of Canada is clearly attuned to this pressing challenge and is helping Canadians to overcome it. Bill C-66, the energy cost assistance measures act, reflects this government's commitment to helping Canadians reduce energy consumption. I hope all members of the House will support it.

We intend to help individuals, families, communities, school boards and entrepreneurs across Canada to reduce energy consumption immediately and well into the future. Although all Canadians stand to benefit, those earning low to modest incomes will be eligible for additional assistance with energy costs.

In Atlantic Canada most houses are heated with oil. I used to run an oil company for the Irving family and I am particularly attuned to the rising cost of fuel. When I started in 1986 as the general manager of a very distinguished and historic oil company, the price of fuel was in the range of 27¢ to 28¢ a litre. We have seen the cost of fuel go up a number of times in that period.

The bill is designed to help those who most need help. It is also expected to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases resulting from energy consumption in Canada.

Bill C-66 would increase the government's investment in one of our country's most popular programs, the EnerGuide for houses program. This program provides financial support directly to Canadians who renovate for increased energy efficiency. What colleagues may not know, however, is that the legislation would significantly increase the amount of money available to economically disadvantaged Canadians. Bill C-66 commits up to $500 million over five years to EnerGuide for low income households.

From my experience in the energy business, I know of EnerGuide for houses as well. I know that Terry Watters, from sustainable housing in Wolfville, is one of the people who actually carries out this program and provides good advice to Canadians, like my colleague from Mississauga South who took part in this program.

Through this component of our bill, over 130,000 low income Canadians would be able to afford energy efficiency renovations and reduce their household energy costs for years to come. It also includes help for apartment owners with low income tenants.

Although Bill C-66 would provide immediate relief to many Canadians, I think it is particularly important to recognize that the bill and the broader energy relief package announced on October 6 are not one time only, stop gap measures designed to counteract a temporary crisis. On the contrary, they build on a range of existing programs of the Government of Canada to help families and property owners, as well as community groups, businesses and school boards, to improve energy efficiency.

Let me just take one of those initiatives as an example and that is the EnerGuide for existing buildings launched in 1998. This initiative helps improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use in commercial and institutional buildings. Canadians rely on many of these buildings every day, schools, hospitals, universities. The government's funding contributes to the comfort experienced in these buildings and helps to reduce operating costs. To ensure that public money is invested wisely, the initiative requires applicants to verify energy savings realized once the renovations are complete.

In the past seven years, the initiative has invested approximately $50 million in renovation projects in 4,800 buildings. Among other changes, the renovations have included the replacement of lighting systems, improvement to heating systems and the installation of new boilers. The total value of these projects exceeds $865 million. In other words, every dollar worth of federal incentive was matched 17 times over.

The savings generated by the program have also been striking. Annual energy costs have been cut by $125 million. For building owners, these savings make the decision to invest in building retrofits tremendously more attractive.

In addition, projects of this kind decrease maintenance costs, increase worker productivity and enhance health and safety, leading to further savings. Money once spent on energy can now be redirected toward the purchase of books for school libraries or the provision of better services in our hospitals.

Let me give members a greater appreciation of the success of this. Allow me to present the experiences of three institutions that have put the program into action: la Commission scolaire des Hautes-Rivières, the Regina—Qu'Appelle Health Region and the University of British Columbia.

Created in 1998 as a result of the amalgamation of three Quebec school boards, la Commission scolaire des Hautes-Rivières operates 51 facilities, including 39 primary schools, 8 secondary schools and 4 adult centres. In September 2001, the school board initiated a retrofit on 25 of its facilities. A wide range of changes were made to boost energy efficiency: new water heaters, lights, windows and doors were installed; energy management controls, along with a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system were introduced. In total, the renovations reduced the school board's energy costs by almost $300,000 a year.

Similar results were achieved in Saskatchewan with renovations to two hospitals: Regina General and Pasqua. The installation of several energy efficient technologies led to reductions in energy consumption of 11% at the hospitals.

The Government of Canada's support has also enabled the University of British Columbia to decrease its energy consumption, to reduce its operating costs and to cultivate an environment of energy awareness and responsibility.

The retrofit projects recently completed and others under way now at UBC are too numerous to describe. I had the opportunity to visit UBC this summer and I met with the faculty and students at the University of British Columbia. I can tell members that the people at UBC who work in facilities spoke in glowing terms about the improvements. Several areas on the UBC campus have undergone lighting retrofits. In some classrooms, outdated lighting tubes have been replaced with more energy efficient lamps and fluorescents. This change alone has produced savings of 30% in energy consumption. The university has also replaced incandescent light fixtures with fluorescent lamps. These new lamps provide the same amount of light but consume 80% less energy and last up to 10 times longer.

These remarkable success stories represent just the beginning. The government proposes a straightforward yet effective way to build on the significant accomplishments of initiatives and programs such as the one I just described. These programs vividly express the government's commitment to help Canadians save energy and to promote an energy efficient future.

This past summer, when our Liberal caucus met in Regina, we discussed a number of issues that we would like to see action on this fall. Our Atlantic caucus, in particular, felt very strongly that we had to find a way to help our constituents with the rising cost of energy. We felt, further to that, that if we could be of assistance, those who most needed it are those with the lowest incomes and quite often people living in the region that I came from, in oil heated homes, simply cannot afford to retrofit their houses.

We would like to do something for everyone. This is not an utopian world. In spite of the fact that we have improved this economy so much since 1993, there are limits to what we can do.

This is a bold initiative. I commend the Minister of Finance and his officials who understood the need and who took direction from the caucus saying that we have people in our constituencies who really need assistance, who really need help and who really need long term sustainable solutions. They listened to us and they produced a plan that I think does what we should be doing: helping those who need help the most.

I support this initiative and I encourage all members to do likewise.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Oxford. I have a great deal of difficulty in ultimately supporting Bill C-66. Once again, too many Canadians have been left behind by the Liberal government.

I would like to tell the House a little bit about my riding of Oxford. It is riding that is somewhat rural and somewhat urban. It has some industrial components and certainly agriculture. Agriculture represents about 30% of the income in my riding.

The bill does not take into account the costs to farmers of tilling their lands and getting their product to market, and all of the things associated with farming in which petroleum products are involved. It does not help the small business people who are currently facing 35% and 40% surcharges on their delivery, people who have to get their products from somewhere to complete it, to finish it, and to send it on somewhere else.

It does not take into account the cost of driving to work in those industries. It does not take into consideration the cost to many people in their homes. Many people are left out in this particular bill. It does cover up to three million people or a few more, but that means that about 90% of Canadians are left in the cold, so to speak, with the bill.

We have been led to believe by our colleagues opposite that it is out of their good graces that this money is to be handed to Canadians. It is like money that fell from heaven. This money belongs to Canadians. It is money that came from taxes.

An interesting sidelight to this whole thing is that when the war broke out in Iraq, there were people who talked about how some Americans would make a fortune from the oil industry because the prices would go up. This particular government made a fortune, not by invading another country but by a natural disaster.

Every time the price of petroleum products goes up a cent at the retail level, it generates upward of $32 million a year for the government. To hand some of this money back is not good graces, it is simply extra money that was taken and needs to be handed back.

There are three parts to the bill. Part of it is in the form of rebates to some Canadians. Some of it is for energy retrofit and some is for public transit.

My riding has three large urban centres, only one of which has public transit. The Minister of the Environment suggested that Canadians needed to change their ways. He was talking about bicycling and public transit. If we live in one of those communities that does not have public transit, this will not help. It is also pretty hard for those people in small industries to deliver their products on bicycles or for farmers to plow fields with a bicycle.

The bill does help some people in the urban areas that have public transit, but by and large, that represents one-third of my riding. Two-thirds of my riding gets absolutely nothing from the increase in public transit.

I am concerned about those people who are missed in the rebate. People who receive old age supplements will receive the money only if they have applied for them. There are literally thousands of Canadians out there who would be entitled to the GIS and who, for whatever reason, have not applied for it. Either they do not know it exists or they are not able to fill out the forms. Whatever the reason may be, they will not receive anything from this.

There are childless couples who may very well be working poor. They will not receive anything. They get up every day and go to work. They may ride their bicycles, but more than likely in my riding, they have to drive because it is a fair distance from where they live to where they work. Those people will not be entitled to it.

We talked about the people who are entitled to it. If we are looking at a rebate, my friends have talked in the past about how those who were not entitled to a GST rebate, got the money. Some were in jail, some were dead and some were out of the country. Certainly, I know of a number of students who were living out of the country who received a rebate. They thanked Canadians very much for sending the rebate, but they did live out of the country. Most Canadians would not have thought they were entitled to it, but they did get it.

We have the same scenario here, with all due respect. There are people who live in accommodation where their rent includes their heat, so they have not noticed any change in the energy costs unless they drive vehicles, and a lot of them do not. However, they will be entitled to it, where childless couples who are perhaps working poor get absolutely nothing. Somehow that does not seem right. I do not think that seems right to the average Canadian. It certainly does not seem right to the people on this side.

As we approach an election, we have come to the conclusion that this has more to do with postering for an election than it does to helping the average Canadian. Certainly the average Canadian in my riding will see little or no benefit from this bill. It will help 10% of the people in the country, there is no question about that. However, the average Canadian, whoever that average Canadian is, will see little or no advantage from this particular bill.

I think it was a valid question from my friend from Yorkton--Melville about the cost of administering it. The other side said there will be no cost. It will be done on income tax assessments when income tax returns are filed. There is always a cost associated with those issues. Absolutely, there is a cost.

The other point is that we need something more current to help those people who are in hardship situations. People will not be filing their income tax returns until well after the heating season. If this is an event that is supposed to be beneficial to people with the high cost of energy, the money will be gone. They have to wait to get their money back.

One of the problems this particular bill does not address is the tax on tax on fuel. It is interesting that in the United States 27% of the price of fuel is tax. In Canada it is 42%. That is a huge sum of money.

When we talk about this money going back, there is no question the money is over tax. Canadians are going to get their money back, but it gets funnelled through the system and the money just does not get there. This money will not flow overnight. People will have to spend a great deal of money to have energy retrofits done to their homes. I heard the member opposite talk about how he had his home done this year and it will save him 30%. With all due respect, he has the resources to do that.

If we are talking about the people at the bottom end of the income scale, they do not have that money to put out. I know that people in my riding who would energy retrofit their homes do not have that money. This money should be available to them. We should have some sort of a program if we are going to start cutting the consumption of energy in our country.

To simply say that people should ride bicycles and take public transit is not really effective in a riding like mine. I am sure that is true of many members in the House who have similar ridings to mine, in that we just simply cannot cut down on our transportation needs and use public transit. It does not exist.

We see that outside influences change the cost of our petroleum products. I think all members are well aware of what happened when Katrina struck. I think Canadians also have every right to question how all of that happened so quickly, how we started to see that go through our system. As the storm went through, the price surge here was tremendously high.

Who benefited from it? The government did. As I said, every time the price of fuel goes up 1¢ a litre, the government takes in about $32 million a year. If we were to look back over the last few months, we would see that the price of fuel has gone up a great deal. That $32 million is probably multiplied 15, 20 or 25 times over. This little bit of money going back to Canadians is really just a down payment to Canadians on what they have overpaid in taxes.

I will at the end of the day begrudgingly support the bill because there is some value going back to low income Canadians and certainly they are entitled to it. However, we could have done a lot better with the bill than what we have here today.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree. If the member were to reflect on a couple of the comments I made in my speech, he would see that there has been investment made in a special office to review anti-competitive behaviour and also to strengthen the Competition Act to achieve similar results.

Hurricane Katrina was not just a one day affair. Hurricane Katrina left some devastation behind it where we had oil rigs floating around in the Gulf of Mexico. The supply situation was in jeopardy with other hurricanes coming along.

His colleague mentioned that we should just get rid of the GST on fuel. Let us do a little calculation here. A one penny reduction in the taxes of gasoline costs $400 million. The GST would be about six cents, so we are talking six times $400 million, which is $2.4 billion to get the price of gasoline today down to about 90¢. It is still not enough.

At what point do we say the government cannot cut the taxes enough to get gasoline prices to the level that they should be at? What is the reality of the price of a barrel of oil? Two years ago the price of a barrel of oil was around $10. Today it has been hovering around $67. It is correcting itself a little bit, but we have to understand that in the reality of the commodity of energy, particularly of oil, we are not price makers in Canada. We are price takers.

The world price of oil is what it is. We are going to have to deal with it. That is why Bill C-66 does not only deal with a small fix for low income Canadians. We also have to continue taking steps to be energy efficient through the retrofit portion and make further investments to public transit. This is a complex problem and not the simple problem that the member seems to think.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has just said about income trusts flies in the face of what leading economists have told us, but that is not the reason for my rising at this point. I want to point out to the member that Bill C-66 could be much better.

The flavour of the day today, the talk among a lot of people, has been the Gomery commission and the recommendations that Gomery has made. One of the key things that he pointed out and the problem he detected is that programs were designed with political motives, and here we have an example of just that.

The people who need the help the most, those who are experiencing high energy costs, are not going to see a benefit from this bill. Why can we not reduce taxes for everyone affected? That would ensure that we do not have another fiasco waiting to unfold, a huge bureaucratic mess here.

Liberals seem to always devise programs that cost a lot to administer, that are complex rather than simple. I see this very clearly in the agriculture programs that I have to deal with on a daily basis in my riding office.

I want to point out one fact. The government has profited more than the oil companies from the recent spike in fuel prices on a per litre basis. Sometimes it wants to hide this fact. Bill C-66 comes just before an election and it really flies in the face of what Gomery said should happen. The programs are politically motivated.

I want to make one other comment. Today we have stumbled over a very obvious thing in the sponsorship scandal, and that is that the present Prime Minister was the finance minister. He says that there is still $49 million missing. If he was the finance minister, it was his responsibility to know about that and to find that money. He should be working on that, not passing that responsibility off. I cannot understand how a government in charge of the public purse does not know where the money went. Those in charge of the public purse have a responsibility to administer it appropriately.

Here we have a program being put in place that attempts to redistribute income to a small portion of Canadians rather than help all those who really need it in creating jobs. The government has reaped huge benefits from the increase in fuel prices. Why not give that money back in the way of tax cuts?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today on a bill that is very important to Canadians, Bill C-66. We refer to it as the energy bill.

I would like to start by saying that I think that second reading debate of this bill has identified that there are some concerns about the leakage in terms of how we effectively or efficiently hit the target. I think the previous speaker raised some possibilities. I think it is important that they are raised at second reading.

It is a possibility that we could see some appropriate amendments to make sure this squarely hits the target, but we have to look at the bigger picture, because quite frankly some members have asked why we do not just give it to everybody. The difference there would be that instead of there being $564 million for the energy benefit side of it we could be talking about $2.5 billion to $3 billion. I am not sure at that point whether or not that is the best allocation of resources, but it is yet to be discussed.

Under Bill C-66, as members can appreciate, there are some consequential amendments to a number of acts, so the bill does not read very smoothly, but it does make the technical amendments that would be necessary to implement the provisions. Let me summarize, if I may, the principal provisions of Bill C-66. The bill states:

Part 1 of the enactment authorizes the making of payments to families who are eligible for the National Child Benefit Supplement, and to seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance under the Old Age Security Act, in order to deliver one-time relief for energy costs.

Part 2 would authorize payments of up to $500 million for the period beginning April 1, 2005 and ending March 31, 2010 to provide assistance for reducing housing energy consumption. It also authorizes additional funding of up to $338 million for the EnerGuide for Houses Retrofit Incentive Program.

Part 2 talks about a five-year period.

Lastly, the bill states in regard to the third part:

Part 3 authorizes payments of up to $400 million for each of fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for public transit infrastructure.

Thus, we are not talking just about who is going to get a little bit of a break on their energy costs. I believe we are talking about an important debate on a strategy for how we are to address the inevitable increases that we are going to see, not only in gasoline but in natural gas, hydro costs and all types of fuels.

The reality is that energy costs are going up. It simply will not be enough for us to rely on little band-aids to try to deal with this. We have to be energy wise. The commodity we are talking about is not just gasoline. The commodity is the cost of energy. Energy is the commodity.

I want to amplify these three points. I just did a householder for my constituents and I tried to put this down in some language that would assist them.

The plan to help Canadians is designed to achieve a number of objectives. First of all, it is designed to provide direct financial assistance. It is called the energy cost benefit. It will be going to more than three million low income seniors and low income families with children. This is the area where members may want to discuss if this is the most efficient way to target it.

Members also know that the last time there was an energy benefit provided to Canadians, the government used the GST tax credit. Those who were eligible for the GST tax credit received it, principally because it was important to do that quickly. It was a very linear and a very “as the crow flies” approach. Clearly there were some problems and obviously there were some changes in people's status, but we do know that those low income Canadians who were entitled to the benefit did in fact receive it. That was the most important objective.

We also want to help families lower future household heating costs. That is a very important part of this as well.

We want to make more and better pricing information available to consumers while taking legislative steps to deter, for instance, anti-competitive practices in our energy work in terms of setting up other mechanisms to deal with consumers' concern, at least on the gasoline basis, that there is anti-competitive behaviour. It is extremely important that there is a comfort level, that we are vigilant in ensuring that in fact there is no anti-competitive behaviour.

Finally, it is designed to fast track money to municipalities for public transit.

The House will note that a couple of points, the retrofit and the public transit issues, have to do with better and wiser use of our energy availability. This is also part and parcel of our Kyoto plan. It is interesting to note that not all parties in the House support the Kyoto accord. Not all parties in the House support lowering greenhouse gases and dealing with the consequences of energy or how every Canadian can be part of the solution and how large emitters have to change the way they do business so we can meet the targets we have to meet.

Members know full well that not only are we talking about climate change and its impact on the kinds of natural disasters that we have had with hurricanes, earthquakes and all these other things, but there also is a health linkage.

Every time we have greenhouse gases being created, we in fact have circumstances where particulate matter is also being created in the emissions, which is directly related to the health impacts on Canadians. I do not have to tell Canadians how many young people and young adults are on puffers for their asthmatic conditions or whatever it might be. This is an important issue.

I want to repeat again that the Liberal Party is committed to the Kyoto accord and other parties are not. I think it is very significant to note that, because it is not in the best interests of Canadians not to try to deal with how we get all Canadians to be part of the solution.

On the energy cost benefit that I talked about, the total cost of the whole program is about $2.4 billion over the five years. A total of $565 million will be paid out to about 3.1 million low income households and seniors, who will receive anywhere from $125 to $250 a household.

These payments are the first down payment on further personal tax relief being introduced over the next five years. Members should recall that this is one element. A budget is still forthcoming and there are plans to be laid out as to how we move forward in terms of tax relief for Canadians.

This is not to be taken in isolation, but this is certainly important in giving timely relief, especially to low income Canadians. The mechanism may be subject to some criticism. We certainly know that anyone who receives the national benefit or the GIS is very much in need of this support. Are there others who are left out? For instance, are low income families without children left out?

On the energy efficiency side, a total of $1.04 billion has been set aside to assist low income households as well as public institutions such as hospitals and schools with the cost of upgrading their dwellings and buildings to make them more energy efficient. This includes $500 million for some 130,000 low income households that are eligible for up to $5,000 to help with the cost of heating system upgrades, window replacement and draft-proofing.

Also, there is an additional $150 million for the government's houses retrofit incentive program, which provides money for 250,000 households.

There is $185 million for those who install best in class energy efficient oil and gas furnaces, up to $150 per unit, or for those who heat with electricity, and that benefit is $250 per household. There is an additional $210 million in retrofit incentives for public sector institutions.

Members can see that we are not just talking about a subsidy to individual consumers in terms of energy prices, like a gasoline rebate of some sort. It is important to understand that the strategy here is to start working down that road where Canadians will not be just worried about how they will pay for the increase in the cost of a commodity but will be taking concrete steps, with government assistance, to make their homes more energy efficient so that their total cost of energy will go down. That is also an equally effective way to lower the cost to Canadians over the long term. Indeed, our battle with energy pricing is a long term proposition.

The third element is with regard to public transit infrastructure. Up to $800 million over the next two fiscal years will be freed up for investment in urban transit in order to give municipalities greater certainty for their own planning purposes. Public transit is an important aspect of our overall strategy in terms of addressing our Kyoto commitments, health commitments and with regard to making us more streetwise in terms of how to utilize our valuable energy resources which are so expensive.

With regard to better transparency in the energy market, this aspect has caused some consternation to many Canadians about the optics. For instance, within moments of a gas station changing its price for gasoline, the station across the street will have changed its price as well. To ordinary Canadians this looks to be anti-competitive behaviour. We know from the work done by the industry committee that Canadians are sensitive to the price of gasoline. If one station has gasoline at 1¢ a litre cheaper than another station, it is going to get the business. Therefore, within a particular area the pricing generally stays the same.

The key is to look at the price of a barrel of oil and try to figure out what is happening in terms of the marketplace and how it corrects itself every now and then. Sometimes it happens in a very spiky fashion, particularly when there are disasters such as hurricane Katrina. Oil rigs were breaking loose and floating around in the Gulf of Mexico. We are looking at possibly six months to a year before they are put back in service which causes a significant imbalance in terms of supply and demand.

There is going to be $15 million allocated for an office of energy price information. There will be another $13 million to allow the Department of Industry to take a number of steps to deter anti-competitive practices, including giving Canada's Competition Bureau more powers in strengthening the Competition Act. This is pretty important.

This is going to help make our homes and buildings more energy efficient. It is a key way for Canadians to offset the higher prices. The incentives will help Canadians to save energy and money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. As well there are the attendant health impacts.

These measures also support project green, the Government of Canada's action plan to build a more sustainable environment. We have not talked enough about a sustainable environment. This is an important aspect. We need to keep our eyes on the important issues affecting Canadians over the long term.

To give an idea of how critical energy pricing will be over the next three to five years, the Ontario Energy Board granted natural gas distribution companies an increase, effective July 1. I believe the price went from 27¢ per cubic metre up to 31¢. It was about a 15% increase.

At the same time, a number of the independent marketers of natural gas in Ontario, and I saw three or four of them when I looked on the web to see what kind of contracts they were offering, were offering a three year contract for natural gas to people in Ontario at 40¢ to 42¢. That is one-third higher than the prevailing cost per cubic metre of natural gas.

This is how much they have put in with regard to long term contracts for natural gas delivery with the producers so they can ensure they get a reasonable return, as well as pay for the cost. We are talking about some pretty significant increases over the next three to five years, and that is only for natural gas.

What happened to the price of a barrel of oil, for instance? A couple of years ago the price of a barrel of oil was something like $10. Then it ratcheted up at the height of hurricane Katrina to about $67 a barrel. Consider the difference in a couple of years. Do we understand why we are not paying 65¢ or 75¢ for a litre of gasoline? Now it is between 95¢ and $1.

There are some real reasons why this happens. Earlier one of the members asked why it was that when hurricane Katrina happened, the price of gas instantaneously went up.

Gas is a commodity. It reflects the commodity value, the underlying value, the price of a barrel of oil. When all those drilling rigs are floating around aimlessly in the Gulf of Mexico, even with the situations in Texas and New Orleans, two-thirds of the producing capacity is being impaired or at risk, and obviously the commodity prices are going to go up. Obviously anybody who is going to sell that product based on the rules of supply and demand, is going to increase prices.

The interesting thing is that if one has inventory and the price of the commodity goes up for some other reason, do we expect the companies to continue to sell their inventory at the base price they acquired it or should they be able to sell it at the prevailing commodity price? This is one of the reasons that energy companies tend to make a lot of money when there is volatility within the marketplace. They are slow to pass on the inventory savings, or they never pass them on and that is a windfall there. When the price of a barrel of oil comes down, they are also slow to lower the price. They take advantage of it both ways. Maybe these are the kinds of things that we are going to see taken into account as we deal with situations like anti-competitive behaviour.

I wanted to give another example. There is a lot of discussion going on about income trusts. People are saying that the finance minister has brought some questions to bear with regard to the propriety of the taxation of income trusts and all of a sudden the market valuation of income trusts has gone down and is that not terrible.

If we plot income trusts from July to today, the TSE income trust index against the U.S. bond market yields or Exxon, one of the major oil corporations of the world, we would see that those graphs track very carefully. In fact, income trusts are very volatile depending upon commodity price corrections and also on rising interest rates. There are a lot more dynamics to the world as a consequence of the price of a barrel of oil and the expectations going down the line.

There has always been a lot of uncertainty in the Middle East with regard to oil. The activities in the gulf area have been severe. There have been tremendous risks taken with the supply of oil. Many countries have entered into agreements now to share some of their resources to ensure that there is some protection.

In addition to looking at the benefits that Bill C-66 will bring to Canadians in considering the retrofits, I encourage Canadians to visit the EnerCan website under Industry Canada. There is an opportunity for a subsidized audit program. It costs $150 for Canadians to get an energy audit of their homes. The firms authorized to do the audits are listed for every province.

I had an audit done this summer. It was a beautiful report. As a consequence of the audit I found several ways to make my house more energy efficient. A high energy furnace and some insulation goes a long way, and improved windows also. As a consequence of making an investment today, my energy bill in the next year will go down by about 30% based on prevailing commodity prices.

It is really important for Canadians to understand that there are many ways to deal with this. People can continue to have energy inefficient homes and continue to pay the market value prices or they can make the investment today and lower their costs and also ensure that we are being energy wise in Canada.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate this afternoon. It is good to see members engaging with perspectives from all sides of the House. I appreciate the comments by the member who spoke before me, the member for Newton—North Delta.

Bill C-66 is an act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. This is the government's response to the rising costs of fuel in the country and the very difficult circumstances in which many Canadians find themselves.

By way of background, the bill is being sold as a package of short and long term measures to help Canadians. There are three main components. Families entitled to receive the national child benefit supplement in January 2006 would receive $250. Another $250 would go to senior couples with a qualifier that both spouses would be entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement. Single seniors would receive $125 if they were entitled to receive the GIS in January 2006.

Before I go into details of the bill, I would like to draw attention to a very current report by the Fraser Institute, public policy sources released in October. The report is titled “Government Failure in Canada”. It is a review of auditors general reports from 1992 to 2005. It is relevant to the debate today. When we talk about programs like this, we want to ensure that the money we invest on behalf of Canadians, taxpayer money, will arrive where it is intended. We want to ensure that it achieves a worthwhile objective.

In the beginning of the executive summary of the Fraser report, it makes an interesting remark. It says:

The discussion of the limitations of government and subsequent government failures is wholly absent from debate in Canada where, unfortunately, we still assume that governments act benevolently and without institutional constraints.

That is an interesting remark, that we would assume governments act benevolently and without institutional constraint, especially in light of what has gone on today. The buzz around the Hill today has not been about this bill. It has been about the release of the Gomery report, which probably is relevant as well because it talks about accountability.

In Justice Gomery's remarks today, he talked about Liberal corruption and the culture of entitlement, which seems to infest the government after 12 years in power. Again, we have a level of secrecy involving kickbacks to the Liberal Party. He talks about clear evidence of political interference and the misuse of taxpayer money.

I might wonder on that file about a million dollars for a war room to counsel witnesses prior to testifying. Imagine, one of the people in that war room was the former director for CSIS. What is this all about, coaching people before they testify before an inquiry? Was it about telling them about how to hide from Canadians or from the justice about what was going on?

In terms of accountability, it is quite interesting that the government would try to say that the current ministers and the Prime Minister really did not know, that it was another regime and that something else was responsible.

I cannot help but wonder how Canadians receive that. For example, we have the Catholic church selling property to try to pay for something that happened decades ago, for many people. As unfortunate and tragic as it is, the church is being held accountable for something that happened years ago.

Imagine the big auto manufacturers, Ford or GM., if there were a failure in their cars, saying that this was five years ago, that they had changed the CEOs since then, therefore they were not responsible for the failure in the machinery they had produced. It could be the drug manufacturers saying that they had changed CEOs, therefore they were not responsible for a failure in drugs.

There are the manufacturers of silicone breast implants that caused grief for women, with failed health and immunological problems, because of the failure of the implants. Imagine them saying that they had changed CEOs, therefore they were not responsible for the failure of their product and the results thereof.

Accountability is very important to Canadians today and it is certainly important when we talk about the effectiveness of government programs.

The report by the Fraser Institute, “Government Failure in Canada”, lists a whole range of failed programs that have occurred over a number of years. Credit cards are one example. Balances on public servant credit cards issued to reduce reimbursement costs were not paid on time, resulting in $80,000 of unnecessary interest costs over four months.

Are government programs meeting what they were intended to meet. There were 3.8 million more social insurance numbers for Canadians 20 years and older than people in that age group. By 2000 that number had risen to five million. That is interesting. How can there be so many more social insurance numbers than there are Canadians?

The report also talks about the firearms registry and how can we spend so much money on registering firearms.

Here is another interesting one. The Department of National Defence took eight years to develop a $174 million satellite communication system. That is quite a bit of money. When the system was completed, DND determined that the commercial system it had been using met its existing needs, required fewer staff to operate and therefore the new system remained in storage.

Here is one program the report talked about which I think is particularly relevant to this issue. The last time the government had a good idea to send money back to Canadians, the Auditor General reported on the misdirection of the funds.

At that time the government used the GST credit system to return money. Less than one-quarter of the $1.5 billion in payments went to low income families and roughly 90,000 Canadians in need of immediate assistance did not receive it because their prior year income exceeded the GST credit cut off. At least 4,000 expatriate Canadian taxpayers received money back from the government, but that was not the target group. Imagine, 7,500 deceased people received money back the last time the government tried to help Canadians. I wonder who cashed those cheques. Up to 1,600 prisoners received relief.

When we talk about giving money back to Canadians, we on this side of the House think a better idea would be to let all Canadians benefit, not just some Canadians, especially in a pre-election period when this is a pitch to provide money to some low income Canadians. Some no doubt may receive benefits. I note that the moneys will not be disbursed until after the bill is passed. There is actually no guarantee that anybody will receive any of this money before another election. It is quite possible nobody will receive any money, but it is a good public relations exercise.

I am concerned for the Canadians who are suffering right now because of the high cost of heating fuel and fuel to drive their automobiles. On Vancouver Island, where I live, many seniors are on fixed incomes. We have a mild climate there, but that is not true for all Canadians.

Parksville is a town of 11,000 people. Qualicum is a town of approximately 8,000 people. The average age of people in that town is 57. That is the oldest community per capita in the country. For seniors to get around and to access services such as doctors, they may have to travel many miles. They may have to travel to Nanaimo to see specialists, or to Courtenay and Comox in my colleague's riding of Vancouver Island North. That is an hour plus drive to the north. These trips can be expensive for them with the high cost of fuel for their automobiles.

I am concerned about taxi drivers and truckers. I am concerned about people in my area who have to transport goods. These people are really suffering because of the high cost of fuel.

I am concerned about seniors who have to heat their homes. A lot of them are not going to benefit from this legislation.

I have a lot of people in my riding who are involved in the marine sector, a lot of ecotourism. The cost of marine fuel this year is very considerable. By the time the ecotourism people charge their advertising rates for the tours they offer and deliver to their customers, they have been working on next to none profit margins because of the high cost of fuel.

Why does the government simply not lower taxes, as the Conservatives would do, so all Canadians would benefit? It could cut the GST on fuel costs so all Canadians could benefit. It could ensure that all Canadians using fuel could benefit from a program designed to help them with the high cost of energy.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-66, an act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

I would like to highlight that the bill would allow the government to make a one-time energy cost benefit payment of $250 to families receiving the national child benefit supplement and $125 to recipients of the guaranteed income supplement. It also would allow the government to spend $838 million on measures to reduce housing energy consumption and it would remove the requirement that $800 million for public transit infrastructure, set out in the NDP budget bill, be contingent on the size of the surplus. The bill calls for the payments to be made in January 2006.

To assist with the background, this summer crude oil prices soared to record highs. For consumers, the effects were primarily felt at the pumps. Gasoline broke the dollar barrier earlier in the summer and kept on going up, reaching a new peak on Labour Day weekend of up to $1.40 per litre.

While both crude oil and gasoline prices have come down in recent weeks, they remain at near historic highs and this winter promises to be the most expensive ever for heating one's home.

Since June, natural gas prices across North America rose more than 30%. In British Columbia, natural gas is the dominant energy used for home heating, being used by over 800,000 households in the province. Twice in the last four months the B.C. Utilities Commission has approved a request by Terasen Gas for a natural gas commodity rate increase. In June, the commission approved a 5.6% increase. This was followed last month by a 13.3% increase.

As a result of those increases, my constituents can expect to see their annual heating bills jump by nearly $300 to over $1,500. In the last two years, the price to heat a lower mainland home with natural gas has increased by over $500 annually. If that was not bad enough, it is almost guaranteed that prices will go up again before spring.

An American government report issued earlier this month estimates that heating bills for all fuel types will cost Americans about one-third more this winter. The same is true in Canada.

The Energy Information Administration sees the cost of heat by natural gas rising 47% and heating oil 32%. The Canadian Gas Association is predicting the price of natural gas will increase from 20% to 50% this winter. This is bad news for British Columbians and for the 50% of Canadian homeowners who heat with homes with gas.

Energy prices have never been so high or increased so quickly. For some low income families, the sharp jumps could mean choosing whether to eat or keep warm.

Even more affluent Canadians will be hard hit by soaring heating costs. With today's high cost of living, particularly in urban areas like British Columbia's lower mainland, many families earning good salaries still live from paycheque to paycheque. An extra $100 a month for home heating, combined with higher gas prices and rising interest rates, could be enough to cause financial hardship or even possibly bankruptcy in some cases.

The government's rebate plan would leave thousands of low income British Columbians out in the cold. According to its own numbers, the government scheme will aid less than 10% of Canadians. Even the poor will only receive assistance if they already collect child or elderly benefits. Bill C-66 does nothing for the majority of students, many of whom live in dirty, old apartments. Students are one of the main low income groups in this country but the Liberals have forgotten about them.

As well, Canadians with disabilities who claim disability benefits will receive no help with their heating bills. Similarly, farmers and over 200,000 low income seniors who do not file for the GIS will not receive help. Bill C-66 offers no assistance to poor Canadians who are childless. Statistics Canada indicates there are nearly two million individuals under 65 who fall below the low income threshold and who have no children. These individuals will receive nothing from the government.

Now, talking about current affairs, we know that almost $45 million is missing or is unaccounted for from the sponsorship program. The people I mentioned, the seniors, farmers, people on fixed incomes or low income and students would have been better off if the government had some accountability in place. It has been confirmed that on the Liberal side there is a culture of entitlement, corruption, greed, carelessness and mismanagement. We have been saying that all along for so many years and today it has been confirmed by Justice Gomery. These are the facts. These are not only accusations.

The sponsorship program was directed politically and there have been no political consequences. Only the bureaucrats have been made the scapegoats. That program was set up by the Liberals. They ran the program. They used the program and abused the program. The kickbacks have been going to the Liberal Party for the benefit of the Liberal Party. It is important--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does have it right. There is very little that we can do at the government tax level to deal with the significant increases in commodity prices of all forms of energy, but specifically with regard to gasoline. It means that we do have to be more energy efficient and energy wise, which is why, in my view, the retrofit and public transit elements of Bill C-66 are extremely important.

I am wondering if the member is aware of the NRCan energy audit rebate that is available to Canadians to get an energy audit of their home for half the price. Half is subsidized by the government. The rebate is there to help Canadians find out just exactly how they can improve the energy efficiency of their home and some other important energy conservation measures.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point and get the member's comment on it. The commodity we are talking about is energy. It is not about gas, or natural gas, or oil or hydro.

As an example of what we will be facing, on July 1 the Ontario Energy Board approved an increase in natural gas per cubic metre from 27¢ to 31¢, about a 15% increase. At the same time, the independent gas marketers were selling three-year contracts ranging from 40¢ to 42¢ compared to 31¢, the currently approved rate. The independent gas marketers purchase these gas reserves under long term contracts. That is the reality. According to these contracts, it is probably a one-third increase in the cost of natural gas by the end of three years.

There is no question that Canadians will be faced with higher energy prices over the next three to five years. We need a strategy to deal with it. However, there comes a point at which time we cannot cut taxes or the GST. It is $400 million per 1¢ of tax which means that 5¢ would be $2 billion. It will not be enough to deal with the massive increase. We need a strategy to deal with energy consumption, particularly with regard to some of the elements of Bill C-66, like the retrofits and the energy upgrades. We need to be smarter with our energy. We just cannot buy our way out of this one.

Could the member comment on this?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very interested in those questions. Certainly the Conservatives find themselves sitting across the table from some of these folks in the fuel industry more often than those of us in this caucus do. It would be interesting to know what level they would find acceptable for the price of fuel or oil in the world we live in today.

In fact, would the Conservatives be willing, as I am asking the government to do, to put it to these business folks in the fuel industry that what happened over the Labour Day weekend and has happened since then is profiteering and gouging of the most obvious sort? That is what we want to know.

As I was saying, a 10¢ per litre difference may not sound like much, but every penny per litre generates an additional $2.5 million in profit for the industry every day. For the period around Labour Day, when the difference between the price and what would have been justified by crude oil prices was much greater, at as much as 45¢ per litre at the peak, the industry was bringing in $112.5 million per day in excess profits.

This is what was going on while the men and women in my riding, truckers, farmers, small business people, seniors on fixed incomes, low income people and people working at minimum wage, were having to pay these exorbitantly high prices. There was nobody out there to champion their cause. There was nobody out there except for the New Democrats and except for me in Sault Ste. Marie to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. I spent a morning on a road in Sault Ste. Marie with the truckers as we slowed down traffic to send a message to the industry and to government that something needed to be done immediately or the truckers who were standing with me that morning were going to be out of business.

These truckers were not willing to, nor should they have to, subsidize industry in northern Ontario or in consequence subsidize the fuel industry across this country and around the world. Out on that road, as we stopped traffic and handed out leaflets to people through their vehicle windows, the truckers were asking people to contact the government and let it know that it needs to get tough with the industry.

As we stopped traffic and handed out leaflets to people, the truckers were saying to me that perhaps the government needs to put in place something like the Ontario Energy Board. Then, if the industry wants to increase the cost of fuel, it would have to go before the board and justify that increase, because we all need energy and fuel. We cannot live without it. It is part of the infrastructure of any economy that we are going to have in this country, particularly in the northern and rural parts of Canada.

My constituents were asking for this government to do as I and my colleagues in the NDP caucus have done, to stand shoulder to shoulder with them, in consultation, from a position of strength, face to face with the industry people to ask them to justify any increase in the cost of fuel. If that increase can be justified in a fair market scenario, in a fair marketplace, then okay, God bless them. We are okay with that. We are not against a free market. We are not against people making a bit of profit on the services and products they deliver, but profiteering and gouging should not be part of that marketplace. They should not be part of what we are doing.

We ask the members of the government to work with their leadership to put together a real vehicle, not what is in Bill C-66, as our critic from Windsor West says. What the government has put in place to have people call and let the government know when prices have gone up too much or there is gouging is nothing more than a website, with no ability, no resources and no facility to actually use that information to challenge the industry. It is an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

That is the first thing I want to say this morning. The government has to get serious. The government cannot use tax dollars to subsidize the fuel industry. The government should not be doing this, because the fuel industry is doing very well, thank you very much, and does not need to be subsidized.

The industry has already benefited over the last 10 to 15 years from the corporate tax cuts that the government has given to it. The government does not need to give the industry more now by spending hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize it even further.

However, as I said, because the government is not going to do anything further on this and is not going to get tough with the industry, the little bit of money the government is going to give out is welcome, and some of it is being given because we forced the government to put it into the budget last spring.

Because of that, we will probably support this bill on principle as it goes through for second reading. Then we can sit down at committee and bring amendments forward to improve this bill and actually make it work in the way everyone wants it to work.

I want to comment on a couple of the other pieces of this bill that are problematic. One is the flow of money for low income people who deserve it, need it and want it, and who actually needed it yesterday. We are concerned that the money is not going to get out the door fast enough.

I am told that if we pass the bill, the money will move quickly, but this is a five year program so we are afraid it will be piled up at the end of the five years whereas people need it most right now. We are afraid they might not get it, particularly if we go into an election in the next week or two. Who knows? That money will be left hanging and the folks who need it will be left hanging.

These people are facing the spectre of provincial governments clawing back this money. Because the government has not done anything in this bill about that, we will be making amendments when it goes to committee to stop the provinces from clawing the money back.

In fact, the provinces claw everything back from our most at risk and marginalized citizens. In regard to money that flows from the federal government for the poorest of our citizens across the country, with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to the provinces the federal government tells them that it is alright, these are the rules and they can claw it back and then use it for whatever they want as it does not necessarily have to go into supports and programs for the poor and those at risk.

We have seen this happen in many programs, particularly with the child tax benefit supplement that flows to those most at risk and marginalized in our communities. We are afraid that in some jurisdictions the fuel tax rebate will be clawed back by the provinces.

For example, we know, because we have been in contact with the people and have read some of the media stories, that the Northwest Territories plans to do exactly that. There is not a whole lot of money up there either and they are looking for ways to get dollars. If this is the only way the Northwest Territories can get money out of the federal government to help it with some of its financial challenges, it is going to do it.

As its representatives told us when we called them, those are the rules imposed by the federal government. That is the template the federal government has out there right now for any money that flows to individuals in different jurisdictions. If provincial or territorial governments decide to claw this money back, they can and in fact are encouraged to do so. The Northwest Territories is going to do just that. What I want to know is what other provinces will follow suit.

We had an example of this with Mike Harris in Ontario from 1995 to 2003. My God, there was nothing that he did not take away from the poor of that province. Few can forget the money he took away from pregnant mothers, the money for milk that he said was beer money.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the correction is accepted.

The leader of our party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, came to Sault Ste. Marie. The people of Sault Ste. Marie know that if they want something done in this place, they talk to the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth and his 18 colleagues in this place because they know that we will get something done.

We were the only party whose members had their noses to the grindstone. We came here day after day in the spring of this year. When everything was falling down around us and other parties were looking to their own benefit, we came here to actually get something done, to pass a budget with $4.6 billion for spending on programs for people and communities across this country, some of which we now see showing up in Bill C-66.

Our caucus will support sending the bill to committee where we will have a chance to make some amendments and work with all of the parties to see if we can make the bill better. There are some things in the bill that will help a few people. It will not help the large majority of people who will need relief this winter from the cost of fuel for heating their homes, for driving their trucks and operating their machinery, to do their business, to participate in industry and to drive their vehicles to school or to pick up groceries. In particular in northern and rural Canada, people need fuel to live, to do the things they do on a daily basis.

There is some money for a very important group in our society, those at the very low end of the spectrum. Seniors who collect the GIS and poor families with children who collect the child tax benefit supplement will get money out of this. However, there are a whole host of others, low income, middle class, lower middle class, hard-working men and women who will not benefit one little bit from the bill. That is tragic.

The folks who came to our town hall meeting the other night in Sault Ste. Marie were the truckers, the farmers, the seniors, the small business people represented by the Chamber of Commerce, and the low income people in my riding. The union hall in Sault Ste. Marie was full.

The leader of our party and I listened to people as they told us of the impact of the horrendously high rise in the cost of fuel, particularly over the Labour Day weekend and what that did to their ability to make ends meet, their ability to participate in the economy, in the industry that we all know we need to be supporting if we are to have a good economy, jobs and a future in northern and rural Canada.

That night they said that government has to get tough with the industry. That is not what the bill is about. Yet again, the taxpayers, the men and women across this country, are subsidizing an industry that is actually doing quite well, thanks very much. It is making record profits these days as the price of fuel goes up. While people are hurting, it is taking advantage of natural disasters to pad its own bottom line, to pad its own profit margin and to do better than it has ever done before.

The oil industry knows about this contribution that will be made to some people. Money will be spent on retrofitting homes and buildings across the country. Money will be spent in other ways to help in this very difficult time when it comes to the cost of fuel. That money will come from general revenues in Ottawa, the tax base, to yet again subsidize an industry that really does not need to be subsidized. That industry needs to be challenged.

It needs to be met strength to strength, face to face, at a table where the government has the power to actually do something. The government must have the power to challenge it and make it do something, to at the very least have it justify the cost of fuel, the price that it is putting on fuel, or to do at the very least what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives did very quickly. It was not rocket science. It did not take forever and it did not cost a fortune.

The centre did a quick and dirty study to indicate, for example, that while the price of crude oil has gone up and the centre's calculations find a 7% to 9% per litre increase, which would have matched the crude oil price increase, the 15¢ increase that the industry put on the cost of fuel for us is profiteering, as far as the centre is concerned. The 40% increase that we were all paying over the Labour Day weekend was just plain gouging, according to the centre.

If an organization like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives can very quickly do that analysis, do the math and present the reality to us in that fashion, why can the government not do that? Why can it not challenge this industry and let it know that it is not acceptable to profiteer or to gouge in the market that we all support in this country today?

According to Hugh Mackenzie, who did this report, a reasonable price for gas in Ontario would be around 95¢ per litre. A 10¢ per litre difference may not sound like much, but every penny per litre generates an additional $2.5 million for the industry every day.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for saying that Bill C-66, in his words, is doing the right thing. We look forward to the Bloc doing the right thing and supporting us on this bill.

I would like to differ a little with the member opposite when he spoke of profits. Sometimes there is the connotation that there is something wrong with profits. We want a healthy economy where companies make profits. We want a fiscal environment where companies can make profits because then they pay taxes and they hire more employees and we are able to provide for the very social programs that the member mentioned.

Once again, I would refer to our fiscal record, a record of growth, job creation, debt repayment and lower taxes. There is a real issue when it comes to the refiners and gas station chains. The last thing Canadians want is to be taken advantage of when an unforeseen set of circumstances arise and there is a potential for price gouging and excessive profits.

We understand that and we are addressing it. There are a number of initiatives that we have taken. There is a new $15 million office of energy price information to keep close tabs on what the refiners and gas station chains are doing and how they are reacting. There is also $13 million earmarked for the Department of Industry to take a number of steps to deter anti-competitive practices, including giving Canada's Competition Bureau more powers and strengthening the Competition Act.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised a number of issues, including the issue of naivety on my part. Perhaps he is confused by my earnest belief that we can actually do the right thing by passing Bill C-66. Passing Bill C-66 expeditiously will guarantee that seniors on fixed incomes will receive a supplement.

The last thing we want is for the bill to fail. Do we really want seniors to have to turn down the temperature in the middle of winter because they cannot afford the cost of heating? That is exactly what would happen should this bill not pass.

Do we really want mothers in low income families having to decide between paying for the heating costs or buying winter clothing for their children? Perhaps they would have to decide to buy the pants but not the socks and underwear so that people at school would not see whether or not they were wearing them. Do we want people to have to make those sorts of choices?

The choice we have here is to address the situation of fixed income Canadians, low income seniors, low income families being able to cover their energy costs.

The member opposite referred to the government's ability to send the cheques to those who really need the money. His worry is that people in prisons will receive it, et cetera. One of our roles is to learn from the mistakes of the past. We have a much better system in place to make sure that exactly that sort of situation does not arise.

The sooner we pass the bill, the sooner people can get the money. In fact, we have already started the work to make sure that the lists of recipients are accurate, to make sure that those who need it receive it.

The member opposite also asked how people can trust this government in view of the findings of Gomery?

I would like to remind the member opposite of who called for that inquiry. Whether it was the previous government or Prime Minister Mulroney's government, governments in the past have swept things under the carpet. The present Prime Minister showed courage by throwing the curtains wide open. He is the one who called the Gomery inquiry. Most Canadians will be pleased that the Gomery conclusions today unequivocally stated that this Prime Minister was in no way involved.

We have seen a break with the past. The current Prime Minister inherited a fiscal situation that had us on an economic downward spiral. The Prime Minister addressed a fiscal situation that was on the verge of collapse, and managed it to the point where today we are the envy of the G-7. When the Prime Minister saw that there was a situation of potential malfeasance, he addressed it directly. He called an inquiry. Notwithstanding the opposition's attacks, and initially there were attacks for having called for the inquiry and there were attacks on the cost of the inquiry, the Prime Minister stood firm because he felt it important that we get to the bottom of the issue. That is what has happened today.

I am proud as a new member to be part of a government that has done the right thing and to support a Prime Minister who did the right thing by calling the inquiry.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to express my support for this important bill. Bill C-66 represents what Canada is all about: a caring society that helps those who need help. We have a reputation for being a compassionate society and, I would venture to say, there is not a person in this chamber who is not proud of that reputation.

The government has a history of helping those in need. Sometimes it is people who are vulnerable and cannot help themselves. Other times it is those who just need a boost to help them get a footing so they can participate on an equal basis in our society. Either way, Canadians look to their government to develop good policy that will help their fellow citizens and the bill before us today is good policy.

All of us here today are affected by the recent increases in gas and energy prices. Bill C-66 provides direct assistance to those Canadians who are particularly concerned about these price increases: low income seniors and low income families with children.

My hon. colleague has outlined the details of the bill and his comments illustrate that the proposals in the bill would make a meaningful difference to those Canadians.

Today I would like to illustrate just how Bill C-66 fits into the bigger picture of what the government has done to help increase participation in Canadian society.

First, with respect to tax reduction, there is no doubt that we have a strong record. Every year, since balancing the budget almost 10 years ago, the government has reduced taxes to Canadians, the most significant of which was the $100 billion five year tax reduction plan introduced in 2000. The broad based tax relief provided by that plan benefited those who needed it most, in particular low income families with children.

Subsequent budgets completed the five year plan to further enhance the fairness, efficiency and competitiveness of our tax system. For example, building on the plan, the 2003 budget announced additional increases to the national child benefit supplement for low income families with children. The benefits from that budget will bring the maximum assistance for a first child to a projected level in 2007 that will be more than double that in 1996.

To provide tax relief to all taxpayers, particularly those with low and modest incomes, budget 2005 will increase progressively the basic personal amount so that by 2009 the amount of income that all Canadians may earn without paying federal income tax will increase to $10,000. Just to put that in context, compared to 2004, for example, that is an increase of almost $2,000 more that Canadians will be able to earn without having to pay tax. This change will provide more than $7 billion in tax relief over the next five years. When fully implemented in 2009, the measure will remove hundreds of thousands of low income taxpayers from the tax rolls, including almost a quarter of a million seniors.

Now I would like to address why we were able to produce this historic tax cut of $100 billion between 2000 and 2005.

Today is the day after Halloween when all of Canada's children enjoyed a good fright in the name of fun. However just over a decade ago we inherited a fiscal situation from the previous Conservative government that was truly frightening and was anything but fun.

At that time the unemployment rate stood at 11.2%. Our debt was at $563 billion, or 68% of our GDP. We were in a situation where international financial writers were writing us off and international investors were threatening to pack up their bags and leave. Today unemployment sits at 6.7%. Our debt to GDP ratio has dropped 30 percentage points to 38% of GDP, or $499 billion.

This government has been able to convert an economic downward spiral into a set of economic statistics that are the envy of the G-7. The finance minister has built on a fiscal foundation set by the right hon. Prime Minister, in his former capacity, a record of surpluses, growth, jobs, debt reduction and tax reductions. It is for that reason that we are able to provide in times of uncertainty.

When we were hit by an unforeseen set of circumstances and prices rose at the gas pumps we were able to react because our fiscal foundations are solid and we were able to react in substantive ways.

Perhaps I can address some of the parts that Bill C-66 encompasses. Under the energy cost benefit, a total of $565 million would be paid out to about 3.1 million low income families and seniors who would receive anywhere from $125 to $250 per household this winter. These payments would be a first down payment on further personal tax relief being introduced over the next five years.

In order to address the issue of energy efficiency, a total of $1.04 billion has been set aside to assist low income households as well as public institutions, such as hospitals and schools, with the cost of upgrading their dwellings and buildings to make them more energy efficient. This would include $500 million for 130,000 low income households that are eligible for up to $5,000 to help with the cost of heating system upgrades, window replacement and draught proofing; an additional $150 million for government houses retrofit incentives programs which would provide money for 250,000 more households; $185 million for those who install best in class energy efficient oil and gas furnaces, $150 per unit for those who heat with electricity, $250 per household; and an additional $210 million in retrofit incentives for public service institutions.

As well, we have addressed the issue of public transit infrastructure. For people who choose public transit there has to be better accessibility and service. Up to $800 million over the next two fiscal years would l be freed up for accelerated investments in urban transit.

I would like to more specifically address the issue of seniors. I mentioned earlier that Bill C-66 focuses on helping those Canadians who have difficulty coping with higher energy costs, which is why the bill would provide assistance to low income seniors who often are on fixed incomes. Support for our senior population, particular those with low incomes, has been one of the major success stories of government policy since the 1950s. At the same time, the government is facing new challenges resulting from the longer and more vigorous lives of our seniors.

To address the evolving needs of seniors, budget 2005 made significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors, from health care to income security programs, retirement savings, assistance for people with disabilities and for care givers and support for voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors.

For example, budget 2005 increased the maximum benefits of the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, for single seniors and for couples. Corresponding increases will also be extended to recipients of both the allowance and the allowance for survivor benefits. This increase will raise total GIS payments by almost $3 billion over the next five years, significantly exceeding the commitment of $1.5 billion over that period. A total of 1.6 million GIS recipients will benefit from this increase, including more than 50,000 seniors who will become eligible for benefits as a result of the change.

I would also note that the increase will be of particular benefit to senior women who account for over one million of the seniors receiving GIS benefits.

This government is committed to providing support for our senior population. With that in mind, budget 2005 also set aside a further $13 million over five years for a national seniors secretariat to be established within Social Development Canada. This will serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts to address the new challenges facing seniors. The secretariat will be tasked with working with senior organizations with a view to developing and coordinating government programs and services that matter to seniors.

During this unexpected gas hike there were many questions about whether refiners and gas station owners had taken advantage of the public during the most recent spike. To prevent profiteering and price gouging by these oligopolies during the sudden oil price swings, we established a new $15 million office of energy price information. This office will monitor energy price fluctuations and provide clear, current information to Canadians and to Parliament.

To act upon profiteering or gouging, another $13 million has been earmarked for the Department of Industry to take a number of steps to deter anti-competitive practices, including giving Canada's Competition Bureau more powers and strengthening the Competition Act.

Finally, in an earlier gas spike several months ago, the government earmarked the increases in gas tax proceeds toward a medical equipment fund. We should keep in mind that since the June budget the Liberal government is now transferring half of the gas tax to Canadian municipalities to help pay for public transit infrastructure. A case in point is the $24.45 million first installment received by the City of Toronto in September.

Canada's reputation for being a caring and compassionate society is well-known internationally and this government wants to ensure that we keep that well earned reputation. As I have outlined today, this government is taking numerous actions to help those in our society who need it most, in particular, low income seniors and low income families.

Bill C-66 takes concrete action by providing timely and direct relief to many of those least able to cope with rising energy costs. I urge all hon. members to accord the bill swift passage.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I and members on this side of the House highly support the new deal for cities and are looking forward to seeing it come into play. Hopefully, as a result of Bill C-66, money will get out to the people who need it very quickly before winter sets in. Could my colleague please comment on the lack of credibility of this government when it says it will really deliver?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to deal today with an issue that is very important and very crucial to the future of Canada as well as the prosperity of the nation and the well-being of its citizens.

Bill C-66 is a bill which deals with a very small portion of our energy policy. This bill is long overdue. We need a debate on energy policy in this country. We need a debate not only dealing with very small elements, rebates, a little bit of retrofitting for houses and urban transportation, but an overall comprehensive debate of where we have been, what we are doing and where we are going. These are all facets of energy policy, not only one specific area. We must do this because the government tends to get into this crisis mode. It is only when there is a problem does the government act.

Today we are being somewhat distracted by events outside this House, but again they reflect the general principle. Something happened. The problem had been going on for years. Only after the government got caught, only after something came immediately to the surface did the government act. This is the same principle that the government has applied to its energy policy.

When I was first elected to this House, the Conservative Party began to deal with our energy problem by setting up an internal energy caucus over a year ago. It began to look at the specific long term and short term issues that are involved.

The Liberal government which has been in power for years talks about its energy framework in 2000. It has talked about updating it, but really has no plan, no agenda and no way of looking at it. It was only this summer when gasoline prices began to spike because of the run up in crude oil prices and the refining problems in the gulf coast did the government begin to think of this problem.

It has been known for years that we are going to have particular problems with home heating costs because of the rise in demand for natural gas and the inability of supplies to meet it.

My hon. colleague noted that in prior years $2 or $3 per million BTU was the price for natural gas. I believe the last numbers I saw were $13 or $14 per million BTU. That is an enormous run up in cost. It is one area in particular where the government should have been able to deal with the problem through long term thought and foresight to begin to handle this issue.

I understand crude oil prices are an international commodity. We ship to one place and we ship to another. It is an internationally set price because it is a very fungible commodity.

When dealing specifically with home heating prices and natural gas, which has tended to become the fuel of choice for most of the country for many consumers, the government could have thought ahead. It could have had a priority and could have had a plan, but the government chose not to. It chose to ignore it. It used the exact same procedures that it followed in the ad scam problem. The government did not worry about anything until it was caught in front of the media.

As I was noting, particularly with natural gas and so forth, it is a continental market and not so much an international market. That will be changing as LNG, liquefied natural gas, becomes a part of the North American experience in increasing fashion.

I will note just how much this costs the average Canadian by not thinking ahead and not planning. There was a study released the other day by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association about the higher costs of natural gas for Canadian consumers in its totality if there was a regulatory delay of merely two years for things such as the Mackenzie pipeline and liquefied natural gas plants.

The association came to the conclusion that over 19 years it would cost consumers $57 billion. That is $3 billion a year for each and every Canadian in sum, using a rough number of roughly 30 million Canadian and I know we are slightly higher. That is roughly $100 for every man, woman and child in this country.

We are talking about energy rebates for one year, not two years, three years or four years, but for just one year. It is $565 million according to the numbers I have. We are talking about these numbers merely through lack of planning and lack of foresight which would result in $3 billion in higher costs to the Canadian economy. This is for the next 19 years, not just for one year, but for the next 19 years.

For a high flyer, a wealthy person, $100 a year per person in the family may not be very important. One of the supposed purposes of this legislation is to deal with low income earners and to help them. For a family of five, it is $500 a year for the next two decades, all because of a lack of planning and foresight. This is an area which needs to be taken seriously and looked at not just for the immediate and the now, but for the future.

There are other impacts of a poorly thought out energy policy on other elements in the Canadian economy. I wish to make special note, coming from a riding that is one-third agriculture, of the effect on farmers. Farmers use intensely more amounts of fuel than the rest of the population to fuel up a combine, to fuel up a tractor, and to drive over their fields. Be it for seeding, harvests, swathing, whatever, they continue to use up more fuel than merely commuting to and from work every day once or twice.

That is not to downplay the impact on any other consumer or any other element of society but to stress the importance of how the burden is disproportionately placed on certain elements, and this is with very low prices. Farmers are already struggling, particularly in certain elements of the agriculture community. Prices are lousy. There is very little support from the government on overall agriculture policy, and now they are being hit with higher fuel prices.

I would also note, something that the general public does not always appreciate, higher fuel prices contribute to higher fertilizer prices. Fertilizer is a substantive input. It depends on what particular methodology is used for farming, but fertilizers have a particularly high input cost for farmers. The run-up in natural gas prices directly impacts the price of the fertilizer and has for years.

This lack of planning, particularly when it came to a natural gas and energy framework policy for this country, has had particular impact on farmers, more so than anyone else. In this legislation, there is absolutely nothing for agriculture. There is absolutely nothing for agriculture to deal with the higher prices of diesel fuels, gasoline and the higher resulting prices of fertilizer. It was completely forgotten. As my colleague was noting at the end of his remarks, that is generally true for rural Canada. There is absolutely no planning or no specificity of a plan for the rural areas.

I come from the province of Saskatchewan. Per capita, we are the second largest payers of the national fuel tax, the infrastructure funding which is being juggled around between various bills. We pay 4% of the national tax with 3% of the population. We are only getting 3% of the tax revenues allocated to our province, and that is because it is disproportionately being taken away from rural communities.

Rural communities are being completely forgotten and completely left out in this plan. It is something that the government has shown repeatedly, a bias against rural Canada. That is one of the reasons why the government nearly lost all of its seats and in the next election will lose all of its seats in the rural and farming areas of this country.

Those are some of the impacts on the country. One could go on about other industries that are specifically impacted such as chemical plants and the chemical industry. With the high input costs for key feed stocks and energy stocks, they are being driven out of business along with the fertilizer industry and manufacturers due to higher electricity costs.

What is the alternative? What is the better plan? First, we need to have a long term energy framework which deals with both the supply and the demand side. I wish I had more time to deal with it because there is a lot that can be done.

There is a need for general overall tax cuts that are sustainable for the future and for everyone. This plan that the government has is a one year rebate plan. Next year there are going to be high prices again for natural gas. Thankfully the government will not be in office at that time, but we need to have sustainable tax cuts. Tax cuts help everyone. They help grow the economy. They help diversify. A diversified base of tax cuts helps everyone.

It is important that we deal with energy issues, not just on an ad hoc basis but on a basis which addresses the future and the now. This bill has a few good things about it, but honestly not a lot. It is one of those typically mediocre pieces of legislation that we have become accustomed to seeing from this government.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 has some merit and it does address some issues. Unfortunately, there are too many holes in it.

Approximately three million Canadians will receive a payment. It will aid some low income Canadians. However, it does not assist students or those receiving disability benefits, farmers, low income seniors who do not file for the GIS, and childless poor Canadians or many Canadians not close to the poverty line. I would like the member to speak to that.

The natural gas bills will be going up between $120 and $300 this winter. I wonder if the member could also address whether it will actually meet those needs and the increased fuel costs.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member might be putting words in my mouth that I never said. We are supporting this bill.

What the government has proposed in Bill C-66 is $250 to families entitled to receive the national child benefit, $125 to seniors entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement, and $250 to senior couples where both spouses are entitled to receive the GIS.

We are not saying that is not an appropriate thing to do. What a lot of my constituents are saying is, “Why is it that every time the government makes these kinds of announcements it never includes us? We are very strapped. We are on a fixed income. We do not make a lot of money. Like other Canadians, we have sacrificed in so many ways and yet these things never apply to us”. They are actually fairly short tempered about the fact that everything seems to accrue to anyone but them. They are really feeling stretched.

If we look at the increases in heating costs for Canadians this winter, even for people who receive something from this plan, it hardly pays for the incremental difference.

The government's own finance department says that this is a very significant program but says that an equivalent amount of money in tax reduction is insignificant. The discrepancy between those two statements does not go unnoticed by Canadians.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Yes, the fact is that we are in a minority Parliament and we have the fourth party in this place continuing to run as a coalition with the government. It is most astounding. We have the NDP continuing to prop up the Liberals under any excuse, in any disguise and for any manufactured reason. All of this is an insult to representative so-called democracy.

With that, I will talk about Bill C-66, if I may. Bill C-66 is another example of legislation inspired by a crisis. The crisis of course was the run-up in prices at the pump. The crisis was the fact that natural gas has gone from $2 per unit to about $13 per unit for Canadian consumers, based on a government that cannot get its act together in terms of an energy framework or strategy for the country.

We have constrained supply because we do not have our northern pipelines sorted out, and with these guys in charge, we are not going to get our northern pipelines in order on any kind of timely basis. What we had was a price at the pumps that led to a huge spike as a consequence of some shortages due to hurricane season and hurricane Katrina and all of that.

Parliament was set to resume sitting in the last week of September. We received a request from the government chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology to have an emergency meeting on September 22, in order to have a televised discourse with witnesses on what to do about fuel prices.

I wanted ministers to take part in that meeting because ministers more than anyone else in this place can influence what happens. There was not a single minister whom I suggested who could or would make the commitment to appear on September 22. Many committee members were inconvenienced, especially the ones who had to come from farthest away to arrive in Ottawa on a Thursday. We had to change all our plans. Those days were important for members of Parliament prior to returning to Parliament after the summer break. That is when many constituents are back in their regular duties and it is a good time for members to carry out their functions.

September 22 turned out to be the day hurricane Katrina was hurtling toward the southern gulf coast in the U.S. At that meeting we witnessed government members finding every reason in the book to point fingers. They thought up inventive ways of suggesting that it was a conspiracy that did not involve the government, that it was because of the oil companies or some other factor that the prices were ridiculously high on that very day, and of course they were because it was a one week event.

The real crux of the issue is what has the government been doing? Where is it headed when it comes to taxation issues surrounding what Canadian consumers pay at the pump, or for heating oil or natural gas? Let us not forget industries such as the air transportation sector, the trucking sector and agriculture and resource industries that use huge amounts of fuel as part of their input costs. What is the government's approach to all of this, other than doing everything possible to protect maximum extraction of tax revenues to the detriment of consumers of every stripe?

We heard witnesses from the finance department. They did not act like witnesses from the finance department. What became very clear is that this announcement comes to a very small portion of government revenues. The portion is so small that the finance department officials said if that same amount of money was reflected in a tax decrease, it would be insignificant.

The government is still protecting its revenue sources. The government still has no strategy on how it is going to deal with all of this. The government takes this revenue, puts it into general revenues and returns 2¢ on the dollar for highway infrastructure. It blatantly transfers a very small amount to the municipalities with the future promise, which the Conservative Party is also committed to, of eventually getting to 5¢ a litre.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague from Saskatoon--Humboldt.

I had a short conversation with my Liberal colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who asked me if my speech would have anything to do with Bill C-66, which is the energy package. I said it certainly would. He said that he assumed I might want to talk about the Gomery report because that is the issue of the day and people are primarily focused on it. It is not my intention to do that. I do want to talk about Bill C-66, the energy bill.

I did find it rather inventive that the parliamentary secretary, in his question to his other Liberal colleague who just spoke, did try to suggest, in a strange fashion, that the Bloc would somehow run this scheme along the same lines that the sponsorship scheme was co-opted by the Liberal Party of Canada, which fleeced the Canadian taxpayer and contributed to the largest scandal in Canadian history. I do not think there is any analogy there whatsoever.

It is typical of the Liberals right now to try to invent any excuse to diffuse attention away from what should be, in any setting, in any democracy anywhere, the demise of the government and the demise of the party. Instead, we have a Prime Minister and a government hanging on by their fingernails, refusing to leave and pretending that all is well when all is very bad indeed. Our international reputation and stature are going down the drain over and over again.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in this period of questions and comments on Bill C-66, a bill which, as I remind the House, the Bloc Québécois supports in principle.

We have had a number of representations in recent weeks from people who have told us that Bill C-66 is a step in the right direction. However, there are some gaps and omissions. Two groups in particular have sent us a number of e-mails and have come to our offices.

First, there are the elderly. The hon. member is right when she states that elderly people who receive their guaranteed income supplement will be eligible for the additional benefit. There are, however, many elderly people who are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement, who do not have astronomically high incomes, and who would like to receive this additional payment.

In my riding, Mr. Jean-Paul Leblanc came to see me in my office and we spent 45 minutes discussing the gaps in this program. He said he was frustrated to find out that he would not be able to receive the payment because he was not receiving the guaranteed income supplement.

The middle class is also affected. In many, many cases, this middle class and these elderly people live in underprivileged areas of Montreal and use oil for heating. There are no provisions to encourage the conversion of our systems from oil to electricity, particularly in Quebec, which would have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to ask the hon. member the following question. How can she claim, today in this House, that Bill C-66 will help the elderly, when she knows full well that some of them do not have high incomes, and do not receive the guaranteed income supplement? They will, in short, be penalized by Bill C-66.

I would also like to ask the hon. member what she would say to the fact that, in many cases, the list of people eligible for the guaranteed income supplement is inaccurate. The campaigns conducted by the Bloc Québécois are intended to ensure that more and more elderly people receive the supplement and are eligible for benefits.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment was very impressed with the Solar Laundromat and the big plans Alex has for designing and introducing sound environmental solutions.

Neighbourhood Link-Senior Link, for example, is using Alex's technology to heat a new affordable 25 unit home for seniors it is building at Danforth and Main. This is a great project because it is housing with which the Government of Canada is assisting, combined it with energy savings.

Plans for the new building include a green roof and courtyard garden. The building will also have significant environmental features, including solar thermal collectors, energy efficient lighting, heating, cooling and appliances, and reduced flow bathroom fixtures. It is a project that will be a model for future energy efficient affordable housing initiatives.

Just last week Alex's company announced that it had been retained by Neighbourhood Link-Senior Link to generate renewable thermal energy for the domestic hot water needs of its 64 suite seniors residence located at 11 Main Street and at its 44 suite residence at 680 Kingston Road. The two buildings are currently joined by a common hot water heating system.

The company owns and maintains a system of 80 flat plate solar thermal collectors with a total area of 160 square metres. The collectors are expected to displace 18,600 cubic metres of gas annually, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 37 tonnes annually. The emission reduction equates to 221 kilograms per occupant, representing almost one-quarter of the federal government's one tonne challenge for the residents of the buildings.

Eco-entrepreneurs like Alex Winch are an integral part of the project green, an initiative announced by the federal government earlier this year, which includes investments in the order of $10 billion between now and 2012 for the climate change programming.

Our plan provides new resources, instruments and incentives for business, industry and all levels of government to support action on climate change. It incorporates a range of measures including: encouraging the development of renewable energy and green technologies; collaborating with industry and setting an effective, fair reduction target; preserving Canadians' health and quality of life through cleaner air and greener communities; and using tax incentives and programs that range from fostering small hydro production to cleaning up brownfields.

Project green encourages the development of new environmental and energy efficient technologies and practices such as those pioneered by Alex Winch. It also uses market based approaches that will offer monetary incentives to encourage greener and cleaner industry. Together these efforts will honour our Kyoto commitment by helping Canada reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 270 megatonnes.

These are success stories in this one riding alone. We also have in our riding a building that has a solar wall which will again reduce the energy costs from the grid. This gives the example of just one corner of our country. I presume a great deal more is happening across the country.

Industry Canada's technology support programs have supported the development of new fuel cells that we may soon see in our homes, cars and in public transit use. Indeed, this kind of commitment to energy innovation has made Canada a world leader in this important new sector.

Looking further ahead, the government is supporting companies with demonstration and early adoption of projects involving hydrogen and related technologies. This is through the h2 adopters program, and it looks to be the way of the energy future.

In addition to all that, the government is investing heavily in public transit and infrastructure. It is absolutely clear that to cut down the emissions, we need effective public transit in the country. The Government of Canada has been committed to this for a very long time. In fact, in many ways we need the partnership of our partners, both in the municipalities and in the provinces, to stop the urban sprawl that has taken place in many parts of our country.

The development of urban sprawl has not taken into consideration the need for energy efficiency in public transportation. We know some of the suburbs cul-de-sac streets are not friendly to public transit. It makes it extremely difficult to provide public transit in some of these places. It is important that we increase the density of housing, although in some places we still have not done that.

We need the partnership of our municipal and provincial governments to increase the density and to plan new communities with energy efficiency. Public transit is part of the development. Not only that, we have to take into account public buildings and institutions because it is a fantastic way to save energy. If public buildings, especially the new ones, whether they be federal, provincial or municipal, take into consideration solar energy and other energy efficiencies, we can go a long way, just like the little not for profit organization in Beaches—East York has done.

We also should be retrofitting as many public institutions as possible. I would love to see hospitals and nursing homes, as is being done by Alex Winch, retrofitted to reduce the costs of energy, overheads and public dollars. That money could then be used for health, for seniors and for other uses. We are not taking advantage of the tremendous amount of potential in this area.

Also, I believe very strongly that we have to take trucks off the highways. We have talked about the fact that the Government of Canada has invested in infrastructure since 1993 in collaboration with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Green energy always has been part of that component. However, we also have to look further down the road. We need to look at trucks. How many of us have been surrounded by huge trucks on the highways? Not only do they affect the environment, but they also ruin our roads. It is important to build up our railway system and put trucks on the railways. That would go a long way in cutting back on emissions.

Bill C-66 is a very important part of a much larger agenda for our government, as I have been trying to elaborate. It is the part of the agenda that enables us to meet the immediate needs of our fellow citizens who are most severely affected by rising energy prices. It is part of the agenda that enables the government to help people who face real challenges with few options for addressing them easily.

Bill C-66 would enable us to expand our programs that already have done so much to make it easier for Canadians to identify how they can save energy in their homes and then do precisely that. This is not a new set of actions. It is part of an effort to give consumers the tools to help them adapt in a marketplace where prices are rising. This is part of an effort to encourage the private sector to develop new technologies that would help reduce our dependence on ever more costly petroleum based sources of energy.

That is a sensible approach. It is a forward looking approach. It will bring real and long lasting benefits to consumers by dealing realistically with a problem that will be with us for many years to come. It is not something we can put aside and not deal with immediately.

Some statements earlier made reference to the problem of reaching the population, seniors especially, who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement. It is important to note that the Government of Canada in the last couple of years has had an aggressive campaign to reach as many, if not all, seniors who should receive the guaranteed income supplement but who are not, or who were not aware of it and had not applied for it.

In fact, the government went further. When seniors file their income tax, if they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, they will receive in the mail an application that has already been filled out. All they have to do is sign it and send it back. In addition to that, through senior files, the renewal of the application is done. Instead of having to renew again, it is automatically done through that process. This is an example to show how important it is for us to ensure that all the seniors who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement in fact do receive it.

There are probably others who still have not heard the message. It is important to communicate in different languages. It is important to get the message across. The government has been very involved and very engaged in this area. The government has reached not 100% of those eligible, I would say, but very close to 100%.

I have spoken a great deal about many different aspects of our program, but most important is the fact that not only is it important to make sure that people who are paying extra money for gas and energy this winter are assisted, it is also important to ensure that in the long term our environment and the future of our children in fact are protected. The earth we live on needs to be protected.

I have given some examples of what is going on in my little corner of Beaches—East York. I know that there are thousands of other examples all around the country. We have mentioned Prince Edward Island with wind power and so on.

I encourage the House to support Bill C-66 because it is forward looking.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-66.

Every hon. member in the House knows that rising energy prices have an impact on Canadian consumers and on our economy. The bill demonstrates our government's commitment to action that will make a difference for Canadians, and in particular, Canadians who live on low incomes. It demonstrates our attention to the needs of people, such as many of our seniors who we know are feeling the pinch of high energy prices.

Bill C-66 is the result of listening to Canadians and looking at the evidence. Bill C-66 is about making responsible choices with public dollars that allow us to identify how we can do the most good for Canadians who need it the most.

Our government and, I am sure, many of us as parliamentarians have heard from organizations, such as the Consumers Association of Canada and Option consommateurs in Quebec. We have heard from many business groups, community organizations and individuals. They have pointed out the many ways that rising energy costs affect us all in terms of fuel costs for cars and trucks, in terms of the oil and natural gas that Canadians use to heat their homes and in terms of the cost of making and shipping products from farms and factories.

Their stories are important but hearing from these groups and from citizens is only part of making effective policies. We also need statistical evidence on issues, such as energy prices and impacts, which Statistics Canada has in abundance. We need evidence on consumer patterns, which Industry Canada is able to provide with its Consumer Trend Report.

That is the difference between being in government and being in opposition. In government we need to listen and use the evidence that finds those places where we can actually make a difference, not just a headline. That is the reason an across the board tax cut in some area is not at the top of our list. It would do little to help the people who are facing the biggest challenges today. That is the reason massive intervention in the energy marketplace is not on that list either. In today's global market it simply does not work and only triggers negative impacts for our economy.

On the other hand, the energy cost benefit would provide the kind of targeted assistance that three million low income Canadian seniors and low income families with children need. That is real action, not rhetoric.

We know that a lasting way to help a lot of families control rising energy costs is by making their homes more energy efficient for the long term. This is not new to us. Our government has launched many programs to help consumers choose wisely when buying products that use energy or when they buy fuel. Programs, such as the new ENERGY STAR program, are helping consumers every day. They are making it easy for Canadians to choose the most efficient electrical products and appliances in the marketplace.

The same is true for the auto fuel consumption data that Natural Resources Canada publishes annually based on information collected by Transport Canada. In that way consumers can choose vehicles that are the most fuel efficient.

I am sure my hon. colleagues know that our government has also put in place the EnerGuide program and programs to assist consumers to conduct energy audits of their homes. Those audits are already enabling Canadians to cut their heating and cooling bills in the most cost efficient way possible. If consumers act on the recommendations of these energy audits by making energy saving investments in their home, they can look forward to as much as $150 of the cost of the audit being refunded. This is already in place for Canadians.

The legislation would enable our government to go even further to help Canadians with a focus on assistance to help pay for items such as draft proofing, improvements to heating systems and the replacement of windows under the new EnerGuide program for low income households.

As I believe members know, the bill would enhance market transparency and accountability. It would do this through the new office of petroleum price information, which is a very important office.

If we were taking these actions, all would be important steps ahead. However, we have been getting ahead of the curve. We have been taking actions that are designed to reduce the dependence of Canada on conventional energy sources. I am speaking of initiatives like support for demonstration projects that are producing ethanol from crops such as corn, straw and other forms of cellulose. We aggressively are pursuing alternative energy sources such as wind power and solar energy.

I am a member of the finance committee and it is in the process of doing prebudget consultation hearings. I believe tomorrow, Thursday and Friday the committee will be in Toronto.

During the panel on the environment, some fantastic presentations and recommendations were heard. One of them was on wind power. In fact, the presenter stated that we would be able to provide all the energy requirement for remote and small communities in our country through wind power in the near future. I think that is a fantastic way to look at our society. It is a way of dealing not only with the environment but with the cost of energy.

There are many other examples that were presented at that hearing. Europe has a great many to offer us already. If I am not mistaken, Germany already provides 6% of its energy through wind power. We need to go in that direction.

In September our government's Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency contributed $3.6 million to help establish the Canadian Wind Energy Institute at North Cape, Prince Edward Island. We are moving ahead ourselves quite aggressively in that direction.

The Prince Edward Island wind-hydrogen village project is in operation to test ways to use wind energy as a primary energy source. That project is exploring how to use wind energy as a way to produce hydrogen to provide backup and primary electricity for industrial, farm and household needs, not to mention hydrogen fuel for transportation.

We are doing that and a great deal more. Solar energy was another one.

My corner of Beaches—East York is doing its part. I was proud to be at Glen Stewart Park a couple of weeks ago to plant trees in memory of the late Bob Hunter. As I pressed the sapling into the soil, I could not help but reflect on the positive difference Bob had made with his life. Greenpeace International put it well on its website when it said, “Perhaps more than anyone else, Bob Hunter invented Greenpeace. His death on May 2 nd 2005, of cancer marks the passing of a true original, one of the heroes of the environmental movement...”

We have one of our own eco-warriors in Beaches—East York. Ours is one of the most environmentally conscious ridings in metro Toronto. We have in our midst some eco-pioneers of whom Bob Hunter would be very proud today. Take Alex Winch of the Beach Solar Laundromat on Queen Street East, for example. When I brought environment minister Stéphane Dion to meet Alex this spring, the minister was very impressed with the solar laundromat and of the--

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been here that long and I still consider myself to be a new member, but clearly my hon. colleague has been here even less time.

Nothing moves that quickly in government. It has to be carefully thought out. The government was able to pull together Bill C-66 so quickly and it needs to be applauded for its fast action. I was surprised at the government's ability to do it so quickly. The government should be applauded rather than criticized for doing that.

When we talk about the money going to cities, the money that we are investing in the new deal for cities is a new direction for this government. Clearly, the opposition does not support it anyway. Part of the $800 million that we talked about earlier will be going into the very city that the member represents. It might be possible to have additional discussions to help move that agreement along and get it signed. Many other cities are signing the agreements and one would have to question why it is not getting done in the member's city. I do not know if it is the MP who is not moving the discussion along, but I think we would want to see that money invested as quickly as possible.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government is on life support. It is one thing after another.

Although Bill C-66 has some good intentions, it has a lot of loopholes in it. I heard the member opposite mention that 10 years ago a report was done on rising gas taxes because the government wanted to fast track it. The member opposite also talked about investing in our cities and all the things that are coming forward, such as infrastructure money and so forth. That was an election promise a year and a half ago and my city of Winnipeg does not have a signed agreement.

When I look at the bill I see so many loopholes. Many people will not be receiving this money. I hear members across asking what is wrong here and saying that we need to do more.

Would the member opposite please answer why has it taken more than a decade and a crisis for the government to implement a bill? Why has it taken this long to be alarmed at what is happening right now? Does the government not have any predictions for what is happening?

Throwing a bill together with some good intentions is fine, but it will not address the problem.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question on Bill C-66. It is important to note that the bill does not really deal with the systemic issue of the oil and gas industry in the Canadian industrial as well as consumer driven society.

Despite the testimony we heard before the industry committee on this issue, there has not been a progressive approach to dealing specifically with the issue of refining capacity. The testimony before committee stated that 95% to 97% is done in Canada. At the same time, we do not have the oil and gas industry making the investments back into the system which is necessary to solve this problem.

Currently, the federal government provides tax incentives and subsidies of $1.4 billion annually to the oil and gas sector as well as having a corporate tax reduction, which will fall significantly over the years. It will fall from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2007 at a time when we have had record profits at the pump as well as record prices at the pump.

Does the hon. member agree that this is the best way to go or should we actually be taking that money away from the oil and gas industry and investing it back into alternatives which will be more successful for our future?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether you were going to be able to get a word in edgewise in order to continue the debate.

I am very pleased to speak in favour Bill C-66 and how important it is. When oil prices were rising, a lot of our constituents, especially those who earn minimum incomes, were really alarmed. They wondered how they were going to manage during the coming winter with the high cost of fuel. They wondered how they were going to heat their homes. I applaud the government and the fast action of our Prime Minister in coming forward with this bill. It is hoped that with the support of members in the opposition we can get this legislation passed as quickly as possible in order to help those people who most clearly are going to find themselves in a very difficult situation this winter.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on behalf of my constituents in the riding of York West and on behalf of a lot of Canadians who are concerned about this very issue.

Canadians clearly are concerned about the recent increases in energy costs and they have looked to their governments to take concrete action. They understand that we do not control the price of the crude oil or the price of gas, but when they are in need they still look to find a way to resolve the issue and offset some of the expenses.

Bill C-66 proposes a comprehensive package of short term and also longer term measures to help Canadians deal with the high energy costs. Thank goodness that energy costs have now come back down to a more reasonable level, but we have to be very aware that there could be a spike at any time.

The energy cost relief plan consists of a three-pronged approach starting with short term relief in the form of direct payments to millions of low income Canadians who were very worried about how they were going to heat their homes this winter. It is another opportunity for redistribution of our tax dollars to those most in need.

Longer term relief consists of measures to reduce energy costs for Canadians by improving energy efficiency which will bring lasting environmental benefits. Clearly, that has been a long time target for us beginning with the Kyoto plan. We want to work with homeowners and business owners to ensure that everybody takes advantage of the opportunity to get more energy efficient windows and doors to prevent the escape of that very expensive heat.

The government's approach consists of actions to improve energy market transparency and accountability. Our party has talked about that for a very long time, how to make sure there is transparency and that games are not being played. Canada continues to have one of the lowest costs when it comes to gas in and around the world. When I was in Europe recently, a litre of gas cost $3. That is very expensive. We have to be very aware of what is happening around the world, and not just what is happening in Canada.

This inclusive and very effective plan will provide direct financial assistance called an energy cost benefit to more than three million low income seniors and low income families with children. We will also pledge to help families lower their future household heating costs in a variety of areas. We will make more and better pricing information available to consumers while taking legislative steps to deter anti-competitive practices. I believe it was about 10 years ago that the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the committee produced a report on competitive pricing and the whole issue of gas prices.

We will also fast track money to municipalities for public transit. We all know how important public transit is when we talk about the smog, quality of life, and the traffic gridlock that is happening in our major cities. It is important for us to invest in public transit. Freeing up that money much faster and investing in our cities is critically important for everyone.

This comprehensive approach provides timely, short term relief to millions of low income Canadians while also setting the stage for meaningful and lasting benefits through greater efficiency and conservation. Again, helping us to meet our obligations to the environment and the Kyoto commitments. Making our homes and buildings more energy efficient is a key way for Canadians to offset higher energy prices.

The incentives we are providing will help Canadians save energy and money, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. These measures also support project green, the Government of Canada's action plan to build a more sustainable environment.

We heard our former minister of the environment speak earlier about how important many of these initiatives are and how important it is that we meet our obligations. Yes, there is a lot we could still do, but we do have a plan and we are going in the right direction with these initiatives to help improve the quality of life throughout this country.

Given the impact of higher energy costs, our government believes that these types of measures are a priority. That being said, we also remain steadfast in our commitment to balance budgets. This expenditure will not jeopardize our fiscal position, which is something that I believe we as Canadians and as a government are very proud of and clearly have no intentions of doing anything that would jeopardize that for us and for Canada.

These new energy initiatives will help reduce energy costs by an average of 30% per household while making housing more affordable. We are taking steps to make our cities and communities more healthy and sustainable.

When I was the chair of the Prime Minister's caucus task force on urban issues, there were several recommendations made which I would like to share with my colleagues in the House this morning. The task force called on the Government of Canada to consider creating a national building retrofit strategy to encourage and facilitate energy efficiency, which could possibly involve several things. One was providing tax credits to homeowners and businesses that undertake energy efficiency retrofits, as well as supporting a national community-based home retrofit advisory service network.

I am pleased to say, on behalf of my colleagues who also sat on the task force over that 18 months and met with many people across this country on what was important from an urban perspective to ensure the urban sustainability of our cities, that this recommendation has since become government policy. This is proof that our government is constantly listening and taking action to improve the lives of Canadians.

Those were a few of the recommendations. Overall, there were 52 recommendations in that report and all 52 have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. That says a lot for the government's response and the work that gets done in many of the task forces that the government sets up.

I would also like to speak today about the long term effects of this bill, particularly the environmental benefits. This is something that cannot be fixed overnight. We all know that, but we need to recognize the opportunity to ensure that our children and grandchildren can have a clean and healthy environment to grow up in. The government has taken action through significant investments in the environment and in sustainable infrastructure in Canadian communities.

We should listen to our children who have already become much more environmentally conscious than probably most of us for a variety of reasons, one being the programs they watch that talk about having clean air and a healthy environment. They are probably doing more.

Look at how smoking has decreased and how many times children go up to adults, and ask why they are smoking and polluting their environment. Twenty years ago nobody would have thought of saying that, but our children are very well educated and moving very positively along with these right ideas, and they are moving in the right direction.

Since 1997 the government has committed more than $13 billion in new funding for environmental measures, putting Canada on the path as a leader to a sustainable economic future.

Some of these investments include over $6 billion toward measures to address climate change; $3.5 billion to help clean up the many contaminated sites across this country in order to use them for a variety of services, from community centres to housing to many other uses, because these sites are sitting there not being used at all; funding to design, implement and enforce framework legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act; and support for the development of environmental technologies.

We have done much more and we will continue to do more to help improve the environment for all Canadians. The main objective of the government's environmental initiatives is to have the most impact where it matters most in the places that Canadians live, work and play.

Canada depends on its cities and communities to attract the best talent and to compete for investments with the rest of the world. They are also vibrant centres of commerce, learning and culture. Canada's cities and communities must continue to be healthy, safe and beautiful places to live. It is very important that we continue our competitive edge, continue to be the very best place in the world to live, and that we be a healthy, clean environment for people to want to come to this country and enjoy the riches of it.

That is why, building on current financial support for infrastructure programs and the full rebate of the GST, budget 2005 committed $5 billion in gas tax revenues over the next five years to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure for cities and for communities. We all recognize how critical that investment is and how important it is that we ensure our cities are moving into the 21st century, and have the support and the tools that they need to compete as well.

Bill C-48, which passed this summer, included environmental measures that built on the budget 2005 initiatives by providing funding for public transit as well as $100 million over two years for a low income energy retrofit program. I would remind hon. members that the initiatives in Bill C-48 are contingent on surpluses of $800 million over two years. May I repeat that we do not intend to go into debt, as I indicated earlier, and we intend to continue to be good financial managers.

This brings us to Bill C-66, the bill before the House today. This bill complements the government's previous initiatives by taking action to help families lower their future household heating costs by making their homes more energy efficient. Again, we are reinvesting tax dollars into our very communities where this money comes from.

It fast-tracks, extends and increases five-fold the low income energy retrofit program which will support grants of up to $5,000 per low income household, or about 130,000 homes. Without that help, many of those households will continue to consume huge amounts of energy. That is not a good thing for us, nor is it a good thing for them.

Further, hon. members will recall that in order to encourage further action by Canadians, provinces and territories, budget 2005 allocated $225 million over the next five years to quadruple the number of homes retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program. That is some $40-plus million a year to help retrofit homes. That is a huge help to homeowners. Bill C-66 enriches this program, so that almost 750,000 home will be retrofitted by 2010, instead of the 500,000 originally projected in the budget.

Furthermore, Bill C-66 strengthens the financial incentives to encourage Canadians to upgrade to energy efficient oil and gas furnaces. It also provides corresponding incentives for households that heat with electricity. Bill C-66 also increases retrofit incentives for public sector institutions such as hospitals, schools, municipalities and provincial governments.

My constituents in the riding of York West will truly benefit from the government's responsible course in this and in many other areas. Specifically, many of my constituents will benefit from the energy cost benefit program, a total of $565 million which will be paid out to 3.1 million low income families and seniors who will receive anywhere between $125 to $250 per household. These payments are a first down payment on further tax relief being introduced over the next five years.

I also mentioned the sharing of $5 billion of gas tax revenue to help municipalities with infrastructure needs, for public transit, for example. In recognition of the immediate need for improvements in public transit, Bill C-66 proposes to make certain and fast-track money to municipalities for investment in public transit infrastructure, with $400 million to be made available this year and $400 million in 2006-07.

Canadians look to their government to develop sound policies that will help improve their quality of life. At the same time, they want action that is practical, effective, reasonable and responsible. In other words, they do not want their government to put Canada's solid fiscal situation at risk. Bill C-66 meets that challenge head on.

Given the impact of higher energy costs, the government believes that this balanced package containing aspects that address market transparency and longer term measures to reduce energy dependence along with some limited short term relief is a priority. At the same time we remain committed to balanced budgets.

This is an important bill for Canadians. I look forward to its swift passage and call on parliamentarians from all sides of the House to support the legislation as it will improve the life of all Canadians.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-66, an act to make a special payment to some voters in time for the next election.

The crisis many Canadian families will face this winter with the cost to heat their homes is a made in Canada crisis of the government's making.

While the Prime Minister would like to blame external events, the energy crisis in Canada is a direct result of the Prime Minister's dithering on the environment. That dithering resulted in Canada signing onto the Kyoto accord without any plan on how to live up to the obligations of that international treaty. Anything to deflect attention from the Gomery inquiry into Liberal Party corruption is the only priority of this scandal ridden government.

The absence of any plan to deal with the economic fall out from the Kyoto accord means that Canadians who heat their homes this winter with natural gas could see the cost rise by as much as 50%. In time for a federal election, the Liberal Party response is a special bribe or payment.

For the benefit of Canadians who are following this debate, I want to clear up any confusion regarding the Liberal Party and the term “special payments”. The special payment being proposed is not the same as the special payment that is paid to non-registered Liberal lobbyists who lobby for special favours. It is not a special payment that is made to Liberal Party ad men.

This also is not the same special payment that was collected by the Prime Minister's company, Canada Steamship Lines, in the form of grants from taxpayers to the tune of $161 million. This is not a special payment in the form of registering company assets in a foreign tax shelter to avoid paying over $100 million in Canadian taxes, similar to what the Prime Minister did with his personal family company, Canada Steamship Lines, when the Prime Minister, as finance minister, used the Barbados tax shelter so it would be there when he needed it. That special payment is better known in the boardrooms of Liberal Party supporters as a corporate dividend paid out to the principal shareholders, in this case the Prime Minister's family after he was caught and forced to transfer ownership to other family members.

This special payment is designed to get the current government through the next election in the face of voter fury over the high cost of energy, including the cost to heat their homes, and to deflect attention from the Gomery inquiry into Liberal Party corruption.

The bill has three main parts.

Part 1 of the bill outlines who would receive a payment and how much. The payment would be sent to the following groups: $250 to families entitled to receive the national child benefit supplement, NCB, in January 2006; $250 to senior couples where both spouses are entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, in January 2006; and, $125 to single seniors entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement in 2006.

Part 2 of the bill would increase and expand federal assistance and programs for houses and housing projects that make heating system upgrades, improve windows, engage in draft proofing, et cetera. All this assistance would be delivered over five years.

Part 3 of the bill addresses public infrastructure specifically. It states that $400 million, previously provided for under Bill C-48, will be freed up by Bill C-66 in each of the next two fiscal years for municipalities to boost investments in urban transit infrastructure.

Parts 4 and 5 of the bill are housekeeping measures.

I acknowledge that there is a problem with perception in Canada. Consumers believe there is price fixing in the oil and gas industry, no matter how many investigations are conducted. The industry can and should do more to explain price setting and price fluctuations.

Since apparently the federal government has not had the time to monitor or publish an energy policy or reports on gas prices, private companies such as MJ Ervin & Associates have stepped in to fill the void. Now that the government is collecting this information, some could argue that it will be subsidizing the oil and gas industry, the main users of such information.

MJ Ervin & Associates has estimated that the average price of home heating oil has jumped to its highest level on record, 93¢ a litre. The best guess is that homes heated with oil can expect to pay 32% more this year, while homes heated with natural gas can expect to pay 48% more. Electricity bills will also rise, but not as drastically.

In Ontario the Ontario Energy Board approved a rate increase for Enbridge gas that will increase natural gas bills by about $123 a year. Union Gas also sought and received a rate increase. Sixty per cent of Ontario residents rely on natural gas for heating. Bill C-66 provides payment to some Canadians if they are lucky enough to qualify.

The Conservative Party supports measures providing relief for low income families. Parliament has an obligation to represent and support those who have much less than the average Canadian. The government estimates that 3.1 million low income families, or 10% of Canadians, will receive these rebate cheques. I am pleased some effort is being made to try to assist low income Canadians. These Canadians should not be left to struggle against rising energy costs on their own.

The problem is that the delivery method chosen by the Liberals will miss a great many Canadians who need help in paying for their heating and paying for gasoline for their cars that ferry them to and from work. Persons with disabilities who claim a disability benefit will not receive a payment. Seniors who qualify for the GIS but do not claim it will not receive a payment.

A Statistics Canada study released on Friday, October 21, 2005 found that 206,800 eligible individuals missed out because they do not claim the GIS. Students will not receive a payment. It will not help poor Canadians who are childless.

Research from Statistics Canada indicates that nearly two million individuals under 65 who fall below the income threshold have no children. These individuals will receive no help.

If anything represents the callous disregard for children and families, it has to be the government's record when it comes to child poverty. I listened very intently to the speeches from the government side regarding the legislation before us today, Bill C-66. While Canadians hear all the usual statements from the party that is campaigning for re-election, let us look at the actual record of the Prime Minister when it comes to children.

Poverty among children in Canada is rising. The government may talk in the billions of dollars it says are being spent, but when questioned directly about the plight of children, the same inability to provide a public accounting for how the dollars are actually being spent, which created the sponsorship fraud, applies to funds that the government says are earmarked for children but end up being siphoned off to other Liberal priorities like bogus ad campaigns.

As finance minister the Prime Minister oversaw a deal in 1997 that resulted in the clawback of the national child benefit supplement from the pockets of some of our neediest children. Set up in 1997 to assist Canadian families with children, it replaced what many Canadians grew up calling the baby bonus. It was introduced as the Canada child tax benefit, the CCTB. It included a basic benefit and a supplement, the national child benefit supplement, the NCBS.

The NCBS program was supposed to be designed to reduce poverty among low income families and children. Negotiations between the federal and provincial governments around implementation of the NCBS resulted in some provinces, Ontario included, deducting the NCBS amount from the benefits received by families on social assistance. This is what is commonly known as the NCBS clawback. In the province of Ontario families who are entitled to receive the national child benefit who are receiving social benefits are subject to the clawback. What that means is social assistance recipients have the amount of the national child benefit supplement they are entitled to receive deducted from their social assistance cheques.

In the absence of any special agreement, the $250 payment that is intended to benefit families with children on welfare will become a financial windfall for the government of Ontario. So much for the federal commitment to assist low income families with children.

This is being done with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister who designed the clawback system when he was Jean Chrétien's finance minister. The Prime Minister was the most senior minister in the Chrétien regime and was the senior minister in Quebec. No decisions involving money could be made without the present Prime Minister knowing. After all, he was the finance minister and he saw all the figures.

The current finance minister is fully aware of the clawback. When questioned in committee the best he could offer Canadians is that the government would encourage the Liberal Party at Queen's Park in Ontario not to claw back this particular payment.

The Minister of Social Development has once again dropped the puck on this issue as well. If the minister spent less time making campaign stops in other members' ridings and concentrated on the issue of child poverty in Canada, maybe child poverty rates in this country would drop.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-66, which is intended to help some Canadians with high and rising energy prices. As I have just said, some Canadians.

While I support the government in its intention to assist those who need it, the legislation really misses the mark. The Conservative Party of Canada believes that tax relief at the source would ensure that all Canadians who pay for energy receive assistance. This bill, by targeting it to a select few, ensures that many who need assistance will get none. In fact, a few who do not need assistance could end up with government help anyway.

It was not too long ago that we heard stories of the dead and the imprisoned receiving special government payments. Also, many Canadians do not know that the rebate program the government ran last time took over four years to get a cheque into the hands of those in need. Canadians cannot afford to wait four years for help. Many are already struggling with rising gas and utility costs.

My main concern with the legislation is the people who need it and who are in need but who will not receive a dime of help. The only ones who will receive help are those receiving the national child benefit or the guaranteed income supplement. Therefore anyone who is not a low income parent with dependent children or one of the few low income seniors, they will get nothing. In fact, 300,000 seniors who are eligible do not receive the GIS.

My main concern is for disabled Canadians on fixed incomes. This group is 3.6 million strong. Most disabled Canadians, employed or not, have many expenses that other fellow Canadians do not. They do not have extra money. In fact, quite often we find them the poorest of the poor, something we Canadians should be very ashamed of. This Liberal plan does nothing for the disabled. Those on a Canada pension plan disability do not qualify automatically. These are people who are hard-working Canadians who now find themselves in need of extra assistance. They too will not get any help under this plan.

There are many other Canadians who will not get help either. They include those with a high dependency on fuel to do their jobs and run their businesses.

There will be no help for taxi drivers. Most are self-employed and already face skyrocketing repair and maintenance costs. They will not receive a cent of help from the government. Their extra gas money will have to come out of their salaries.

There will be no help for couriers. While we all know the large companies, most couriers are local independent operators. They are the ones who deliver our flowers, our pizzas and other local deliveries. They face a huge increase in their single largest expenditure category.

There will be no help for bus services. Most of the extra costs for fuel for the buses will be passed on directly to the consumer. Unfortunately, the consumer of bus travel is often too poor to afford anything else. These travellers cannot afford a price increase of any significance at all.

There will be no help for truck drivers. Truckers are constantly having to absorb extra costs that did not exist 10 years ago. First it was all the extra repair costs as the provincial and federal governments let the highways deteriorate. Next it was all the extra paperwork and delays associated with tougher border standards. Now it is the crushing cost of fuel. Some truckers can pass on these costs but many are in long term contracts. Even if the costs are passed on, it will only make their products more expensive. I can only imagine what fresh groceries will cost next February. The bill would not help the truckers or their consumers. In fact, I recently saw one hitchhiker with a sign offering to help pay for the gas.

The bill would not help cities meet the rising costs of transit, emergency services, public works or any other department. While the federal government rolls around in more and more budgetary surpluses, the local governments are desperate to continue their existing services. The cost of providing transit alone has increased significantly. At a time when the federal government is expecting everybody else to reduce pollution, it is making it more expensive for cities to provide an environmental alternative.

The bill would do nothing to help cities.The bill also would do nothing to help rural Canadians. Rural seniors are especially hard hit because of the expense of travel and the rise in cost of heating fuel and general necessities.

Those living in rural areas usually have lower incomes than those in the cities to begin with because of the types of jobs available. Compounding the problem is the fact that their fuel costs are often much higher as they have to drive long distances, driving their kids to school, shopping for groceries, travelling to work or appointments with doctors. Rural Canadians will not be getting any help with Bill C-66.

Rural Canadians who definitely will feel the gas crunch but who will be unable to afford it are our farmers. Farm input costs have skyrocketed in the last several years. At the same time, commodity prices have dropped. Fuel increases for farm equipment will remove any chance for farmers to make a profit. We have just come through the harvest season and it has cost farmers $1,500 to $2,000 a day to fuel combines. That is just combines and not trucks, tractors and all the other necessities of taking off the harvest.

Making a profit is a very relative term as most of these farmers are heavily in debt from years of struggle and inaction by the government. In 1948 a farmer could fill up his truck for $5 and wheat's final price was $4.50. In 2005 the same tank of gas has cost $80 plus and the price of wheat has dropped to $2.50.

Some farmers will be able to pass along the increased fuel cost to the local consumers. Our exporting farmers already are competing with heavily subsidized foreign competitors. Many of the countries that our farmers compete with do not rely on fuel as much as we do. Cheap labour is their constant competitive advantage. Our farmers will feel rising fuel costs more than any other nation's farmers. Unfortunately, our farmers will not get a single dime of assistance under Bill C-66.

As we can see, millions of Canadians will not get the assistance for which they were expecting or hoping. Furthermore, those who rely on fuel the most, those that are the hardest hit, will get nothing.

If the government had taken the advice of many Canadians and the Conservative Party, it would have cut taxes at the pumps. If taxes had been cut at the pumps, it would have ensured that those who used fuel the most would benefit the most. The relief would have been instant. Canadians could have been pumping cheaper gas and buying cheaper home heating fuels for over a month now.

Instead, the payment system proposed in the bill will ensure that nobody gets help in the near future. This will be the paper pushing project designed to employ Liberals for years to come.

I urge the Liberals to take a moment and seriously ask themselves who needs the help and if they will get any under the bill? I then urge them to look at their constant budgetary surpluses and ask if they need to keep overtaxing Canadians like this. Canadians are not looking for free fuel. They do not want to be paying so much in taxes when the Liberal government gets such a boost and such a surplus. It is time for fairness.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, unfortunately, takes the opportunity every Thursday to ask the same question, knowing the answer will be exactly the same because it is factual.

The opposition days will begin the week of November 14, and I indicated that some weeks ago to the opposition House leaders. At that point, I thought the matter had been dealt with and that we would focus on the agenda, which is important to Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading of Bill C-67, which is the surpluses bill. Should this be completed, we would then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-66, the energy legislation. We do not sit on Friday. On Monday we will commence the second reading debate of Bill C-68, respecting the Pacific Gateway. We will give priority to these bills over the next week.

On Tuesday evening there will be a take note debate on cross-border Internet drugs.

If debates on the major bills that I have referred to are completed by late next week, we will then turn to report stage of Bill S-38, respecting the spirits trade, second reading of Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill, Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals, second reading of Bill C-44, the transport legislation, second reading of Bill C-61, the marine bill, reference before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services bill, report stage of Bill C-54, the first nations resources bill and other bills that will perhaps come back from committee that we would like to get into the House for further debate.

In order to bring about that take note debate on Tuesday, I move:

That a debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place on Tuesday, November 1 on the subject of cross-border Internet drugs.

Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all parties for allowing us to split our time today as it is a very important debate.

There are some good things in Bill C-66 which the New Democratic Party supports, especially the introduction of some of the interventions in fuel efficiency and economies for our homes to help us kick our dependency on oil. We support that. However, there are some weaknesses which we will touch upon, but it is a step forward.

The great disappointment the New Democrats is this will do nothing to address the systemic problem of dependency, speculation and fluctuations in the oil and gas industry which impact on the Canadian economy, consumers and our sovereignty.

Energy pricing is something that affects every industry as well as almost every consumer. With the wild fluctuations that can take place, it literally can drive people out of business. It also can cause people to make choices in buying prescription drugs to treat their health, or paying the rent, or buying food or getting their kids to and from school.

Canadians face these significant problems. When there are wild fluctuations and prices go up, there is often little time in between to deal with it and budget for it. Too many Canadians now are dealing with issues related to home income costs and being unable to afford the things that are necessary for them to prosper. The bill does not address that issue.

I want to touch briefly on what is happening with the industry in general. First, heating oil prices have risen by a third over the last year and natural gas prices have nearly doubled. World production of oil and gas continues to meet world demand, but three apparent physical factors are the main contributors to the problems that we are facing today.

First, we have a growing demand from industrialized countries like China and India, as well as a growing demand from North America. Because of NAFTA, our market is integrated with the United States. As well, the massive industrialization of China and India is usurping resources not only in the oil and gas industry, but also in other industries, for example, steel, where it will have a significant impact upon Canadian companies as well as on our ability to compete.

Some of those countries, and I point to China in particular, subsidize those industries and have lower working and environmental standards that allow them to compete at a lower wage. This is affecting Canadian jobs.

Second, we have increasing prices and demand. OPEC countries are uncertain about their reserves and ability to increase production for the long term. The statements that came out of OPEC after Katrina identified that it could do little to keep oil prices down any more because refining capacity was so restricted. Although it pulled more barrels of oil out of the ground, it had little opportunity to move that into refining to keep the price down. That is very important to note.

During our hearings in the industry committee, we heard testimony from the industry as well as outside industry which identified that Canada's refining capacity was at 95% to 97%. At the same time a company like Petro-Canada was closing the Oakville refining. It decided not to invest in the improvements and upgrades of that facility or to build a pipeline to Montreal to increase refining capacity. The end result was it lost half of its refining capacity. Now we will be importing oil from another company to offset that lost refining capacity. That vertical integration is very critical on the market.

Last, another threat to future supplies and increased demands is related to the political uncertainty in certain countries where exploration has taken place. There is the potential of tapping into those markets because of the environment and political instability. We witnessed the retreating of plans to expand or to get into those markets. For example, Petro-Canada had to leave an opportunity behind most recently.

The industry committee convened a meeting over the telephone because of the price spikes related to Katrina and the effect upon Canadian consumers and society. There has not been enough talk about the industry, its profits and what happened during that time period.

Recently, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released an independent study on gas pricing entitled “What's Behind High Gas Prices”. The study proves that Canada's oil and gas industry has reported record profits of $16 billion in the last year alone, according to Nickle's Energy Group.

Michael Ervin, a leading industry insider and consultant himself, described the industry's recent profit margins as spectacular.This would not have been so bad if it were not for the expense for Canadian consumers or if it were down to simple market forces, as had been advocated by the industry. However, it is not. There is clear evidence of price gouging by the Canadian oil and gas industry, particularly during the period of the recent U.S. hurricanes.

Continuing with that study, it was able to conclude that the price of crude oil rose by $10 U.S. per barrel between June and September. If the industry had kept its other expenses constant, that should have led to an increase at the pump of just 70.9¢ per litre. Instead, the average increase was 15¢, with some communities paying significantly more. Over Labour Day weekend, the average increase was 40¢ on the June price alone. According to a report from the CCPA, the price of Canadian gas should never have gone above $1 per litre.

The gas industry was engaged in clear gouging, taking advantage of public fears over Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. For every penny per litre the gas rises, the industry takes an additional $1.1 million per day. This means that the point of peak gouging, when the difference between a justified crude oil increase and pump price was as much as 45¢, the industry was raking in $15 million of excess profit every day.

Regarding the industry and its refining capacity, the evidence presented by experts at committee was that the profit zone was spectacular. That came from its own advocates.

We need to talk a bit about what is happening with the industry and what it is getting from the Canadian citizen. The Auditor General did a report and analysis of the industry. She found that the fuel sector received more than $40 billion in federal subsidies over the last 30 years. What we have is record profits at the pump, record prices at the pump and the industry continues to get massive subsidies from the Canadian government. This is incredible. Canadians would be shocked.

The Pembina Institute recently stated the industry had $1.4 billion annually in grants and subsidies. It is based on lowering the cost to producers, not to consumers. The industry gets tax deductions in terms of forgoing tax revenue, due to industry specific tax concessions.

It also is important to note that the industry will receive a general corporate tax reduction under the government. There has to be a sense of balance in this. That is not happening in terms of the debate. We will see, with this legislation, that some Canadians will benefit to a certain degree by a few hundred dollars. They will be able to put that money toward the increased cost that they have incurred and will incur in the future related to the price of gasoline and natural gas for heating their homes.

That money will be shifted over to the industry. There is nothing in the legislation that does anything to have a significant overview as well as accountability that will ensure the gouging does not continue. At the same time we will have a settling of prices.

I understand and appreciate the fact that we are moving to more sustainable practices, but that has been done out of crisis. Once again the bill, which will be administered over five years, looks to address some of those concerns, but it is not aggressive enough.

I would point to the auto sector. I represent a significant auto sector strategy. We are trying to work toward getting more energy efficient vehicles on the road, while at the same time creating Canadian jobs. The government has yet to come forward with a national auto policy on that. We should have incentives on the front end and at the same time ensure that the technology is based in our country. This will help to create jobs. We will have cleaner, more efficient vehicles on the road that produce less pollution. More important, it will take our dependency off a system that creates far too much vulnerability for ordinary citizens and does not have a great accountability in terms of the environment and where are country will go.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we should have been celebrating today, because we are debating Bill C-66. For years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the Competition Act to be amended, to include investigative authority among other things. We are finally going to have amendments, which the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology will be considering tomorrow.

We were also calling for a petroleum monitoring agency. Unfortunately, the government truncated the agency's mandate, but it is nevertheless going ahead, in part, with the Bloc's idea.

But the place where the government's and Prime Minister's plan disappoints us the most and needs the most improvement is with respect to Bill C-66.

We have before us a bill in reference to the sudden spike in oil prices, which will compensate for the related loss of buying power and will target those in greater need. The problem is that not everyone who is in need was included, only those who could be administratively included.

For example, seniors who are receiving old age pension benefits under the guaranteed income supplement program will be entitled to compensation. Seniors have experienced price increases following the hike in oil prices, whether or not they have a car. Those who do not have cars have to take cabs to go places. Their heating costs are going to increase as well. As far as I am concerned, this kind of compensation is fully justified. This was requested by the Bloc Québécois and it was part of the action plan that we presented in early September, a full month before the government tabled its action plan.

The bill also provides for people with children to be entitled to similar compensation. We are in favour of that as well. However, the budget for all of these measures will be $550 million, while the Bloc Québécois had estimated the amount required at $1.5 billion.

Why did the government not put forward a measure for women, people living alone or certain categories of workers? For example, someone came to see me on Saturday. The man told me that he was earning minimum wage and had to drive about 10 kilometres to work and back. At his income level, he will not be entitled to any form of compensation.

This means that workers will be worse off. People who are at the lower end of the middle class and those who are poor, even though they have a job and try to earn their living as best they can, will not get any help.

The government has given us only one explanation. The minister told us that the government had looked at how to address this. He also said that the government has decided to set aside those for whom there is no existing administrative mechanism for compensation. It does not make any sense. The government will absolutely have to review its plan of action on this and ensure that everyone is covered by the proposed plan.

I will given another concrete example. There is a music school in La Pocatière, a municipality in my riding, that hires teachers, who quite often are from out of town, from Quebec City, Montmagny, Rivière-du-Loup, from all over the region. They are often young people who have just finished or are finishing up their music degree. Now there is a major problem. These young teachers no longer want to come because of the high cost of gas, which cuts into the little bit of income they earn from giving lessons.

These people from the remote regions are not included in the plan in any way. This is true for the young music teachers in my example, but it is also true for everyone who has to travel in the region.

This morning a press conference was held here by older workers aged 55, 56, or 58 who have been laid off by companies in the regions. These people from the clothing and textile industry often do not earn $20 or $25 an hour. They need to carefully consider how much it will cost them to get to work and to look for work since they often have to travel 10, 20, 30 or 40 kilometres away to find work, which costs money. Looking for work then becomes a problem since the individual has to cover 100% of the cost, only to earn a modest salary. This, in effect, slows the economy.

Yet, there is one economic sector, the oil industry, that is raking in exorbitant profits. The federal government is refusing to help people in need for two reasons. First, it has not found good administrative mechanisms to meet the needs. Second, it does not dare take a sizeable bite out of the oil industry profits.

In its action plan, the Bloc Québécois had provided for an increase of approximately $500 million or $550 million, with a tax on additional profits. Last week, we saw these profits skyrocket. This morning, in the news, there was a report on an oil company whose profits did not increase that much. However, executives received $93 million on shares that they sold during the last period. This gave the impression that profits had not increased as much as expected.

The government program should be improved considerably. The government must ensure there is enough money within the contingency fund provided for in the budget. It must demand an additional contribution from oil companies to put an end to the diversion of wealth that the last increase has created.

This increase is not only the result of the forces of nature. In the last 10 years, North America has been experiencing a significant reduction in its refining capacity. This reduction has been orchestrated so that, as soon as an event has changed the speculation issues, the tap has been closed and prices have been able to skyrocket. If the petroleum monitoring agency had already been able to take action in such a situation for a few years, we could have taken measures to correct it. However, the government did not do so during the last crisis. Let us hope that the current agency's mandate, which is inadequate, will be expanded to an inquiry mandate.

So we can see that the government has shunted numerous groups aside. To give a few more examples, as well as the people living alone, there are the independent truckers. One in my riding told me recently that, after a long work week, he managed to bring home $800 to his family once all his expenses were paid. With the huge jumps in gasoline prices we have had already, and are still experiencing, that money has disappeared. He does not bring home enough, sometimes nothing at all. When things were at their worst, he had no money for his family; everything went into operating the truck and keeping the economy running.

These categories of people needed help when speculation hit them hard in the pocket-book. The impact did not take three weeks or a month to make itself felt. As soon as the speculative price hike took place, these people had to bear the brunt of it. We believe it is the government's responsibility to make sure that enough of the increased profits made by the oil companies get back into the pockets of these people.

As well as the truckers, there are the farmers, particularly the maple syrup producers. They use a great many oil-fired burners in their operations, so their profits are dwindling because their production costs are increasing, the result of higher oil prices. The total loss to Canadian agricultural activities is $250 million. Our farmers have had a hard time of it in recent years; they do not need anything else.

We believe that the government would have the means to compensate them so that their operations and the economy can continue to progress without their having to add to their already substantial debt load.

Those are all examples of segments of the population that deserved a hand up from the government but are not included in the bill at present.

As for the taxi drivers, there was a pre-fabricated solution available for them. For a number of years, the Government of Quebec has had a tax credit for taxi drivers. All that was needed was to extrapolate from this model and to apply it to all of Canada. This would also have decreased the effects of inflation. The rise in inflation is solely due to the rise in fuel costs. Its effects are just beginning to be felt.

People who had protected contracts will no longer have one. Taxi drivers will receive normal increases to cover their operating expenses so they can drive their cabs. But ultimately consumers will pay the price of this increase. The federal government should have ensured that they would get assistance too.

The same is true for independent foresters. These days, people no longer use small chain saws to cut down trees, but rather multi-purpose machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that consume lots of gas. There is no assistance for these people. Often, in rural areas, people struggle to pay their bills every month and save a few pennies. As a result, the recent increase in gas prices is preventing people from making ends meet every month. Some of them are forced to hand the bank their keys, because they can no longer operate their business.

We have seen the danger for consumers, in the past, when gas prices rise, and I hope no one forgets it. It is always the same old story. Prices shoot up, then they drop a little, and the hope is that the public will forget, after which prices shoot up again, a little later.

The price increase has nothing to do with allowing for environmental costs or ensuring energy diversification. It is so the oil and gas companies can increase their profits. This is important. We should talk about this to make sure that we are paying the actual cost, not just the production costs, but the environmental costs too. I think that everyone agrees we should pay the actual cost of gasoline.

However, we should not have to pay the prices following speculation, which could have been prevented if the right tools had been put in place. Right now, we are doing crisis management. Costs have increased significantly for some people. So, we need to consider to whom we can give this assistance. We are talking about seniors and parents, and so much the better.

However, there is no money for other people who need it just as much as those two categories, but who are not getting anything, simply because no administrative process was provided. But the Bloc Québécois had, among other things, proposed a refundable tax credit that would have been paid to all families with an income of less than $30,000. This initiative would have cost $1.5 billion, but the money would have come from the reserve provided in the budgets and from the additional levy imposed on oil companies.

So, the government must assume its role in the distribution of wealth. Wealth is something that is generated, but there are artificial factors that come up and result in oil companies making undue profits. Why not find ways to give that money to those who are feeling the effects of the current price increase?

It is clear that many people were forgotten by the government. This does not mean that we should reject this bill. We are talking about the very principle of giving back to the public a part of the greater profits made by oil companies, which are the result of this major short term price increase triggered by speculation. As regards this principle, we are pleased that the government agreed with it after our presentation.

Remember what the Minister of Transport said a few months ago: market forces rule, we cannot do anything, we cannot make a move, we must stay put. However, the Bloc Québécois reacted by proposing a plan and by asking questions. In the end, the Minister of Transport stuck to his position, but the government agreed with the principle that there should be a form of compensation.

This type of compensation is provided for in the legislation in principle and we support it. However, it is grossly inadequate. At various stages of consideration of the bill, we absolutely must be able to amend it in order to expand on who will be entitled to this type of income. There currently are not sufficient types of assistance for everyone who needs it, who deserves it and who had to pay the price for higher fuel costs.

I will give another example of a sector where we should have taken action. There is no incentive in the bill nor in the government's current policy for consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. We are told, “The high price of fuel will encourage us to develop other types of energy”. However, to do so, there needs to be incentives. We also need to elaborate on the polluter-pay principle, which the government did not follow through on. It has not provided any help for consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars, which would have been an excellent way to contribute to improving the environment and alleviating the pressure on the price of fuel.

We see that there are truly many sectors that have been forgotten that should not have been. There is also the entire issue of green energy. The government could have made sure that for wind power production, which costs roughly 2¢ per kilowatt hour more than conventional energy, this difference is recognized and covered by the WPPI program.

This program should be modified so that the incentive offered is 2¢ per kilowatt hour, that $2.1 billion over 10 years is available and that the ceilings per province is withdrawn from the program. There is currently a ceiling for each province. There is a penalty for provinces that take their own initiative. In Quebec, especially, there is a wave of wind power development. It would have been very beneficial to take this development even further.

This bill represents only part of the action planned by the federal government to deal with the increase in the price of gasoline. There are certain short-term measures in this bill. They are inadequate and fail to help all sorts of clienteles, all sorts of people who every day suffer the financial consequences of the hike in gas prices.

Today some people are saying that there is no reason to complain, because prices have fallen to 95¢ a litre, and that is reasonable. It should not be forgotten that in early January 2005 we were paying 78¢ a litre. That is still an increase of 20% to 25%. Few economic sectors are experiencing this price explosion and can rake in the profits that come with it. It is somewhat as if the rest of the economy had been taken hostage. With the rise of the dollar and the price of gas, the capacity of businesses to make profits has been greatly compromised.

For example, in my riding, there are people in the Rivière-du-Loup region who sell products to the state of Texas. The mere fact of the increase in transportation costs wipes out their profit margin. These people, who are doing their job as they should, making efforts to find and develop markets, have seen the sudden arrival of an additional unforeseen factor, a kind of diversion of profits toward one particular industrial sector. The petroleum sector has to be disciplined, because these convulsions in the economy are not necessarily beneficial for the economy as a whole; we have had a very clear demonstration of that with the most recent hikes.

I also hope that, in the mandate that is finally given the petroleum monitoring agency, there will be a power of recommendation to the House of Commons, as the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology had recommended almost unanimously. At that time, only the MPs in the Alliance—a party that no longer exists—withheld their consent to this position.

If the government decides to make the agency nothing more than a mirror of the activity, that will be a small improvement, but very far from what we are looking for. What we want is an instrument of action for parliamentarians. Every year, we will have a report on the evolution of the petroleum market. The agency could have made recommendations on changing the organization of that market.

We are not talking about price control, but about a system to guarantee that there will not suddenly be excessive price hikes. All kinds of actions have been undertaken elsewhere, particularly in some U.S. states, where there is a ban on vertical integration, that is from drilling right up to the gas pump. That might help us control the market better, but it would require us to get some information, find out how that works and what solution we could propose to improve the situation.

So the federal government has agreed to bow to pressure, particularly that of the Bloc Québécois, and of the economic situation itself. We had made some concrete proposals. The government's action, however, does not go far enough.

This crisis may be an opportunity to make more progress in distributing the wealth that is concentrated in the oil and gas sector. The economy would also have to be diversified in order to reduce our dependency on oil and gas and to develop other energy sources. It is also necessary to keep an eye on the signals we are giving out.

In fact, the roots of this problem go back a long way. For years, the present Prime Minister—and former finance minister—sent the message that this could not be done, that those were the rules of the marketplace, that it was up to the players to set up the rules of the game and we could not assume any responsibility.

We have felt the effects of that with the increases in fuel prices. We kept on knocking at the door, however, and have managed to get the government to open it a crack. So much the better.

Now we will have to ensure that this bill and the other government actions really achieve something. The first thing to do is to broaden the pool of those entitled to compensation for losses caused by the rise in fuel prices. That is what people expect of government. Corrective measures must be taken and the bill must undergo some major changes. This is urgent.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions. The first is with regard to the member's opening commentary on and analysis of Bill C-66. He mentioned how many Canadians actually will be left behind by this bill.

Millions of Canadians will be left behind. It is something that is not addressed in terms of a comprehensive national strategy to deal with the fluctuation in the oil and gas industry and specifically what came about after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which basically spiked up the levels significantly.

I would like the member to expand upon why it is that we are picking winners and losers from among all of us in Canadian society who have been significantly affected by this.

There is also the vulnerability of certain groups and organizations. I have mentioned seniors and how there is a differentiation with the GIS, which is leaving some people behind. We also know that many seniors are not even registered for the GIS. Recent reports indicate that over 200,000 Canadian seniors are eligible for the GIS but are not receiving it. They will not get any type of relief. As well, the Canada disability pension is an issue that is left out of this equation.

Second, I would like the member to expand upon the Conservative policy. I know that the Conservatives have been advocating for tax cuts as part of their policy to lower prices for consumers. My concern about that is the fact that there have been instances in the past when the industry has soaked up the profits. There is no current mechanism right now to ensure that they would not do so at this time.

I do know that two Conservative provincial governments actually have regulations in place and have policies related to pricing and market determination. I would like his thoughts about having some type of system which would at least prevent this happening and assure Canadians that they are not going to be further subsidizing the industry.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-66.

I want to read the bill into the record and what it is supposed to do, because it is important in terms of analyzing whether or not it actually fulfills the government's objectives in terms of addressing the increasing costs of home heating fuel and gasoline prices for Canadians. The full title of the bill is “an act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain acts”. The bill has three main parts.

Part 1 of the bill outlines who will receive a payment and how much. The payment is targeted to some low income Canadians and will be sent to three different groups: first, $250 to families entitled to receive the national child benefit supplement in January 2006; second, $250 to senior couples where both spouses are entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, in January 2006; and third, $125 to single seniors entitled to receive the GIS, in January 2006. These are one time payments that will not be issued until the bill is passed.

Part 2 of the bill increases and expands financial assistance and incentive programs for houses and housing projects that make heating system upgrades, improve windows and engage in draft proofing, et cetera. All of this assistance will be delivered over a five year period.

Part 3 deals with public infrastructure. It states that $400 million previously provided for under Bill C-48 will be freed up by Bill C-66 in each of the next two fiscal years for municipalities to boost investments in urban transit infrastructure.

Parts 4 and 5 of the bill are housekeeping measures.

In addition to the measures laid out in the bill, the government has also announced two other measures with respect to energy prices. First, the office of petroleum price information will be created. Second, the government has indicated it will be introducing amendments to Bill C-19 which are intended to strengthen the role of the Competition Bureau in investigating allegations of price fixing in the oil and gas industry.

To begin, I would like to discuss the reasons for various increases in energy costs. Then I will address the issue of payments for low income Canadians and offer an alternative plan to the Liberal plan. Then I will discuss the secondary measures introduced to attempt to offset high energy prices which are outlined in the bill and those announced outside of the bill. Finally, I will discuss energy policy generally under the government.

I would like to briefly outline the current supply and demand issues facing Canadian consumers, Canadian businesses, and our market. There has in fact been a spike in energy prices. There have been a number of contributing factors to the reduction in supply that have caused this spike.

The first obviously is natural disasters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have caused considerable disruption in the supply of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and across North America. As of October 11 three refineries were still shut down from hurricane Katrina and four were still shut down from hurricane Rita, obviously taking that supply off the market.

While Canada is in fact a net exporter of energy, we do import a great deal of our refined oil and gas, especially those provinces east of Manitoba.

International issues such as the political troubles in Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela have created uncertainty in the supply chain. In addition, there have been production declines in the North Sea and Russia, while worldwide spare production capacity is at its lowest level in three decades. Only Saudi Arabia at this point has any spare crude oil production capacity available.

Despite the decrease in supply, demand has remained stable. The 2004 demand increased worldwide by approximately 3%. This growth will likely slow, but will continue to grow between 1.5% and 2% in 2005-06.

At a briefing this week by four of the industry associations involved in the energy sector, it was basically pointed out that over 40% of the increase in the demand for worldwide crude was as a result of the growing economy in China particularly.

This steady demand coupled with the decrease in supply has led to increased energy prices both at home and abroad in every sector.

I must point out, however, that most of the Canadian information on the projected increase in energy prices for the upcoming winter actually comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. It is a shame that similar information cannot be obtained from the federal government through the Department of Natural Resources.

MJ Ervin & Associates, the private sector forecaster and observer of oil and gas prices, has estimated that the average price of home heating fuel has jumped to its highest level on record, 93¢ a litre. The best guess is that homes heated with oil can expect to pay 32% more this year, while homes heated with natural gas can expect to pay 48% more. Electricity bills will also rise but not as dramatically.

In New Brunswick the cost of home heating oil is 5¢ higher than the national average. New Brunswick Power has announced it will request a 10% increase in its electricity rates next year. In Quebec where 70% of the homes are heated by electricity, the provincial energy board will review a request by Hydro-Québec to increase rates by 3%.

In Ontario the Ontario Energy Board approved a rate increase for Enbridge gas that will increase natural gas bills by about $123 a year. Union Gas also sought and received a rate increase. Sixty per cent of Ontario residents rely on natural gas for heating.

The British Columbia Utilities Commission just approved a 13.3% increase in natural gas. Even in Alberta, Direct Energy has asked the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board to approve a rate increase that will increase the average home heating bill by more than 20%. The average monthly bill for October in Calgary will be $162.

As we can see, the increase in the cost of heating one's home is affecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. What has the government done to deal with this massive, broad problem facing Canadian citizens and businesses across the country?

At the heart of Bill C-66 is a payment for some of Canada's poorest citizens. Obviously we in the Conservative Party support measures that provide relief for low income families. We have an obligation to represent and support those who have so much less than the average Canadian.

The government estimates that 3.1 million low income families, or 10% of Canadians, will receive these so-called rebate cheques, although they are actually payment cheques. I am pleased that some effort is being made to try to assist low income Canadians. These Canadians should not simply be left on their own to try to deal with rising energy costs, particularly those on fixed incomes dealing with increases in home heating.

The problem is that the delivery method chosen by the government will miss too many Canadians who need help paying their heating bills and their gasoline bills for their cars to get them to and from work. Persons with disabilities who claim a disability benefit will not receive the payment. Seniors who qualify for the GIS but do not claim it will not receive a payment. A Statistics Canada study released on Friday, October 21, 2005 found that over 206,000 eligible individuals missed out because they did not in fact claim the GIS.

With respect to seniors, we also have a situation where someone whose pension makes them equivalent to someone on the GIS will not in fact receive any sort of assistance under the government's program. Students will not receive a payment.

This program will not help poor Canadians who do not have children. Research from Statistics Canada again indicates that nearly two million individuals under 65 who fall below the low income threshold have no children. Under this bill these individuals will receive no help.

It will miss most farmers who have been hit very hard by the energy price spike. They must not only heat their homes but their barns as well. It will also miss many Canadians who are poor, but not quite poor enough in the government's eyes to qualify for a payment. Of course, it must be noted that this plan does not in any way, shape or form offer relief at the pump nor compensate for the increase in fuel prices.

We in the Conservative Party have an alternative. We have an alternative because too many Canadians will not be assisted by this plan. We have a plan that will help all Canadians. The fact is the government should start by axing the tax on the tax at the pumps. This would give an immediate tax break to all Canadians. Two Liberal members spoke and basically gave the party line as to why the Liberal government does not want to do this.

The fact is it would be a very immediate measurable thing that would impact Canadians by reducing the tax at the pumps. It would obviously reduce it for people who drive their own vehicles but it would also reduce it, as the member mentioned, for public transit. It would also reduce it for municipalities and others who have to pay for school divisions, who have to pay for fuel, who have to ship students to and from school, municipalities that have to subsidize their public transit.

Further to that, if the government wants to help public transit, then it should adopt the plan put forward by our leader this summer in Toronto to allow people who have public transit passes to claim a certain percentage of the cost. It is not one or the other. We can do both at the same time and offer tax relief to more than just a few Canadians in this plan.

The fact is 42% of the cost of a litre of gasoline is federal, provincial and municipal taxes, including the GST. As a comparison, in the United States it is 27%. Currently the 7% GST and the HST are charged on gasoline after federal, provincial and in some cases municipal governments have added their excise taxes.

The fact is the Liberal government continues to overtax Canadians. The government should not profit when people are feeling the effects of these increased prices in their pocketbooks and at the dinner table.

For every 1¢ increase in gasoline prices, the federal government receives about $32 million in extra revenue. That money should be going back into the pockets of Canadians and not into the pockets of the government.

In addition, the Conservative Party will reduce personal taxes overall. That is the second way to immediately address this issue in a broad way. Instead of selectively picking some low income Canadians over other low income Canadians, we could reduce personal taxes overall.

A Conservative government's approach would provide immediate and long term broad based tax relief starting with reducing personal income tax rates and substantially raising both the basic personal exemption and the spousal exemption under the Income Tax Act. Reducing personal income taxes would hike the take home pay and raise the standard of living of all Canadians.

The fact is we have driven the tax agenda in this country for years and we will continue to do so because it is fair. It is fair that Canadians keep more of their own life energy in their own pockets to spend as they best see fit.

I want to move on to the second part of the bill. I want to point out that while part 1 books the expenditures on payments to low income Canadians in the current fiscal year, the expenditures in part 2 are over five years. This is very odd accounting, but as we are finding out more and more with the way the government deals with budgets and finances, it is simply a classic example of Liberal accounting.

What I believe the Liberals are trying to do is to force us to accept spending on the EnerGuide program, spending that could have been announced in past budgets or in the next budget. They want us to accept this by tying it to the energy payment for low income Canadians. There is no reason to put it in this bill.

In fact Bill C-66 includes $205 million from already announced energy efficiency programs, and $100 million which is being moved out of Bill C-48 and into Bill C-66 under the guise of energy efficiency. This is simply ridiculous. This clause of the bill is completely unnecessary. A whopping 43% of the funds set aside for the bill will go to the administration of the EnerGuide program, not toward tax cuts or rebates.

In theory, the EnerGuide program provides financial assistance to homeowners and landlords to help improve energy efficiency. I encourage members to talk to constituents who have actually utilized this program, because I have. The fact is it is an extremely complicated program. It requires a homeowner or landlord to pay for an inspection of their home both before and after renovations to see if they can receive a loan or rebate for the changes they have made to improve the energy efficiency of their own home. Some funding will flow through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but will benefit only 130,000 low income Canadians. The same number, only 130,000 Canadians, have used this program since October 2003.

We are spending more than $1 billion on an EnerGuide program that may be only used by 260,000 Canadians. This is yet another example of misguided Liberal priorities.

I would like to move on to part 3 of the bill, which deals with infrastructure. Again, this section of the bill is not necessary. This spending was announced under Bill C-48, the second budget bill, but has been moved to Bill C-66, which is a bad example of tricky Liberal accounting. This is certainly a question that the government should have to answer.

First of all, how can the Liberals introduce a budget by Bill C-43 and, second, declare non-confidence in their own budget, introduce a second budget, say that the funding would proceed once they knew the fiscal figures for 2004-05 and say that spending would commence as of August 2006? I believe that is what the parliamentary secretary told the Senate committee. Then, somehow, the government moved spending from that bill, Bill C-48, to this bill, Bill C-66.

This money does not help rural Canadians, who pay some of the highest energy costs. In addition, it does not provide the stable funding that municipalities are looking for. The money is actually being allocated without any thought as to what it actually might be used for.

The Conservative Party, on the other hand, is committed to developing an infrastructure plan that would not only provide money to municipalities to meet infrastructure needs, but would also provide benchmarks to allow local governments the ability to plan in the long term for their own infrastructure needs.

We have also committed to meeting and even possibly exceeding the amount of money spent on infrastructure by the federal government through the so-called gasoline tax transfer. Such commitments are very much in line with the infrastructure goals of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Moving to the last two sections of the bill, I note that they deal with measures that are rather small measures in terms of costs but large in terms of the federal government.

First, Industry Canada is finally giving more money to the Competition Bureau to allow it to conduct investigations into collusion. The Conservative Party and members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology have been requesting the government to increase funding to the bureau since April 2002. The bureau has indicated for years that it does not have the resources needed to carry out the investigations.

However, we have not seen the amendments to Bill C-19 that would make changes to the Competition Act and allow the bureau more flexibility in its investigations. I am certainly looking forward to those amendments, although I have a bit of a digression here. At committee we have heard witnesses on Bill C-19, which the government is sort of presenting as the answer to increased gasoline prices by saying that if there is any evidence of collusion it will be dealt with by increasing the powers of the competition commissioner.

I can accept the argument that perhaps more resources are needed for the bureau, but the fact is that any six Canadians can write to the competition commissioner and ask her to investigate any sort of a discrepancy they feel is in the oil and gasoline industry. The government's argument that in fact the bureau needs more powers to conduct investigations is actually ridiculous.

The fact is that Bill C-19, according to some very able lawyers across this country, is simply an incredibly flawed piece of legislation. It is in no way an answer to what the government is saying it is in terms of dealing with gasoline prices. Frankly, the government should even withdraw the bill. It should send this back to the justice department and rewrite a proper bill.

Second, to return to Bill C-66, it would create the petroleum price monitoring agency. It is rather ironic that the government is presenting this as an answer, because lo and behold, the current Prime Minister eliminated this in the 1995 budget. I find it a little strange that something that the then finance minister and current Prime Minister eliminated in 1995 is now being presented by him as an answer in 2005.

The fact is that if the natural resources department would act in a practical manner and provide this information we could easily have this information available. The natural resources department and this entire government have languished in developing a long term energy framework and have actually contributed to the high heating costs we will experience this winter.

The Conservative Party has been focusing for a long time on a long term energy framework which would focus on renewable and non-renewable energy sources, take into account outstanding obligations and meet our long term requirements for domestic consumption and export.

We believe that strengthening energy market integration will ensure greater reliability of energy supplies across the country. We will explore ways to reduce barriers to the movement of energy products across provincial and other borders. The fact is that the Liberals have not addressed any of these issues. The Liberals have not had the time to monitor or publish an energy policy or reports on gas prices, which was promised this fall. Private companies such as MJ Ervin and Associates have stepped in to fill the void.

We find that the bill is severely lacking and way too limited in scope in terms of who it helps and that it is misguided in its approach. We will begrudgingly support the bill, as it does help some low income Canadians, but we certainly hope that the government will bring forward another bill. We will certainly be looking forward to committee, where we can actually try to expand this to help all low income Canadians and in fact all Canadians who are dealing with higher energy costs.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-66 at second reading. The bill in essence proposes to help Canadians deal with the high cost of energy.

The recent increases in energy costs have particularly affected low income seniors and families with children whether it be directly through the cost of gasoline and heating or indirectly through higher costs for everything from rent to groceries.

Canadians have let their government know that they are concerned. Indeed, we all share those concerns as they relate to low income people because they are the most vulnerable when energy costs increase.

The bill proposes to address those who are most vulnerable and least able to adjust to sudden changes in market conditions. We have listened to those concerns and we are taking action. The government has a record of helping those who need it, especially low income seniors and low income families with children. We have taken action before with tax reductions and now we are helping again with Bill C-66.

The Prime Minister asked us to look at the best possible options for responding to rising energy costs. He wanted it to be in ways that are practical and in ways that are effective, reasonable and responsible. He also wanted to be sure that we reached many of those people who need the help the most. We hope that Bill C-66 does just that.

To begin with, in putting together the proposed legislative package that is contained in the bill, the government was guided by three basic considerations: first and perhaps most important, how to deliver meaningful short term assistance to some of our most vulnerable in the most efficient and timely way. The second consideration looks to the longer term. In other words, beyond our immediate actions, how do we also find ways to make Canadians less vulnerable to price volatility and how do we make Canada more energy efficient? The third consideration wants the government to find ways to provide Canadians with better information on the movement of energy prices and to make those markets more transparent.

I would like to take a few moments to briefly outline the details of the government's three pronged approach to providing assistance to Canadians affected by higher energy costs.

First, as I mentioned earlier, the government wants to be sure that help is directed where it is needed the most. That is why the first part of Bill C-66 provides timely and direct financial assistance to low income seniors and low income families with children.

As I have said before, the government has a strong record of helping those who need it the most. For example, as soon as the deficit was eliminated, the government began the job of providing broad based personal income tax relief, particularly for low income families with children. This process began with the 1998 and 1999 budgets which eliminated the 3% surtax, increased the basic personal amount, and increased the child tax benefit.

Building on that action, the government continued to provide more tax relief in 2000 with the historic $100 billion five year tax plan. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are particularly interested in that. This plan reduced federal personal income taxes by 21% on average and 27% for families with children.

Budget 2003 built on the five year tax reduction plan by announcing additional increases in the national child benefit supplement for low income families with children. By 2007 these benefit increases will bring the maximum benefit for a first child under the supplement to more than double the 1996 level.

We did not stop there. In budget 2005 we continued to provide more tax relief for Canadians by increasing the basic personal amount of income that all Canadians can earn tax free to $10,000 by the year 2009. This initiative will not only benefit all taxpayers, it will remove 860,000 low income earners from the tax rolls including almost 250,000 seniors.

Bill C-66 is no exception to past actions the government has taken to help the most vulnerable in our society. To that end, the focus of this bill before us today is to help low income seniors and families by delivering direct financial assistance to them.

The federal government has two main programs that provide financial assistance specifically to low income families and low income seniors: the national child benefit supplement and the guaranteed income supplement. These two groups of Canadians are particularly vulnerable and that is why the energy cost benefit will be provided to them. That is how this bill is structured. It is built upon those two programs.

A total of three million payments will be made to 1.5 million low income families receiving the national child benefit and 1.6 million low income seniors receiving the GIS. As I mentioned earlier, virtually all the recipients of these benefits are affected in some way by higher energy costs, either directly through higher gasoline prices and higher home heating costs or indirectly as higher energy costs are reflected in such items as transportation and groceries. Bill C-66 will provide help to ease the burden of increasing energy costs.

The second part of the government's approach to providing energy cost assistance is to help families lower their future household energy use by making their homes more energy efficient. We will also fast track money to municipalities for investments in public transit infrastructure. These are moves that will bring lasting environment benefits over the longer term.

The government is very much aware that a sustainable economy depends on a sound environment and healthy communities. To that end, we have made significant investments in the environment, as well as sustainable infrastructure such as public transit.

I will briefly outline some of the measures we have taken to improve the environment. Individual Canadians produce greenhouse gas through their day to day activities such as driving vehicles and heating or cooling their homes, anything that involves energy use. There is no doubt that these are things that Canadians and their government can do to help improve the environment, particularly in their homes.

For its part, the federal government offers the federal buildings initiative to help federal departments and agencies reduce energy, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The goal of this initiative is to promote private and public sector partnerships to plan and implement cost effective facility upgrades and retrofits. Through the federal buildings initiative, thousands of federal buildings have already been upgraded, saving millions of dollars and reducing the risks related to climate change.

The government has also encouraged Canadians to reduce greenhouse gas through a range of information and incentive programs. For example, hon. members may be aware of the EnerGuide initiative which was implemented to increase public awareness of the link between energy and the environment, and to promote the opportunities opened up by energy efficient technology.

In 2001, EnerGuide teamed up with the internationally known ENERGY STAR symbol to help consumers identify products that are among the most energy efficient on the market. Choosing an ENERGY STAR labelled product over a conventional model could save a consumer hundreds of dollars in energy costs.

Canadians can also help reduce greenhouse gas through such programs as the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program. This evaluation service provides homeowners with independent expert advice on the different systems of a home, heating and cooling systems, for example. This service also provides information on energy efficient improvements that can increase comfort and reduce energy bills.

The low income energy retrofit program proposed in Bill C-66 builds on these initiatives by proposing to deliver $500 million to about 130,000 low income households. Low income households will also be eligible for grants up to $5,000.

At the same time, the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program, which is not limited to low income families, will be boosted to retrofit almost 750,000 homes by the year 2010. This is in contrast to the 500,000 homes projected in the 2005 budget. That is an increase of something in the order of 250,000 homes.

On top of that, we are strengthening financial incentives for best in class energy efficient oil and gas furnaces as well as providing corresponding incentives for households that heat with electricity. And there is more.

Bill C-66 also proposes to increase retrofit incentives for public sector institutions such as hospitals, schools, municipalities and provincial governments. I mentioned that the bill also provides further investments in public transit. In the face of rising energy costs, investing in public transit has become more important than ever.

Hon. members will recall that, building on current financial support for infrastructure programs and the full rebate of GST, the government delivered on its commitment to share a portion of the revenues from the federal gas with municipalities to assist with their environmentally sustainable infrastructure needs such as public transit, water and waste water treatment and community energy systems.

Madam Speaker, you and I come from the same community of Toronto and you know that the GST rebate is worth on an annual basis $52 million to the city of Toronto and that of course is a $52 million that gets repeated year after year.

Bill C-48, which was passed this summer, built on that commitment by providing further funding for public transit. Bill C-66 does more. It fast tracks that funding and gives the municipalities greater certainty for their own planning purposes. The bill proposes to free up $400 million this year and another $400 million in fiscal year 2006-07 for investments in public transit infrastructure for a total of $800 million over two years. That accelerates the commitment that we made in Bill C-48 and puts it ahead of the recognition requirements that are in the bill for surplus requirements. We are moving those commitments up at least a full year.

The third element of the package contained in Bill C-66 is the creation of an office of petroleum price information to monitor energy price fluctuations and to provide clear current information to Canadians about the prices they see on their gas and other energy bills. The office will fall under the watchful eye of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources. Furthermore, the bill will give Canada's Competition Bureau more powers. It will also strengthen the Competition Act to deter anti-competitive practices.

Like pretty well every MP in the House, we are continuously asked why the gas prices go up on Friday and come back down on Monday on a holiday weekend. I hope that the bureau of price information will at least be able to address that question.

These changes will increase the fines for those convicted of price fixing to $25 million from $10 million. The changes proposed in the bill will also provide the Competition Bureau with the ability to assess the state of competition in particular sectors of the economy, so that the bureau can act more quickly when it suspects anti-competitive behaviour.

The comprehensive package contained in Bill C-66 delivers direct financial relief to low income seniors and families with children. At the same time these measures support project green, the Government of Canada's action plan to build a more sustainable environment. I will just quickly remind hon. members of the three focus points of this truly worthwhile bill which I hope they will support.

First, Bill C-66 proposes to deliver direct payments to low income Canadians in a timely and cost effective manner using existing programs. That money has already been provisioned and can be sent out as soon as the legislation receives royal assent.

I hope hon. members will see fit to accelerate the passage of this bill through the House so these moneys can flow in a timely way so seniors and low income families can receive these cheques to offset some of the costs incurred by virtue of energy increases over the past few months.

Second, the bill would promote energy efficiency through new and improved incentives to individuals and families for home retrofits as well as by fast-tracking money to municipalities for public transit infrastructure. Speaking as a member of Parliament from the City of Toronto, the money will be gratefully accepted. Our public transit infrastructure needs are considerable. This will be a considerable sum of money for Ontario as it is distributed through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on one side and the City of Toronto directly on the other side.

Third, Bill C-66 proposes to enhance market transparency and accountability by making more and better pricing information available to consumers and by taking legislative steps to deter anti-competitive practices.

I am confident that taken together these measures would provide not only short term relief to millions of Canadians, 10% of our population in total, facing difficulty coping with rising energy costs, but they also would have meaningful and long-lasting benefits for greater efficiency and conservation, making Canada a cleaner and greener country for generations to come.

I hope all members in the House will see fit to support this worthwhile initiative.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Telecommunications Act

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on a piece of legislation that has been a long time coming. As my colleagues who spoke earlier said, when we sat on committee, we all laboured with best intentions to get a piece of legislation that would be good for the Canadian public.

We know that no piece of legislation is perfect. This is one of those situations where this piece of legislation will be an improvement over the current situation.

This is the first speech in which I have the ability to speak a full 20 minutes in my short time in the House. I will take a few minutes to explain the overall general process that I take to approach all legislation. It is important for citizens to understand the overall philosophy and principle of their legislature and I will use as an example, of what is in many ways viewed as a non-ideological and non-philosophical piece of legislation, Bill C-37.

I will go through not only the technical aspects of the legislation, what specifically are the amendments and the overall intent of the bill, but the principles and thought processes I used to arrive at certain decisions to help me decide how to vote on the amendments to the bill.

I find it important to do this with any piece of legislation, no matter how mundane, for two reasons. I believe the principles of all legislation need to be dealt with.

First, one must deal with the principles in legislation because principles provide the logic of legislation for consistency in all law. If we do not deal from an objective principle basis when dealing with law, we end up with chaos. We end up with a purely utilitarian approach to the law and the law does not become a law of justice but becomes the law of the jungle. I think it is important to understand that if we are to have actual good legislation, we must always do it on a principle basis.

The second reason is accountability. As a voter, even as a committee member or as a member of this House, it is impossible to completely keep up on all pieces of legislation. The government and the bureaucracy is so vast that even committee work can sometimes seem like the details are weighing us down.

If one can reference certain key principles, certain key statements, certain key benchmarks to begin with, it helps to be accountable to the electorate because ultimately democracy is the voice of the people. Therefore, if the people can understand the principles, they can understand the fruits of those principles which is the applicable legislation.

I want to explain my thought process. Sometimes principles can come into collision with each other. There can be a little bit of weighing of principles and values and so forth. It is important to understand the thought process and the application because it enhances the accountability of the situation. I believe that accountability is what all members of this House stand for.

It also helps to understand the weighing of the options. That is how I approach the overall body of the bill when dealing with each of these specific amendments. There is an intermixing of the practical in this in order to understand the logic as people in the future read this speech in Hansard or watch it on TV.

I endorse the underlying basic principle of this bill because ultimately, it is a protection of individual personal rights as to the rights of property. I come from the school of thought which has a belief in inalienable rights, balanced, as I have said before in this House, with inalienable responsibilities. One of the inalienable rights that are granted to all citizens is the right of personal property, protection, preservation and promotion of that personal property. This to some degree involves privacy.

Under the British common law concept, in this modern world, our home is our castle. This can sometimes be violated by our technology. We have derived and created various technologies, the Internet, the computer and the telephone for the specific purpose of enhancing our communications. However, there are times when they can all be intrusive and violate our home, our defence, our property, and the key right of an individual.

That is one reason why I specifically support the underlying general principle of this legislation. With the do not call legislation, we are allowing people to say, “My home is my castle. Thank you very kindly, but I do not wish to be bothered. This is my privacy. You are decreasing the enjoyment of my property”.

There are other principles involved here: the principle of personal property, the free exchange of goods, and the property of other people. We have to have some interaction and some balance on that level.

The other thing is that it is not really about commercial transactions. There is the freedom of speech element, and this balances with what I would call the unalienable right of the citizen to liberty and the unalienable responsibility to liberty. This political discourse will come in as I talk about some of the exceptions because all these communication tools enhance liberty by letting us receive and transmit ideas for a free exchange of thought. The telephone has become one of those methods, with of course the Internet, the post office system, door-knocking, face to face communications and other elements. That is another principle that we deal with here, particularly when it comes to political thought.

When we get into the charitable exemptions element of this bill, I will deal with why I think responsibility to community gets involved in that, but there is a principle I believe involved on that level.

That is the overall basis and approach that I take to this. Every element must have some basis in principle. There must be some logic. There must be some application to this. What is my thought process and how did I apply it to each and every one of the specific exemptions put into the legislation: the who, the what, the why, et cetera?

One of the first amendments we made when we got to committee was to put in a three year review, not for some delegated powers to the CRTC or the bureaucracy but to bring the three year review under the authority of Parliament. I supported that. We could argue about the timelines but that was more of a practical application of what would be the best purpose for it. I supported the underlying concept because it does provide for accountability right here in this House. The buck stops here, not just proverbially but in reality.

We are the elected representatives of the people of Canada. We cannot be delegating any more powers than we have to to the bureaucracy, to people who are not directly in that line. For practical purposes, yes, we can. We cannot have 308 persons running the entirety of the government, but we are the people who are responsible. We are the voice. We are one of the defenders, along with the law, the legal system, et cetera, of the basic unalienable rights and responsibilities of the people of Canada.

That is why I supported the concept of a review that comes to the House of Commons, delegated of course to the committee. It is very important for accountability because this piece of legislation, along with all legislation, is fallible. We are not all-knowing; we are not all-wise. We are very fallible as in previous legislation, so it is very important that the element of accountability be put in.

A second amendment that was put forward at committee was to exempt political parties, candidates, ridings, et cetera, from the do not call registry. Again there are exceptions. If people say “Please do not call me”, that will be honoured. I will admit that part of my first thought was that this helps the challengers more than it helps the incumbents because we have better name recognition. So from a purely selfish perspective, the incumbents of this House should in many ways have a self-interest to oppose putting this in, but there is the balance of the unalienable political right of liberty and the unalienable responsibility of liberty that is applied here.

I will admit that for some people political calls can be some of the most annoying calls but the freedom of speech element must be protected everywhere, not just on the liberty side but on the responsibility side. It is the responsibility and duty of every citizen, if they want to have inalienable rights, to follow through on inalienable responsibilities, and that includes being fully aware and fully informed of the debate that is going on in the political process, the guarantor of the rights that underline and protect the property rights that underline the legislation. The candidates, the ridings and so forth all tend to blend in on that one level.

Again, there are good arguments as to why this should be a little more restricted but the underlying principles hold and the safeguard of allowing people to personally state that they do not wish to be called should be helpful on everything.

I will note the other exemption built in here, which is the one for polling and surveying. I would hope that when this comes up for a three year review that it will be looked at in a more detailed and thoughtful fashion. The reasoning I have on this is the following. Yes, it is important to have particular information to help in the processing of the dialogue and to help in the dialogue of what people are thinking so that everyone may know back and forth, and polling and surveying does, to a certain degree, help that.

However a fairly interesting thing to note, on a very practical level, is the last two British elections where polling was done both by telephone and survey methods that we are accustomed to in Canada and by an Internet based pollster, YouGuv in particular. It was interesting to note that in the last couple of elections the Internet based pollster was the most accurate.

What I am saying is that perhaps in the future there could be less intrusive ways of still preserving the responsibility of liberty, the responsibility to gather information that there be a free and open dialogue of principle, and perhaps the Internet might be one of the ways because, spam mail notwithstanding, it is a somewhat less intrusive method than a phone call in the middle of suppertime and intruding on one's life at that point.

Another exemption in the act is for charities. This is, again, a question. One of the things that was noted by a witnesses at committee was that when we actually ask people specifically what calls bother them, it tends to be much more the commercial transaction ones than the particular charities.

We all saw the generosity of Canadians when it came to some of the disasters overseas, such as the horrible and horrific tsunami that devastated Southeast Asia. One of the methods the charities use to gather funds is through the phones, which makes up a significant portion of their revenues. In fact, some of the charities were particularly concerned because this could have the devastating effect of wiping them out. I believe the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, if memory serves me correct, was one of the most articulate, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving, et cetera, were also put there.

What principle did I use when I was weighing my vote back and forth? I believe the inalienable right of property also has an inalienable responsibility of property, which is the responsibility to use it for the good, not just of oneself but for the whole community. Taxation does it by force but it is a more compassionate society when people do it willingly and based on an argument not of force but of grace. One of the reasons I supported it is that it does imply a responsibility of the electorate of the populace. Merely to put up a sign saying, “Please don't bother me”, lowers the threshold of our level of responsibility, which is why I supported the underlying concept of exempting charities on that.

I will note again that when it comes to the charity exemption, individual call lists are kept by the charities, et cetera. Undoubtedly they will share these because there is no point calling persons who are considerably hostile and not particularly generous toward certain callers. Very practically, charities call those who have been the most generous.

The next exemption in the bill concerns the identification and purpose of organizations at the beginning of the call. I support this because of an honesty and integrity factor. Unfortunately, Canada has a reputation of being one of the major centres for call scams around the world. I believe this would increase the level of trust and the level of efficiency. It respects people's privacy and their right to utilize their property in a free and non-harassed way.

The final practical amendment to the legislation is the existing business relationship. We heard considerable concern in the committee that even mom and pop operations would not be allowed to call their 50 or 60 customers or their close friends and so on. I do not think that was the intention of the bill. A mechanic would not be able to call up a neighbour to tell him that it has been so many years since he had his car fixed and that it should be taken care of, and so on.

There were also some very practical applications that people might not understand or completely remember. We can think of car dealerships when they have to call a customer because of a defect in an automobile that needs to be recalled. We would not want anything that might in the least way impinge on those business relationships.

Once someone has made a commercial transaction they have indicated a certain willingness already to deal with it. Again, the exceptions and so on can be dealt with on this.

I would note that all these amendments were made at committee, which disturbs me considerably. We often seem to get incomplete legislation being rushed through to committee. There does not seem to be a lot of thought. The government sees a headline, gets itself into an emergency and then tries to put something together without any thought.

We will see this later this week with Bill C-66, the home rebate bill where, after years of not thinking anything about energy policy or the cost to the population for home heating, et cetera, the government quickly pulled something out when it saw gasoline prices spiking.

Perhaps the government should take more time to think things out, to actually have a vision and not just react to every headline. A vision actually gets good legislation done years in advance.

Another comment I wish to make is about the administration of the system. We have seen the government's most famous long gun firearms registry balloon to I believe a cost of $2 billion. I hope this registry is much better handled than that one.

The government has a reputation, which it has earned, of incompetence when it comes to administration, be it in its delegation to the crown corporations by choosing inadequate appointees or just the particular administration of contracts, be it advertising in Quebec or the firearms registry. I would caution the government to actually use some oversight and principles of administration that it has neglected in its previous endeavours.

Those are the principal and practical reasons that I support the legislation and will be voting for it.

However I would caution all members of the House to be careful how we proceed with this one. On a personal note, one summer when I was in university I had finished my tree planting and was waiting for my cheque and I needed to turn a little extra cash. I worked in a call centre for about six weeks while taking an intercession class at the University of Saskatchewan. The one thing we should remember is that many people earn their living from these places. We should be very sensitive to anyone who may be unemployed due general overall economic conditions. Many of these people who receive a minimum wage or slightly more are not well represented in the House of Commons.

I do not think many members in the House came from minimum wage backgrounds and perhaps we should remember the economic effects as we pass legislation and be somewhat cognizant about the people this may affect in the long term. I think with the exemptions and the way it is handled it will provide a reasonable way to handle it.

Old Age Security Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-301, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act in regard to the monthly guaranteed income supplement. This bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to allow eligible pensioners to receive a monthly guaranteed income supplement without having to make application. It also would repeal the restrictions respecting retroactivity.

I applaud the intent of Bill C-301. Although there are a few technical details that need to be reviewed, I am quite prepared to support this legislation in principle and I look forward to seeing it discussed in committee.

Amending the Old Age Security Act to ensure that eligible pensioners receive their monthly guaranteed income supplement is, quite simply, an issue of fairness. All too often we see the Liberal government doing whatever it can to squeeze every last dime out of Canadian taxpayers regardless of their ability to pay.

The freeze on income trusts and the resulting uncertainty for investors, especially seniors, is a perfect example. This government's problem with existing income trusts is that investors get to keep more of their own money, a unique concept that is foreign to this government. Many of these investors are seniors who rely on income trusts for financial security in their retirement years.

A recent letter to the Minister of Finance from CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, stated that Canadian “seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked” in relation to this government's indecisiveness on income trusts. They are not supportive, as the minister would suggest, showing once again that this government really does not understand and is out of touch with the Canadian public.

One senior writes to the government that:

Retirees are beyond the saving stage in their lives and spend almost all of their income. This benefits the Canadian economy. Your actions are happening at a time when retirees are facing some very major increases such as energy costs. This is a time for government to be compassionate and fair with retirees who have helped to make Canada the great country that it is.

Another senior writes:

Many seniors have been hurt by the uncertainty caused by the government's insensitive handling of the income trust situation.

Yet another senior is on record as saying:

The government has taken the solid platform from under our feet and replaced it with an open shaft.

Canadian seniors are continually facing the effects of a shrinking dollar: increasing energy costs that directly affect the ability of seniors to heat their homes and put gasoline in their cars; property taxes that continue to escalate, making it difficult for them to stay in their own homes; and indeed, the rising costs related to the basic necessities of life such as food. All of these continue to make it difficult for seniors to survive.

Not only is this government not providing seniors with the financial assistance they really need, the government is actually penalizing many seniors through a system that all too often utilizes clawbacks.

If the government deems it appropriate to cast a cloud of apprehension onto seniors when it reviews income trusts and to make it almost impossible for most seniors who really need financial assistance to obtain it, then it would be quite hypocritical for Liberal MPs to shut down further study in ensuring that GIS payments reaches their intended recipients.

Even if there are existing questions about implementation of costs, Canadian seniors deserve to see this bill pass second reading and go forward for further study. Indeed, if the government truly believes that Bill C-66 can be effective in helping those most in need of assistance with high energy costs, I do not see how the Liberals can vote against ensuring that seniors receive their due.

We all know that Bill C-66 sets out a specific eligibility criterion for seniors to receive the proposed energy rebate payment. Single seniors must be receiving the GIS in order to get their $125 in assistance. Of course, the Liberal government's generous offer of assistance with high energy costs becomes nothing more than a hollow promise when in fact hundreds of thousands of seniors miss out because they fail to fill out a form.

Again, while this government never misses an opportunity to collect money from Canadians, it just is not as enthusiastic about ensuring that Canadians get to keep what is rightfully theirs. This bill is an opportunity to make some amends.

However, I find it ironic that the particular assistance for those pensioners in need, those whom we are talking about today, is called a “guaranteed income supplement”. The National Advisory Council on Aging recently released a report entitled “Seniors on the Margins, Aging in Poverty in Canada”. In this report, the council states that there are more than 50,000 seniors who are eligible for the old age security pension but have not applied and more than 300,000 seniors who are eligible for the supplement but are not receiving it.

In 2001 a Toronto food bank raised the alarm when people aged 60 and over accounted for 10% of its users and only a minority of these individuals knew about and were receiving GIS and allowance benefits. They were living under very difficult circumstances. Once the rent was paid, the median amount remaining per week for all other expenses was a mere $34.65, yet the estimated average cost of food for one week in Toronto is over $40.

Forty per cent of those individuals were having difficulty paying for their medication every month and 27% were not taking their medication for lack of money.

That same year, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities issued a report to this House which concluded that there were more than 380,000 Canadian seniors who were eligible for this supplement but were not receiving it.

Incidentally, the title of the report was “The Guaranteed Income Supplement: The Duty to Reach All”. That was four years ago. I think I am being more than reasonable in suggesting that it is time for the government to start taking some action. Otherwise, the guaranteed income supplement is not really much of a guarantee, is it?

Eligible seniors must apply every single year to receive the supplement and we know there are many reasons why this application is not filled out. These reasons include not understanding the eligibility requirements or tax returns and educational pamphlets due to language barriers, functional illiteracy and failing eyesight or, quite simply, because of a lack of awareness that the GIS must be applied for on an annual basis.

The one common factor is that these seniors have very little money during their retirement years and are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Instead of enjoying their retirement in dignity and comfort, too many Canadian seniors are struggling for the basic necessities of life.

We have a duty to help—not neglect—the seniors who helped build this country. By ignoring the eligible seniors who are losing out on the financial assistance they have been guaranteed, we are also stripping away other rights and privileges they deserve. Many provinces have programs such as prescription drug plans, other income supplements, heating oil subsidies and home care assistance programs that are available only for those individuals receiving GIS. When an eligible Canadian senior does not receive his or her guaranteed income supplement, for whatever reason, he or she also loses out on other services that are essential to their quality of life.

Allowing eligible pensioners to receive their monthly GIS without having to make a yearly application is a measure that I support, not only out of compassion but also because it is simply the right thing to do for those in need. Bill C-301 would enable automatic processing of the guaranteed income supplement based on information from the Ministry of National Revenue, and let us face it, if we owe any money to the tax department, we know that they make sure they let us know in a big hurry.

I believe further attention must be paid to details to ensure that the GIS does in fact reach everyone to whom it is applicable. The retroactivity aspect of this bill also requires more research and definition. Who qualifies for retroactive payments? How far back should it apply? How will it be implemented? What, if any, restrictions will be in place? These are all important questions that deserve detailed scrutiny. I would very much like to see this bill go to committee so that it can be carefully examined and given the details it needs.

Giving the ministry authority to automatically provide GIS to those who deserve it does not necessarily provide the ministry with the capability to do the same. I am certain that this legislation can be reinforced and strengthened for the benefit of our seniors.

The need is unquestionable. As the Conservative critic for seniors' issues, I have consulted with seniors across Canada and I can say that unarguably there is a broad consensus from coast to coast to coast that seniors need to automatically receive any and all benefits as they become eligible.

Here are a few of the facts. OAS and CPP are the main sources of income for over two-thirds of seniors, and on average, 29% of the total income for seniors is derived from private employers' pensions and RRSPs, 27% from OAS, including GIS, and 20% from CPP and QPP. CPP benefits replace approximately 25% of income earned, for which a worker contributed to CPP and QPP, and 35% of seniors receive GIS.

As we can readily see, many seniors count on every dollar just to survive. Let us not deny seniors their rights. If the Liberals are truly concerned, as they have led us to believe, then let them as the government give us a royal recommendation and give us an opportunity to vote on Bill C-301. Let us put this to the House for a free vote. If the government truly cares about seniors, it will give seniors not lip service but action.

I ask that we as their elected representatives do what is right and necessary to ensure that those individuals who helped build our nation receive what is rightfully theirs.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it probably is 10%, and I realize the number is coming down, but it could be upward to 25% of those eligible for GIS and some of the other supplements?

How does the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain square the fact that the government may not allow us to vote on this considering that we need royal assent and considering that Bill C-66 leads us to believe the government is concerned about this group?

Oil Industry

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the oil companies are raking in the profits. In the third quarter alone, from July to September, Esso expects earnings of $652 million, up 20%. Petro-Canada's estimated earnings are $652 million, up 59%, and Shell's $516 million, up 14%.

Will the government finally assume its responsibilities and impose a minimum $500 million surtax on the oil companies to help consumers, who were left out of Bill C-66 and are struggling with the latest price hike, get through this crisis?

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find the last part of that question a little puzzling, given that the hon. member was at the meeting where I in fact outlined the opposition days. They will begin the week of November 14 and will go right to December 8. We are meeting our commitment and our obligation to provide seven opposition days during this supply period.

We will continue this afternoon with the second reading debate of Bill C-65, the street racing bill, followed by Bill C-64, the vehicle identification legislation, Bill S-37, respecting the Hague convention, Bill S-36, the rough diamonds bill, and reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals.

Tomorrow, we will start with any bills not completed today. As time permits, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-44, the transportation bill, and reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services legislation. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-52, respecting fisheries.

I expect that these bills will keep the House occupied into next week.

On Monday we will start with third reading of Bill C-37, the do not call legislation. I also hope to begin consideration of Bill C-66, the energy legislation, by midweek. We will follow this with Bill C-67, the surpluses bill.

Some time ago the House leaders agreed to hold a take note debate on the softwood lumber issue on the evening of Tuesday, October 25.

We also agreed on an urgent basis to have such a debate on the issue of the U.S. western hemisphere travel initiative on the evening of Monday, October 24.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1(1), I move:

That debates pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place as follows:

(1) on Monday, October 24, 2005, on the impact on Canada of the United States western hemisphere travel initiative;

(2) on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, on softwood lumber.

Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Labour Code

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening to Bill C-263, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code with respect to replacement workers during a strike action.

Before addressing this bill in particular, I believe it is important that we take the bill in the context of what has happened in this Parliament in times past.

In the 37th Parliament, a similar bill, Bill C-328, was debated and subsequently defeated. The reasons for that bill not passing then are relevant to our present discussions on Bill C-263 today, and that has to do with the amendment to the Canada Labour Code, part 1, in 1999.

Previous to that, HRDC undertook an extensive review that resulted in an amendment to the Canada Labour Code relating in part to our discussion today on the issue of replacement workers. The amendment to the Labour Code was precipitated by a task force report, chaired by Andrew Sims, entitled “Seeking a Balance”. I think the title speaks to what was attempted to be accomplished.

In that report, after extensive consultation with major stakeholders representing employers' interests, employees' interests, society's interests and the country as a whole, the majority recommended a provision in the Labour Code that would give employers flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, but would prevent them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.

That is the balance that has worked since 1999. We have not had any instance where there has been a problem. There has been only one case that was to be referred to the quasi-judicial body and it was resolved before it got there. If it has been working, we need to allow it to continue working and not try to fix it. The minority report recommended a prohibition of replacement workers in its entirety, which is similar to the provision this bill is proposing.

A complete prohibition of replacement workers would force the parties to bargain in a closed environment, one which would not account for the economic realities of the marketplace, especially as we face them today. There are economic considerations both for the employer's benefit and the employee's benefit that require not only the preservation of the property, but the preservation of the business and the economic realities that it faces.

We find that we are, in the federal case, much different from what they would be in a provincial case because this jurisdiction covers essential services across the country and it affects not only one province but it affects Canadians across the whole country.

The relevant portion of the current section of the labour code, section 94(2.1), which Bill C-263 is attempting to change, is a result of the majority report and provides that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

This amendment to the Labour Code was an attempt to deal fairly with the issue of replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction by accommodating the competing values and interests of employers, unions and employees. It attempts to strike a balance by prohibiting the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity.

It is not fair or accurate to say that it allows replacement workers in total. It allows them to the extent necessary and as long as it is not abused. So far employers have not been abusing that provision. It has been working. We know when there is a strike on. We know by the services, whether it is Bell Canada or the railways, that the service is being disrupted and the legitimate purposes of strike continues as the parties attempt to work things out. That must be preserved.

What is being proposed is significantly different from the solution that was reached by the stakeholders in the current Labour Code. The bill seeks to undo the substantial contribution of literally scores of stakeholders over a period of years and the subsequent full debate in the House of two bills, Bill C-66 and Bill C-19, which led to the amendments resulting in our current Labour Code.

I empathize with the intent of the bill, that any time the duties of anyone on strike are performed by someone else, the effectiveness of a strike is diluted and the bargaining position of the striking employees is weakened. Strike action is a valuable tool for employees who wish to bring resolution in the collective bargaining process, and the employees ought not to face punitive measures for taking action to which they are legally entitled. This attempts to balance that right and allows the provision for an unfair labour practice to be taken to a higher level.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the right of workers to organize democratically, to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. The Conservative Party is also committed to working with both unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to continue developing dispute settlement mechanisms to minimize or avoid work disruptions to the benefit of both employers and employees.

In conclusion I would like to refer once more to the title of the Sims report, “Seeking a Balance”. After all was said and heard in previous Parliaments by countless witnesses on both sides of the issue, I believe they sought that balance and attained it. The balance exists and is now incorporated in the current part I of the Labour Code.

Many interests have been taken into account beyond just the interests of the employers and the employees. The report capsulized that our approach has been to seek balance between labour and management, between social and economic values, between variable instruments of labour policy, between rights and responsibilities, between individuals and democratic group rights and between the public interest and free collective bargaining.

We seek a stable structure within which free collective bargaining will work. We want legislation that is sound, enactable and lasting. We see the too frequent swinging of the political pendulum as being counterproductive to sound labour relations. We looked for reforms that would allow labour and management to adjust and thrive in the increasingly global workplace. That is the essence of it.

If Parliament wishes to re-examine this issue of replacement workers as part of a larger study, I believe considerable interest would be generated among the stakeholders to provide for a full and complete debate on this matter. That type of comprehensive debate and discussion cannot take place in the limited time we have in the House in the context of a private member's bill.

Without significant contributions from all of the affected stakeholders, I recommend that members of this House not support this bill in its present form. I agree with the previous comments, if it is fixed leave it that way.