Bill C-14 (Historical)

Fairness at the Pumps Act

An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act

This enactment provides for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for contraventions to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. It also provides for higher maximum fines for offences committed under each of those Acts and creates new offence provisions for repeat offenders.
The enactment also amends the Weights and Measures Act to require that traders cause any device that they use in trade or have in their possession for trade to be examined within the periods prescribed by regulation. That new requirement is to be enforced through a new offence provision. The enactment also provides the Minister of Industry with the authority to designate persons who are not employed in the federal public administration as inspectors to perform certain examinations.

Fairness at the Pumps Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 2008, the former minister of industry, the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North stood in the House and responded to a question. The question had to do with media reports that an alarmingly high percentage of gas pumps across the country were not accurately measuring the volume of gas being pumped into the vehicles of Canadian consumers.

Even more troubling was that consumers were getting the short end of the nozzle. Three out of every five times the gas pump measured inaccurately, it was the motorist who was getting ripped off. Clearly something had to be done. Gas pumps are intricate machines. Consumers cannot tell if a pump is not operating properly unless it is widely off the mark. If the machine is over-charging consumers, for example, who is to know and who is to compel the retailer to fix the faulty pump if that retailer is unwilling to correct the error or does not even realize it exists?

The problem should also be considered at a deeper level. Commercial transactions, the millions of exchanges between buyers and sellers that take place every day in our country, are made on the basis of trust. The seller sells the agreed-upon quantity at a fair price. The buyer makes the agreed-upon payment in a timely manner.

When that social and financial trust, that fundamental expectation shared by buyers and sellers, comes into question it does harm to the entire system of commercial exchange on which our country's prosperity and ongoing growth is based. If that trust is gradually and perniciously eroded in one important industry, the entire system can fall under a shadow of doubt and suspicion. Obviously something had to be done and thankfully it is being done.

On that day 24 months ago, the minister told the House he had taken two immediate steps to bolster Canadians' trust in that vital system of commercial exchange. First, he instructed officials in his department to increase the number of gas pump inspections to be undertaken over the course of that summer, the summer of 2008. Second, he sent letters to all Canadian gas retailers informing them of the stepped-up inspection campaign and asking them to co-operate fully with government inspectors.

That is not all. My hon. colleague pledged he would take two additional steps. He would speed up the government's review of the laws that govern gasoline pumps to make sure those laws give the Government of Canada the authority to levy stiff fines on retailers whose pumps cheat Canadian consumers. And he would take measures to ensure that the number and frequency of inspections at gas pumps were permanently increased to make sure unscrupulous and negligent retailers did not resume overcharging their customers once the public furor over the scandalous behaviour died away.

We promised to take further action to protect Canadian consumers then and we are going to deliver on that promise right now.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead off debate on Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act. Talk about truth in advertising. The bill would provide Canadians with exactly what its title indicates, fairness at the pumps. It would do so by amending the two laws that govern the use of retail measuring devices such as gasoline pumps, the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act.

To be precise, the bill would give the force of law to three specific changes that have been carefully designed to protect Canadian consumers and deter unscrupulous or negligent behaviour among retailers. One, the bill would sanction mandatory inspection frequencies for measuring devices used by retailers. Two, the bill would authorize the Minister of Industry to designate qualified authorized service providers to carry out inspections on measuring devices. Three, the bill would set down stiffer fines that could be imposed under the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and would put in place a new graduated system of administrative monetary penalties.

Each of these actions would be a tremendous advance in the way we as Canadians protect ourselves as consumers and make sure our retailers operate fairly and honestly.

Why do I believe so strongly in the merit of these new provisions? Let me go through each one in detail and show the House exactly what I mean.

The first change set down in the fairness at the pumps act is mandatory inspection frequencies. Mandatory inspection frequencies is a complicated way of saying that the new act would amend the Weights and Measures Act to instruct businesses in a variety of specific industries to have their measuring devices inspected regularly. The Government of Canada would use its regulatory authority under Bill C-14 to put these mandatory inspection frequencies in place. Once established, these compulsory inspections would apply to virtually all companies that rely on measuring devices as part of their daily business. Gasoline retailers as well as retailers of home heating oil would be required to have their devices inspected every two years. That would also be the mandatory inspection frequency for all devices used in what is known as the downstream petroleum sector, for example, loading rack meters used to fill petroleum transportation trucks.

That same two-year inspection frequency would apply to measuring devices used by businesses in the dairy industry, enterprises in mining and metals, and companies in the grain and field crop sector, other than measuring instruments used in grain elevators. That does not mean the new bill would exempt grain elevators. Businesses and agricultural co-operatives would have to make sure measuring devices in grain elevators were inspected every year. One year would also be the mandatory inspection frequency for propane dispensers, meters in the dairy sector, measuring devices in the fishing and fish-products industry and in logging and forestry.

The fairness at the pumps act would also cover businesses in the retail food sector. These businesses would have to have their scales and other kinds of measuring instruments regularly inspected.

While this is a lengthy list of industries, companies and frequencies, it is by no means a finite one. Should Canadians deem it necessary, Bill C-14 would enable the Government of Canada to expand its area of authority to include the measuring devices of businesses that operate in other industries and sectors as well.

At the same time, I should point out that any future decision to extend the application of the act would not be taken unilaterally. Representatives of the federal government would consult closely with business owners and operators in any industry sector that we decided must be included under regulations developed under authority of the fairness at the pumps act. That way we would make absolutely sure that any new demands we make on retailers were realistic, fair and consistent.

We have taken that kind of inclusive, respectful approach from the start. Officials at Measurement Canada consulted carefully and thoroughly with industry sector representatives immediately impacted by the bill we are considering today. As a matter of fact, these discussions have been ongoing, and we accelerated them to respond as quickly and as reliably as possible to the troubling situation uncovered by the media reports I spoke of at the beginning of my remarks.

Retailers have been with us every step of the way because they realize the importance of the bill. They know their credibility is at stake. They know that when their reputation as honest, fair businesses and business people takes a hit among Canadians, so do their prospects for continued success and prosperity. They also know that the best way for their businesses to maintain the trust of consumers is to have their measuring devices and instruments undergo regular inspections.

Granted the businesses and the industries I have pointed out would have to pay fees for those inspections, but these costs would be determined by the marketplace and are already understood and accepted as facts of life by businesses in these industries. In fact I anticipate many companies would take advantage of inspections to have service and repair work performed on the measuring devices being inspected.

Of course, inspections do not occur on their own, and the ramped-up regime of mandatory inspection frequencies made possible by Bill C-14 would certainly not appear miraculously. We would need more trained inspectors to make sure we could meet the stringent requirements set out in the fairness at the pumps act.

That point brings me to the second change outlined in the bill. The bill would authorize the Minister of Industry to designate authorized service providers to carry out inspections of measuring devices. These inspectors could be independent professionals or employees of companies. Either way we would guarantee those designated to carry out this important work under the new bill were up to the task. We would establish conditions that would make the organizations authorized to perform inspection work accountable. We would only designate organizations and their technicians that met a stringent and ongoing qualification process.

These authorized service providers would be responsible for ensuring that appropriate test equipment and inspection procedures approved by Measurement Canada were used. Individuals permitted to perform inspections would be required to pass mandatory training, which includes theoretical as well as practical evaluations. Annual assessments would be part of the monitoring process for authorized service providers.

In instances where responsibilities were not fulfilled, the minister could suspend or revoke their designations, an action that would severely impact their ability to conduct business. Measurement Canada has successfully piloted a similar program for initial inspections performed under the Weights and Measures Act. Assessments of this approach demonstrate that the quality of the work done by authorized service providers and their recognized technicians is in the 96% satisfaction range.

Even though Bill C-14 would see authorized service providers play an increasingly important and meaningful role in protecting consumers, Measurement Canada inspectors would remain leading forces in the field. They would perform independent inspections to assess the compliance of industries under the new act. They would respond to public complaints of companies suspected of measuring inaccurately and they would be solely responsible for taking actions to enforce the law when offences under the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act were identified.

I should also point out that this approach is not entirely new. For many years, Measurement Canada has employed authorized service providers to carry out inspections under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act.

The bill before us today would make it possible for us to expand the reach of non-government inspectors to include all of the industries subject to the Weights and Measures Act.

Like the involvement of service providers, fines and penalties for those who violate the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act are not entirely new.

What is new is the amount of these court-imposed fines and the nature of those penalties.

That brings me to the third and final change set out in the fairness at the pumps act.

To be precise, Bill C-14 would increase the fines that can be imposed under the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act. The bill would also put in place a new graduated system of administrative monetary penalties.

Let us consider the fines, first.

The fairness at the pumps act would increase the court imposed fines for the variety of the offences listed in the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. Fines under the two acts would rise from $1,000 to $10,000 for minor offences and from $5,000 to $25,000 for major offences. The bill would also introduce a new fine of $50,000 to be levied against those who repeatedly violate the acts.

Why have we chosen to make such substantial increases in the amounts of these fines? The answer is straightforward. The costs of gasoline, electricity, food and other measured products have risen dramatically and they are expected to keep on rising for the foreseeable future. It is only proper that we increase the penalties we impose on those who violate the law if we want the penalties to have a deterrent effect. After all, if an unscrupulous retailer can make money by cheating consumers even if he or she is fined, what good is the fine?

To levy fines under the two existing laws, the federal government must prosecute alleged offenders. However, a process as complex as a criminal proceeding and a punishment as severe as those listed under the new act are not always the most appropriate ways to deal with all those who violate the law.

Some contraventions of the law may call for less stern penalties. It is common sense. That is why we have introduced what are known as administrative monetary penalties. The fairness at the pumps act would give federal authorities the discretion to use a graduated system of penalties to punish offenders: monetary penalties, which would not lead to a criminal record for those who commit relatively minor offences; and criminal prosecution for those who commit serious offences or who are repeat offenders.

Enforcement action, such as the use of administrative monetary penalties, would not be abused. These measures would be used as part of a graduated enforcement structure that would include trader education and the use of warnings when appropriate. It is not the government's intention to punish the good players who demonstrate that they have taken appropriate steps to provide accurate measurement.

Like the joint public-private approach for inspections, this graduated system of administrative monetary penalties is not entirely new. Several departments and agencies that enforce regulations rely on administrative monetary penalties; large departments such as Transport Canada and smaller yet active and vital agencies such as the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Those are the three advances proposed by Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act. Mandatory inspection frequencies to measure devises used by retailers, authorized service providers to carry out inspections of those measuring devices, stiffer fines and a new graduated system of administrative monetary penalties. They are reasonable steps taken in partnership with industry. They are a practical response to a problem we committed to resolve and, most important, they are a fair deal for consumers, retailers and all Canadians.

These changes are a fair deal for consumers because they would put in place an inspection regime that would make it possible for a host of qualified inspectors to root out inaccurate measuring devices. Measurement Canada estimates that the number of annual inspections of gas pumps alone would increase from 8,000 to approximately 65,000. That is taking action, that is keeping our commitments to Canadians and that is protecting consumers.

These changes are a fair deal for retailers because they would protect honest retailers from being associated with and harmed by the unscrupulous practices of the minority of retailers who willingly or unwillingly operate inaccurate measuring devices.

I am sure my hon. friends would agree with me that the overwhelming majority of retailers in our country are fair and honest businesspeople. Their businesses are tainted when companies in their industry engage in unscrupulous behaviour. They want us to deal with illegal and negligent behaviour by retailers just as much as consumers do. In fact, their representatives told us that businesses were willing to pay the fees associated with an increased number and frequency of inspections if these inspections will expose and punish negligent and unscrupulous retailers and safeguard the integrity of their industries.

These changes are a fair deal for all Canadians because, although the fairness at the pumps act is a direct product of inaccurate gas pumps, the bill would extend the reach of inspections enforcement beyond gas retailers to include companies that rely on measuring devices to conduct their day-to-day business. That way, the resulting law will benefit all Canadians.

The changes are also a fair deal for all Canadians because they would impose minimal costs on the federal government, and this is important. A report published by the International Organization of Legal Metrology in 2003 used Canadian device compliance rates to estimate dollars at risk for each type of device. When these figures were related to inspection activities, it was found that for each dollar spent on inspections, $11 of inaccurate measurement was corrected. With rising commodity costs, this is a return on investment I am sure all Canadians can support and just one more reason that I am convinced Canadians will support this bill.

Consumer protection is a priority for this government. Once this bill receives royal assent, the process for implementation will require that regulatory amendments be processed and that there be a capacity to have these inspections take place. These regulations will be put in place as soon as possible after royal assent.

Measurement Canada has been building capacity for implementation in the eight sectors that we are talking about here today. Over the coming months, Measurement Canada will be educating traders as to their responsibilities once the bill is enacted, as well as ramping up the authorized service provider capacity to implement.

I am also confident that this House will support Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act. I have given members three powerful reasons to do just that. I have outlined clearly how this bill is a fair deal to all, and yet perhaps the most important reason to support this bill is the principle that lies at its heart: Canadian consumers should get what they pay for, no more and certainly no less. What could be fairer than that?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a nice, typical Conservative Potemkin village, just a facade to hide inaction or deeper problems that are influencing the high variability of oil prices.

I have a couple of questions. First, I would like the hon. member to tell me how much each driver in Canada will save as a result of this necessary recalibration of a small percentage of gasoline pumps.

Second, why is the government not going ahead with the fine Liberal idea to try to control the variability of retail gasoline prices in this country, which was the idea of creating an office of petroleum price information. which the current government did not proceed with after it took power in 2006?

It seems to me that information is power and if we really do care about consumers and we want to give consumers power, we do not just want to indulge in a one-time recalibration, if I may use that word again, of a few offending gasoline pumps.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the small number of Canadians who the member says this change will affect, I want to point out that the number we are talking about in terms of the cost of this inaccuracy just at the gas pumps alone, and, of course, there are several industries that this bill touches on, is $20 million per year. I would say that is not an insignificant number, as the hon. member suggests it might be.

Several proposals that were put forward by the Liberal Party would have had an impact on gas prices over the last few years, but perhaps the most significant one was the proposal that it ran as the centrepiece of its last election campaign which was the carbon tax. That would have been devastating for Canadian consumers and businesses who purchase gasoline and virtually anything else that they would purchase.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the government for bringing in the bill.

The fact is, however, that under the Weights and Measures Act the rollback of odometers in the auto industry or just in the country would be covered. I am just wondering why the government would have neglected to mention that in its press releases.

I would think that increasing the penalities for businesses and people who replace, rollback or disconnect odometers and sell cars as vehicles with less mileage on them than they have would be as big an issue or a greater issue than what the member is trying to solve here. I applaud him for trying to solve the issue of measurements as far as gasoline is concerned but what about the odometer rollbacks?

The penalities that he is applying in this bill would also apply to odometer rollbacks, which is a positive change. Why is the government not recognizing this? Why is it not being included in its press release?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a whole variety of different things that governments can do to improve the lives of Canadians, and we are always looking for ways to make further improvements, but in this case we are focused very seriously on the measurement of products that Canadian consumers purchase.

In terms of what this bill would do regarding measuring devices, what we are looking at here is largely a problem with the calibration of devices, not necessarily intentional, although messing around with the devices is part of the problem, but what we are talking about are devices that are not inspected properly or, if they are inspected and found out to be wrong, they tend to get corrected when the problem is to the detriment of the retailer but not necessarily to the detriment of the consumer.

We see twice as many pumps that are inaccurate in their measurements to the detriment of the consumer as we see to the detriment of the retailer. Obviously, it is a very significant problem.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bill and what it is attempting to do.

The member mentioned the calibration of devices. A bigger problem in my riding is the problem caused by the ambient temperature compensation because temperatures are much more extreme in our area of the country. Is the government taking action to deal with that problem in relation to the calibration of devices?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an issue that has been raised before. I know that John Manley looked at this when he was industry minister under the previous Liberal government and, with the advice of experts, he decided to stick with the global standard in terms of temperature control.

However, we always welcome input from hon. members on ways to even further strengthen legislation. If the hon. member wants to get more information, pass on more information or have a conversation with me afterward, he is welcome to do so.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly two years since this issue was raised and about two years since the Conservatives promised to do something about it. Better late than never, I guess.

I have a question. In northwestern and northeastern Ontario, while occasionally there may be small losses to consumers, our really big problem is the huge discrepancy in gas prices. Would it not be better to focus on the 20% or 25% disparity rather than the couple of percent disparity until we fix the problem with gas gouging in the north?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with a couple of the assertions by the hon. member.

First, in terms of the timeframe, we are talking about two years and, with a situation like this, one of the most important things we can do is get it right. It is pretty technical in terms of the aspects that we are looking at. It is very important to consult with stakeholders, consumer groups and with the retailers because we do want to get this right.

One of the things about this legislation is that the impact is not just on consumers. The impact is on retailers who operate by the rules, play by the rules, ensure they maintain their equipment and are hurt by maybe the negligent, or worse, unscrupulous behaviour of other retailers in a small group of them.

The consultation process is critically important but the hon. member is in a party where he will never have to do the homework. His party can just get up and ask questions about things and criticize.

The gas price issue is something the Competition Bureau has looked at several times over the years. This government is the first government in Canadian history to take significant action against a group of retailers. We saw that over the course of the last couple of years with significant legal action and getting some convictions of retailers who were acting in consort with each other to set prices.

Again, we do welcome ideas from members of all parties to further strengthen the system.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-14, the so-called fairness at the pumps act. To paraphrase the Bard, the bill is full of sound and fury, or should I say full of a certain amount of self-righteousness, signifying nothing or very little.

The issue of gasoline pricing has been at the top of the minds of Canadians for many years. However, it appears to be an issue the Government of Canada has largely forgotten about. Bill C-14 proposes to amend the rules regarding retail gasoline pump calibration, such that retailers will be legally required to have their pumps inspected regularly.

This is the response, two years after the Prime Minister made an election promise to help Canadians with higher fuel prices. As all hon. members are aware, during the 2008 election, gasoline prices spiked in some cities by more than 12¢ per litre, and then the Prime Minister was forced to make an off-the-cuff policy announcement. Back then the government promised to crack down on inaccurate pumps. It took almost two years to finally get action from the government.

This delay begs the question, how important are consumers to the government? With all the pomp and circumstance of a major government announcement, the Minister of Industry suggested that the government was coming to the aid of Canadians all across the country who were being ripped off by greedy gasoline retailers. Then the minister went on to explain that only 6% of pumps were actually inaccurate, and in 2% of the 6%, they actually favoured the consumer.

Is this the best that we can expect from the government? If the government were truly concerned with helping Canadians at the pumps, it could turn its attention to any number of issues, including automatic temperature compensation, refinery closures, and the anemic state of competition at the refinery level.

I would like to take a moment to speak specifically about Bill C-14. Bill C-14 will attempt to solve the problem of inaccurate gasoline pumps by shifting the onus of inspection from the government to individual retailers. The bill will also create an administrative monetary policy regime as a means to enforce these new regulations. The bill will also codify the practice of licensing private inspectors for the purposes of performing these inspections.

The Liberal Party has a number of concerns with the bill. First, most gasoline retailers are small, independent businesses, which in fact operate on very small margins, as we know. The additional cost of these inspections may very well hurt their bottom line and force some of them out of business.

We also have concerns with the private inspector regime. Right now, Measurement Canada uses a blend of both private licensed inspectors and government employed inspectors. This allows retailers to have their pumps checked by accredited inspectors, while allowing Measurement Canada to continue verifying the calibration of pumps on its own.

In switching the onus of inspection to the retailer, the demand for private inspectors will increase drastically. I and many of my Liberal colleagues are concerned that retailers in northern and rural communities may not have access to the private inspectors required to ensure that they can stay within the letter and the spirit of the law. This is a critical point.

Pumps in rural and remote communities are often not the newest, best pumps. These are the pumps that are most likely to lose calibration. Can we really expect private inspectors to set up shop in these communities to ensure that these pumps are inspected regularly when the market would be so small, or would these retailers face much higher costs to bring in non-government inspectors?

There is another concern with this new provision of the Weights and Measures Act. The amendments made to section 15 of the Weights and Measures Act do not just apply to gasoline retailers. In fact, they apply to “every trader who uses a device in trade”.

This means that everyone from gasoline retailers to a local deli will be affected by these new regulations. Without seeing these proposed regulations, we have no concept of what burden is being placed on thousands of other retailers and businesses across the country.

If one stops to think about the number of scales or pumps we encounter in trade, it quickly becomes apparent how much commercial and industrial activity will be affected by these legislative changes. All of this to correct a problem that by the minister's own numbers affects only 6% of pumps in Canada.

Anyone who has spoken to gasoline retailers will say that gasoline pumps are very hard to tamper with. In fact, the tight inventory control regimes that these retailers utilize make it very difficult for these retailers to even consider tampering with their pumps. They actually check their pumps often. It is in their best interest to do so.

The government is also not being honest about how long it will take for this bill to have any effect on the ground. With the summer break approaching, I think it is fair to assume that this bill will not receive royal assent until fall at the earliest. On top of that, the government will have to bring forward the associated regulations, which will take months as well. Even after all that effort, there will still be a phase-in period. It will take time to train and accredit enough inspectors to enforce the law.

This means that it will take years before this regime is up and running. The Liberal Party believes firmly in consumer protection and any measure that will ensure gasoline pump accuracy is a good measure in principle. However, I fear that this bill is designed to be nothing more than political cover. Let us be perfectly clear. This bill does nothing to help lower gasoline prices or to encourage competition in the gasoline industry in Canada.

In fact, when it comes to higher gasoline prices, the Prime Minister himself has said that there is nothing the government can do to help Canadians. In the three elections since the Prime Minister has been leader of the Conservative Party, he has made no less than three specific commitments to help Canadians with ever-increasing fuel prices. This is the first that the government has followed through on.

In 2004, lest we forget, the Conservatives promised to eliminate the GST on gasoline prices above 85 ¢ a litre when they came to power. I do not think that happened. In 2008 they promised to lower the diesel excise tax. I do not believe that happened either. I think the real reason behind this legislation being introduced right now is so that the government can pretend to be helping consumers while they complain that prices are rising.

A government interested in helping Canadians combat high gasoline prices would be examining the Competition Act and the state of competition at the refinery level in this country, among other things. Even as prices rise and the industry claims that supply is down, refineries continue to be closed. This is a problem for the industry.

A government concerned about high fuel prices would examine automated temperature compensation so that its full implications to consumers could be explored. Automated temperature compensation means that the volume of gasoline pumped is automatically compensated as if the outside temperature was 15°C. This makes no sense in a country where the average annual temperature is only 6°C.

If the government were serious about helping Canadians, it would be looking at these issues and not parading around legislation that is going to do nothing to help Canadians burdened by high fuel prices. I also have serious concerns with some of the unintended effects that this bill may have on other industries.

For these reasons, I am looking forward to the opportunity to examine and amend the bill at committee and to hear from a variety of witnesses about how we can ensure we protect consumers without putting an excessive burden on Canadian industry.

However, I have concerns that yet again the government is using consumer protection legislation to try and change the channel or as political cover. We have seen this time and time again with legislation designed to protect consumers, for example, the Consumer Products Safety Act, which died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament last December. None of this legislation has been seen all the way through to assent. Unfortunately, a fairly common pattern with the Conservative government.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the Liberal Party is not against measures designed to protect consumers. However, we have serious concerns with this bill, its unintended effects, and the very real possibility that the government is using this to obscure the real issues related to fuel pricing in Canada.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for giving such a good synopsis of Bill C-14.

As a northern Ontario member of Parliament, I have a concern about how this bill would affect rural Canada. It would really be very expensive to get an inspector at a small gas station when we consider the volume that goes through its pumps. When one is a small gas pump operator, getting an inspector in can take up a big chunk of profit.

One of the concerns of small independents is that they have to bring in an independent inspector, not a government inspector, to inspect the pumps. To bring someone in to inspect the pumps, usually from a large centre like Toronto or Montreal, a rural company would have to pay for the cost of travel, accommodation, and a number of different expenses. Someone does not just drop in. The inspector knows what is going on so the element of surprise is pretty well gone if we are looking to catch anyone. There are not that many small independent operators who are doing anything wrong. It is a very small number.

With all the added expenses, how would Bill C-14 guarantee that small independent operators would not get squeezed out of the market leaving us with only large producers in the market, making a tough market even tougher for rural Canadians?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a very good point. I could not have said it any better. There are absolutely no provisions in Bill C-14 for the situation that he described; that is, the retailers in small communities, particularly those in rural Canada and up north where my colleague comes from.

Even though the government likes to say it is concerned about the consumer, and it certainly pretends to care about rural and regional communities, it is very clear that it has not done its own analysis of the consequences of Bill C-14 on retailers in many of the small communities that they represent. The fact is that Bill C-14 contains absolutely nothing.

Bill C-14 is just an example of the government trying to play catch-up after it reneged on what it promised concerning the elimination of the GST above a certain price and also reducing the diesel excise tax. The government never did any of that, and now it is panicking and trying to play catch-up.

This is just like the broadband area. The Conservatives have been in power for four years and they have not done anything. Now that we in the Liberal Party have announced that we are going to do something to connect all Canadians, the Minister of Industry is out making emergency announcements to show that he understands it as well.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct some of the facts. The member seems to suggest that the government should do something about the high price of gasoline. I am certainly with him on that point. The government should do something on that issue.

The fact is the Liberals were in power for 13 years and the Liberal member for Pickering—Scarborough East consistently attacked his government because it ignored the problem. I think there were 125 studies done over the years on high gas prices in our country. What was concluded out of all those studies was we had to change the Competition Act. Under the existing Competition Act, retailers that were price fixing, as we termed it, were not legally guilty of doing anything under the current act. The answer is to change the act.

The Liberals were in power for 13 years and they did not change the act. The member for Pickering—Scarborough East, who was his government's critic at the time, criticized his government. I will be interested to hear what that member has to say when he speaks to the bill later today. It is fine for the Liberal Party to criticize the government. However, it was in government for 13 years and it did nothing to reduce the high price of gasoline.

We know that having a price review board, such as is the case in the Maritimes, does not work. It simply adjusts the price to the highest figure. We need to change the Competition Act.

Does he agree with the member for Pickering—Scarborough East's consistent view on this matter?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we, as a party, are very fortunate to our colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East, who has always been an unabashed and strong defender of the consumer. He has done some great things in the time he has been in Parliament. I am sure he will very adequately address the comments of the member.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up ambient temperature. As he said, 15° is nowhere near reality in the far north where my riding is. It hurts those communities and I hope the government will take action.

The member accurately listed a bunch of instances where the government had renegued on its promises to reduces taxes on gas and reduce gas prices. One he did not mention was the fact that when we were in government, we put in place the petroleum monitoring agency. We did actually take action, in spite of the comments of the member from the NDP.

Unfortunately, when the Conservative government came in, it ceased to fund that agency, which could have had great scrutiny on retailers, refineries, et cetera. It could have made a lot of major changes in gas prices and it was totally disbanded by the government. Does he have any comment on that?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Yukon brought that point up about a Liberal initiative that was very important during the time we were in power.

I will also pick up on the point he made, which is the government talks about it being a friend of the consumer and yet its actual actions belie what it says. It came out with some great statements about what it would do and never did anything. It is sheer hypocrisy on its part to today pretend that it will do something important for the consumer when in fact it has renegued on many of its promises with respect to the consumer at the pumps.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very curious that this act increases the penalties under the Weights and Measures Act, which also includes odometer rollbacks across the country. Odometer rollbacks have to be a bigger problem and a larger cost to the consumer, with people disconnecting, replacing or rolling odometers back and selling those vehicles as having less mileage, basically defrauding consumers of thousands and thousands of dollars every year. Penalities have been so minuscule that people have been violating the law. They are happy to pay the small penalty associated with it.

The government introduced this bill, which would increase the penalties drastically. When it sends out a press release, it talks about fairness at the pumps. The headline could have read, “Government takes action on odometer rollbacks”.

Does the member have any comments about why the government would be hiding such good news?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on why odometers were not mentioned specifically in the bill. I hope the member for Elmwood—Transcona will keep plugging away at that issue.

However, after his presentation, the hon. member from the government, when asked the question about how much this would save consumers, said about $20 million. What he did not say was how much it would cost in extra money to put in place the new legislation and the inspectors who would come from it.

I would like to ask the Conservative government what the net benefit will be. When people have to pay the extra taxes to cover the extra inspectors, I am doubtful we will be that much further ahead.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 is obviously important, but frankly, only relatively so. For the next 20 minutes, I will try to clearly explain the Bloc's position. I may not go into every detail of Bill C-14, but I will describe the Bloc's concerns about the Competition Act and the fact that successive governments have done nothing. And, of course, I will describe the Bloc's response to this bill, which is Bill C-452. I will also briefly explain a comprehensive strategy for dealing with increases in the price of petroleum products.

As the parliamentary secretary said earlier in his speech, the government introduced its bill to protect itself and consumers against negligent retailers. “Negligent” is putting it rather mildly. There will obviously be mandatory inspections, but they will be much more frequent. The government is talking about increasing the number of inspections from 8,000 to 65,000. The bill would also authorize the minister to appoint or designate professionals to conduct these inspections. In addition, there would obviously be fines that could be quite high, especially for repeat offenders. Of course, the government says that it is doing all this to protect the consumer.

Has the government, as usual, conducted an impact study of its bill to compare it to what is being done to manage or monitor gas prices at the pump? Naturally, there will be costs associated with all that. Inspections are not free, of course, and retailers will likely be stuck with the bill in the end. I imagine that retailers' costs will go up substantially, all to save consumers about $20 million, which is the estimated difference between the prices. That may seem like a lot of money, and it is, but how many litres and how many consumers are we talking about? Are all the costs of implementing Bill C-14 really worth it? I do have to say, though, that when consumers are hurt, it is our duty to try to make things right.

So I will say right away that we support Bill C-14 in principle. But it does not directly address collusion problems, like the ones that recently came to light in Quebec, nor does it effectively prevent sudden gas price hikes.

The Bloc Québécois still believes that the government needs to work toward offering an effective response to rising gas prices by passing the Bloc's Bill C-452. This bill would strengthen the Competition Act and create a petroleum monitoring agency.

The Competition Act still does not allow the Competition Bureau to conduct an inquiry of its own accord. It has to wait until it receives a complaint before launching an inquiry. The Bloc Québécois also wants the government to establish a petroleum monitoring agency to scrutinize gas prices and to deal with attempts to collude and unjustified price hikes.

According to tools devised to measure how much this is costing consumers, the suggested figure is $20 million.

According to the April 2009 gas consumption data that I found, that $20 million corresponds to one-tenth of a cent per litre of gas purchased in Canada. The cost of gas varies from 90¢ to $1, but it always includes a decimal that people rarely look at. However, oil companies adjust their prices to a tenth of a cent, which represents an amount much higher than the $20 million per year those tools suggest.

Overall, a one-cent difference adds up to $200 million per year, not the $20 million they are trying to correct for.

The Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-14 at first reading on April 15, 2010, claiming that it will protect Canadian consumers from inaccurate measurement when they buy gas. The proposed bill would make retailers more accountable by imposing regular mandatory inspections of measuring devices, such as gas pumps.

The penalties that the courts can impose under the Weights and Measures Act will increase from $1,000 to $10,000 for minor offences and from $5,000 to $25,000 for major offences. For consumers who feel they have been wronged, this might lead them to believe they have increased protection thanks to their hallowed and benevolent government. This is just more smoke and mirrors to trick consumers who believe they are being protected from additional costs, when the government is not doing enough to protect them when it comes to gas prices.

I am going to skip the other possible fines, because I would like to get straight to the point. The new section 29.28 in the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act allows the Minister of Industry to disclose the names and addresses of people convicted under this legislation.

If the retailer can show that he did due diligence and did everything to ensure the accuracy of his equipment, his name will likely not appear on the list of those whose equipment is defective in terms of measuring the volume. We need to determine how this measure will be applied, because any retailer could wind up on that list, even by mistake.

A clarification has been made to establish that violations of this legislation are not actually offences and therefore not subject to the Criminal Code. The individual would not have a criminal record following a conviction.

If convictions are frequent, can they be subject to a prison sentence, in cases of repeat offences, of less than two years, since they are not criminal offences? Once again, the provinces and Quebec are left to pay for this. With respect to offences, recidivism and imprisonment, Quebec will have to pay, no matter what it costs to send someone to prison for less than two years.

The Bloc's main concern is that every time the price of gas skyrockets, the government invariably says the same thing, that its hands are tied because the Competition Bureau has found that there is no collusion between the oil companies to set the price of gas and therefore there is no problem.

It is always the same answer. It is never the oil companies' fault and when the Competition Bureau conducts an investigation it always comes to the same conclusion: there is no collusion.

It would be rather surprising to see representatives of all the major oil companies openly sitting around the same table at a big restaurant. It is not likely to happen. It may be more difficult, but there must be a will to find a solution.

The Competition Act has major shortcomings that prevent the Competition Bureau from initiating an investigation. Any investigation has to be requested by the department or initiated as the result of complaints. On May 5, 2003, when Konrad von Finckenstein, the then commissioner of competition and the current chair of the CRTC, appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, he pointed out the shortcomings in the Competition Act. He said:

...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.

There was some borrowing from Bill C-452, and equivalent measures were put in place as part of the January 27, 2009 budget implementation act. However, these new provisions still do not give the Competition Bureau the authority to investigate on its own initiative. A complaint is still required before an investigation can begin.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concluded its study on gas prices by making two recommendations to the government: create a petroleum monitoring agency and toughen up the Competition Act.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology also spelled out the changes it wanted to see made to the Competition Act. The Bloc Québécois was adamant that the government respect the committee's recommendations.

In October 2005, shortly before the election, the Liberal government finally agreed with the Bloc's arguments and, as part of its federal plan to help alleviate the impact of high gas prices, introduced Bill C-19 to amend the Competition Act. It strengthened this act by raising the maximum fine for conspiracy from $10 million to $25 million and broadening the Competition Bureau's authority to investigate, which would have allowed it to inquire into an entire industry sector.

However, the government bill ignored these recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology: reverse the burden of proof to deal with agreements among competitors and to determine whether there is a conspiracy—the objective of this was to make it the responsibility of the party wishing to enter into an agreement to prove the ultimate social value of that agreement—as well as allow the Competition Tribunal to award damages to parties affected by restrictive trade practices, where applicable.

The Bloc Québécois had proposed numerous amendments along these lines.

Bill C-452 would address the shortcomings in the measures put in place under the January 2009 budget implementation act, Bill C-10

The Competition Bureau needs true investigative powers. Bill C-452 would give the Competition Bureau the authority to carry out real investigations into the industry, if warranted, on its own initiative, something it is not currently permitted to do because it must receive a complaint first.

If this legislation were passed, the Competition Bureau would be much better equipped to take on businesses that try to use their dominant position in the market to fleece consumers.

We could implement a comprehensive strategy to deal with price hikes of petroleum products. For some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been pressuring the government to take action to address the rising cost of petroleum products.

We recommend a three-pronged approach. First, we must bring the industry into line. That is the goal of Bill C-452, which gives teeth to the Competition Act. We should also set up a true monitoring agency for the oil sector.

Second, the industry must make a contribution. With soaring energy prices and oil company profits, the economy as a whole is suffering while the oil companies are profiting. The least we can do to limit their negative impact is to ensure that they pay their fair share of taxes. The Bloc Québécois is therefore asking that the government put an end to the juicy tax breaks enjoyed by the oil companies.

Third, we must decrease our dependence on oil. Quebec does not produce oil and every drop of this viscous liquid consumed by Quebeckers impoverishes Quebec and also contributes to global warming. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to reduce our dependence on oil. All the oil Quebec consumes is imported. Every litre consumed means money leaving the province, thus making Quebec poorer and the oil industry richer.

In 2009, Quebec imported $9 billion worth of oil, a reduction because of the recession. In 2008, oil imports totalled $17 billion, an increase of $11 billion in the five years between 2003 and 2008.

At the same time, Quebec went from a trade surplus to a trade deficit of almost $12 billion, not to mention that the increase in Alberta's oil exports made the dollar soar, which hit our manufacturing companies and aggravated our trade deficit. The increase in the price of oil alone plunged Quebec into a trade deficit. It is time to put an end to the tax holiday for the oil sector.

In 2003, the Liberal government, supported by the Conservatives, introduced a vast reform of taxation for the petroleum sector. Although the oil sector had special status under the Income Tax Act, with its Bill C-48 the government reduced the overall tax rate for oil companies from 28% to 21% and also introduced many tax breaks, including accelerated capital cost allowance and preferential treatment of royalties.

This made taxes for Canada's oil sector more advantageous than in Texas. As if that were not enough, in the 2007 economic statement, the Conservatives presented additional tax reductions for oil companies, which would bring the tax rate down to only 15% by 2012. These tax breaks will enable Canadian oil companies to pocket close to $3.6 billion in 2012 alone. The Bloc Québécois thinks that these measures for the oil companies are unjustified. That it why it is proposing that we eliminate handouts to the oil companies.

I was saying that the long-term solution is to reduce our dependency on oil. We must invest considerably in alternative energies; allocate $500 million per year over five years to green energies; launch a real initiative to reduce our consumption of oil for transportation, heating and industry; introduce incentives of $500 million per year over five years to convert oil heating systems; develop a plan worth $475 million per year over five years for electric cars.

By 2012, 11 manufacturers plan on releasing some 30 fully electric or rechargeable hybrid models. These cars will be more reliable, more energy efficient and much cheaper to operate than gas-powered models.

Bill C-14 is intended to save consumers $20 million. As I was saying earlier, $20 million corresponds to one-tenth of a cent per litre of gas. Therefore, just one cent per litre could save $200 million per year. Furthermore, we must strengthen the Competition Act.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if there were a government member speaking to this bill, I would ask him or her whether the government has done any costing for this bill. Several speakers have talked about the potential saving of $20 million for consumers, but there is the cost to business for all the inspections that are going occur. In fact, the government is going to be contracting out the inspection process to allow for private sector inspections. How that is going to play out in rural areas and northern areas of the country I am really not sure. If there is only one inspector for a huge area, the inspector potentially would be able to charge an arm and a leg for the inspections, unless the government plans to introduce a schedule of charges for the inspectors to follow, but I have not heard about that.

The member would not have the information because only the government would have it, but is he concerned about whether the government has costed out this program to see what the total benefit would be to consumers?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, quite humbly, that I have no idea how much this would cost the government, but that is typical of the Conservative government.

When I was a member of the international trade committee, there were never any impact studies and we had to simply proceed blindly. It is clear that this bill appears to be trying to fool consumers who are being told that they will save $20 million on gas or oil bills. I cannot say right now how much it would cost, but at the end of the day, we know that consumers will end up paying the bill, no matter what the area or industry.

And what they are paying even more for is profits because current oil company profits come out of the pockets of consumers, and obviously we have to pay what it is worth. But who here knows what it is worth?

For this reason, a petroleum price monitoring agency should be put into place to follow these prices regularly. As I said earlier, a single cent at the pump is 10 times more money than the $20 million that would be saved by doing 65,000 inspections each year instead of 8,000. Retailers will surely be the ones picking up the tab. If retailers take on these costs, they will transfer them. I have no idea how many millions of dollars it would cost to do 65,000 inspections a year. The retailer will pass on this cost, perhaps by changing the pump temperature settings marginally. For one tenth of a cent is it really worth it? The government should give us an accurate, precise impact study.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning his support for the petroleum monitoring agency, which we had put in place. I assume he is very upset that the Conservatives ceased to fund that.

Also, because he is talking about the cost to Quebec, I assume he is upset that the government did not keep its promise to decrease the cost to Quebeckers by 2¢ a litre on the tax on diesel fuels, that it did not keep its promise to cut the excise tax on gasoline when the price goes over 85¢ a litre, and that it did not keep its promise to take off the tax on the tax.

I appreciate the member's comments with regard to the Competition Act. I am a very strong supporter of changes to the Competition Act. Strong administrative penalties could also be put in place so that a criminal offence would not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a less stringent administrative expense. The member's further comments with regard to the changes we could make to the Competition Act to help consumers would be helpful.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first element is the creation of a petroleum price monitoring agency. Can anyone in this House claim to know exactly how much a litre of gasoline should sell for today? Because a lot of people have their finger on the button, the price fluctuates. Confidence is also a factor in the fluctuation of gas prices.

We are constantly being taken advantage of with respect to the real price of gasoline. We need a monitoring agency to establish gas prices because those prices have a huge impact. Unless we can reduce our dependence on oil, the cost will always be monumental.

In remote regions, people use their cars to get to work. Unexpected increases in the price of gasoline, which can be short- or long-lived, mean that these people practically have to pay for the privilege of working if they live any distance from their workplace.

We have to give the Competition Bureau the power to launch inquiries of its own accord into possible incidents of collusion. Creating a petroleum price monitoring agency would make it possible to set a fair price for everyone and, rather than slowing the economy down, the price of gasoline would remain reasonable without increasing consumption.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech, which I listened to carefully. I wonder if he could elaborate on the importance of defining Quebec's public policies on renewable energies. I would also like him to explain how fluctuating gas prices affect businesses in Quebec.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the 21st century, we must face the fact that our oil policies are failing us, especially regarding oil dependency. Much effort has gone into maintaining this dependency so that oil companies can sell as much oil as possible, with no concern for the environment, global warming or greenhouse gas emissions.

We cannot ignore this failure. Although governments and oil companies have raked in billions of dollars in profits, they have not been smart enough to invest in research and development to find ways for vehicles—which are the biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions—to run on renewable energy sources.

This has been a huge mistake and we will have to answer for our actions. If we do not do more to reduce our oil dependency, sooner or later, governments like the Conservative government could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for doing nothing to protect our planet.

For many years, our policies have all focused on increasing oil consumption so that governments can collect taxes and, more importantly, so oil companies can line their pockets while doing nothing to encourage the use of renewable energies.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-14, a bill that has been a long time coming to the House.

On April 15, 2010 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, which is when it was given first reading. Of course, the government calls it the fairness at the pumps act.

Bill C-14 provides for court imposed fines under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. It also provides for higher maximum fines for offences committed under each of those acts. In fact, it increases them by quite a substantial amount, and that is a very positive thing. It creates new offence provisions for repeat offenders.

The bill also amends the Weights and Measures Act to require retailers to have their devices that they use in trade or in their possession inspected at regular intervals. That new requirement is to be enforced through a new offence provision. The enactment also provides the Minister of Industry with the authority to designate non-government inspectors or authorized service providers as inspectors to perform certain examinations.

At the outset, we are certainly looking for some amendments to this particular bill. As I had indicated, two years ago an Ottawa Citizen report on a Measurement Canada investigation revealed that between 1999 and 2007, government inspections of over 200,000 fuel pumps found that about 5% of the pumps delivered less fuel than reported on the pump display. Government inspection data showed that about one-third of Canada's gas stations, or about 14,000 of them, had at least one faulty pump. A motorist who fills up at various stations and pumps is likely to be short-changed about twice a year. This means that Canadians have been paying for gasoline they did not receive and the government was collecting tax revenue based on phantom gasoline purchases.

At the time the story came out, our critic questioned the minister, and he indicated that he would change the regulations to impose higher fines and have more inspections. In fact, nothing happened at that time. During the election campaign of 2008, the Conservatives made a promise to bring about changes to increase the monitoring of fuel pumps across the country and increase the fines for violations. Once again, nothing happened until now with the introduction of the bill. We could always say better late than never, but it certainly has been late.

No resolution or corrective action has been taken since the original report back in 2008, which means that the faulty pumps the government is talking about have been overcharging customers across the country and the violators have not been punished, even though the data from Measurement Canada would indicate the locations of repeat offenders. In addition, the question of government collecting taxes on these phantom purchases or overcharges has never actually been resolved.

Bill C-14 will, as I had indicated, increase fines and introduce administrative monetary penalties. The fairness at the pumps act proposes to strengthen consumer protection and provide greater deterrents against inaccurate measurement by increasing the court imposed fines under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measurements Act. The fines on the two acts would rise from $1,000 to $10,000 for minor offences and from $5,000 to $25,000 for major offences. The amendments also introduce a new fine of up to $50,000 for repeat offences.

The fines under the Weights and Measurements Act would also cover odometer rollbacks. We say that is a good thing, but interestingly enough, no mention has been made of that. It is listed further on the sections that will be impacted by the bill.

At no point does it mention that the issue of the rollback and tampering of odometers is now going to meet with the same penalties and severity that is being used for this issue of the gas pumps. I wonder why that is the case. Perhaps it is an oversight that no one over there noticed, though I find that hard to believe. It seems to me that odometer rollbacks would be an even bigger and more popular issue for a government that wants to act on behalf of consumers.

For many generations now, since the invention of the automobile, people have been disconnecting their odometers. Both private individuals and car industry people have been replacing their odometers and rolling their odometers back. That has resulted in huge consumer losses. Many people listening today and even people in this chamber may not know that in the past they may have purchased a vehicle with a certain mileage on it. In fact, it may have been a vehicle that had many more miles on it, but the odometer had been disconnected, replaced or rolled back. They will never know that this has happened to them.

To me, that is a big exposure. We dealt with this issue in Manitoba a number of years ago under the previous Filmon government. The owner of a garage had been convicted under the Weights and Measures Act 25 years prior. It did not stop him because the penalties were just not there. He just kept doing what he was doing. He was buying cars in auctions in Toronto. They were cars that had maybe 300,000 kilometres on them. He was systematically rolling them back and putting them at 80,000 kilometres so that these four year or five year old cars would not draw attention.

He was buying them for $4,000 and selling them for $8,000. That seemed to be the formula he was using so that people would not be suspicious of the amount of mileage on the car. As a matter of fact, police officers told me at the time that they just had to go to the lot to spot dealerships that were rolling back odometers. If pretty much all the cars on the lot were all around the 80,000 kilometre mark, they knew that they had somebody who was rolling back odometers.

We know that this was a big, widespread activity. In fact, when this gentleman was caught for the second time, the Weights and Measures Act penalties were once again not sufficient to really cause him huge concern. I am even happier now to have the penalties we see under this act raised knowing that they will cover the issue with odometers.

The government is also looking at setting private inspectors up to do inspections. We wonder how much that is going to impact the cost to business. In Manitoba, a number of years ago under the previous Filmon government and at about the same time as the gentleman I just spoke about was rolling back odometers, the government decided to change the provincial rules and require the new odometer readings to be put into the computer and onto the system each time a car was sold.

Also around that time, because of lobbying on the part of the Manitoba Motor Dealers Association, the government of the day decided to make safety inspections mandatory. Up to that time, previous governments simply did it on a random basis. Cars would be called in for a safety inspection every two, three or four years. The government changed the rule that said that private garages had to inspect cars every time the cars were sold. Now, if a car had been owned for 10 years, it never received an inspection at all until it was sold, whereas the old system had a random approach and the inspection one received was for two years.

That led to a lot of abuses. In many cases, garages would take advantage of the consumers and could spot all sorts of defects in the car. Alternatively, the media, which did some checking of different garages, found that some garages wanted to fix many more items than needed to be fixed. In other cases, people would simply approve a car because they knew somebody. Therefore, this system did not work that great.

However, the point is it was brought in not because of any huge consumer demand for it, but because industry wanted it. Industry wanted to be able to inspect those used cars. What it did, almost overnight, was drive the cost of used cars up, at least at the low end. Once it was institutionalized, when the government changed in 1999 and the NDP came back in power, not only did it not remove it and go back to the old random inspections on behalf of the government, but it changed the rules once again. Under lobbying from the Motor Dealers Association, it changed the rules so it was no longer a two-year inspection but a one-year inspection. We have had this system now for a number of years.

I only relate this experience because of potentially what can happen in a case like this. The last two speakers to the bill have mentioned the fact that this will save the consumers roughly $20 million, but the cost to business has not been quantified. The government is planning to increase the number of inspections. More important, it is planning to allow the private sector to start conducting the inspections.

For rural areas and areas up north, this may mean greatly increased costs. My friend from Yukon will be up asking me a question about this in short order. In areas such as Yukon and the Northwest Territories, how is the government going to deal with that situation? To have an inspection done now may literally cost the little retailer hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

It remains to be seen what is being unleashed here. I am certainly sympathetic and agreeable to the idea because it should be done. In terms of having private inspection services involved, I see a lot of potential for abuse. I do not know whether the government is going to mandate the fee schedule that these inspectors have to charge or whether it is going to mandate the training that the inspectors need to have. We do not know any of that at this point.

The privatization of this inspection service by mandating these frequent inspections is going to be carried out by these newly authorized service providers or private companies. I guess it is basically another privatization effort. The Filmon government took a functioning government program in Manitoba, and changed it. It was a fair system that had been functioning for probably 20 years. On a random basis, people's cars would be called in for an inspection. The inspection would be done by a government motor vehicles inspector, who the public would trust. The member for Yukon can appreciate that. If people had been driving their cars for 10 years and all of a sudden they received a notice in the mail to bring them in to be inspected, they knew it was a government inspector, a qualified motor vehicles inspector, who would inspect the car and who had no incentive to do bad things. If something needed to be replaced, it would be written up and it would have to be replaced.

The Filmon government changed that inspection system and turned it over to the private sector, to private garages. Overnight we saw examples of gouging the public. The same garage doing the inspection report was also doing the repairs. It was very easy to take a car, find a dozen things wrong with it and then repair them and bill the customer. Not only now were people making money for doing the inspections, they were also making money for the repairs.

CBC did an indepth study with a ghost car program. I went to Canadian Tire and other garages. By the way, this was not done only once, it was done over a period of time. It did one series of inspections and a year later, guess what? It was the same garages doing the very same thing to the public. Some of the better known names fared worse in the study than some of the little mom and pop garages that were involved in the investigation.

What are we going to do? The private inspections are going to be increased from 8,000 to 65,000 a year. Perhaps the member for Yukon will put forward an amendment to revisit this after a number of years to see how the system has worked. I am not suggesting a sunset clause, but some sort of amendment that we would have a mandatory review after a three year period, a cost benefit analysis to see how well the system had worked.

There is no ombudsman office to evaluate problems or investigate complaints. There is no refund or compensation for consumers who are ripped off. There is no refund or restitution on the taxes collected by the phantom gasoline purchases.

I know a number of speakers want to talk about gas prices and that certainly is an issue. However, I want to talk about the fairness at the pumps act, which proposes to increase retailer accountability for measuring device accuracy by requiring retailers to have the devices inspected at regular intervals. I am not certain what those regular intervals would be, whether it would be six months or an annual inspection.

I believe the Liberal member talked about the inspection not being random any more. Right now there are random inspections. In many cases, a random inspection would be the best idea. However, if an inspection is appointment-based, if any skullduggery goes on in the system, what will stop the retailer from simply making certain the problem is fixed the day the inspector shows up and then change the pumps back after the inspector leaves. I am not certain how these things work. If people know when the inspector is coming, they can set up the pumps to ensure they pass the inspection. If that is the case, what is the point of doing this? I would think the random inspection is probably enough to keep people honest.

Let us assume the government is on the right track on the fines. I believe that to be the case. Let us congratulate it for the fines, but maybe we should look at leaving the inspections on a random basis so retailers are unaware when the inspector will come.

The bill would apply to retail food, dairy, logging, retail, petroleum, a whole number of areas, including the area of the odometer rollbacks, which is not mentioned in the process. The point is mandatory inspections are being done in other countries such as France, Germany and the United States.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member made some very good suggestions as to what the committee should look at to improve the bill and the effects of it.

I particularly appreciated his comments with respect to the effects on rural operators who are hundreds of miles out of the way after going on a very lengthy plane flight to get there. His point on odometers was also very good.

Could the member comment on things that would have a much larger effect to help the consumers? As people have said, this would save $20 million minus the amount for the 40,000-some extra inspections. There may not be a huge net gain.

What would make a huge net gain is if the Conservatives came through on the promises they made on reducing the various taxes on gasolines. What would make a huge difference in the member's riding of Elmwood—Transcona and our ridings in the north is if they corrected the ambient temperature problem. We are certainly not at 15° average over the year. Other things that could make a huge difference would be keeping the Petroleum Monitoring Agency open and making changes to the Competition Act.

Would the member like to comment on any of those areas?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever the Conservatives, whether it is federal or provincial Conservatives, talk about consumer protection or bringing in a type of consumer protection, it always seems to coincide with some offset to business lobbying.

In the case of the vehicle inspections in Manitoba, it was cloaked in the argument of driver safety and safer cars. What it was really about was taking a government inspection service and turning it over to the private sector.

We do not see the Conservatives supporting the air passengers' bill of rights because there is nothing in it for the private sector. Once again, any time we see any consumer initiatives coming from the Conservatives, we know there has to be some sort of hidden trade-off to private sector. In this case the government is looking at private sector inspectors.

In terms of ambient temperature, members clearly have a point on this. We dealt with this issue in the 1990s in Manitoba.

In terms of gas prices, 125 studies have gone nowhere. For the last 10 or 15 years, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East has been a leader in that caucus, going against his government when the Liberals were in power. He has demanded changes to the Competition Act. That is the only way we will start to get convictions on price fixing at the pumps.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to add my comments. My colleague from Yukon talked about some of these points. Many retailers in the smaller regions will have some concerns. Take for example one town on an island where only one retailer is relied upon 24/7. We now have a highly mobile workforce out there, especially in rural areas. The need for these necessities is that much greater on a 24/7 basis. In this situation, it would be cumbersome if the inspectors came in and the retailer was fined. What kind of repercussions would that have for not just that retailer but the entire community? Also we must bear in mind that for a particular inspector to get to that area will be a cumbersome task in and of itself.

In his speech the member talked about a mandated fee structure, which piqued my interest. Not to be overly prescriptive in what we would like to do, there probably should be a way of looking at this to help those small businesses that are basically encumbered by so many other fees throughout the structure of a small business, whether it be payroll or the like.

Could the member comment on that? Would his party entertain the idea of including, as an amendment in committee, the rolling back of odometers?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the question of odometers first. Odometers are already included so no amendment would need to be added.

My argument for the member would be this. A private business anywhere in this country would, I believe, trust a government inspector over a private sector inspector who approaches the business on the basis of making a profit.

The other issue that we need to deal with is the question of whether there should be set appointment dates or whether there should be surprise inspections. We perhaps should be looking at doubling the number of government inspectors and have them do random inspections so operators are not tipped off, but keep the good part of the bill that deals with increased penalties.

I like what the government has done with the penalties because they would not only help with the gas pump issue but also deal with odometers. I like all of what the government is proposing to do with regard to the penalties. I just do not like the idea of the government privatizing the inspection process, because people being inspected would know when the inspector was going to show up and they would be charged an arm and a leg for the inspection. That is what I do not like about the bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally unfair for consumers to be ripped off at the pumps. In some cities almost 25% of the fuel pumps inspected were discovered to be faulty.

What is amazing about this bill is that it does not talk about the taxes that these people pay. Starting on July 1, the HST will be included, along with the GST.

Does the member think it is fair that in this bill there is no ombudsperson to evaluate problems or investigate complaints, no refund or compensation for consumers who get ripped off and no refund on the taxes collected on phantom gasoline purchases? Are those matters important and should they be included in this bill?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. All of those items should be included in the bill and we will be dealing with them at committee.

My Liberal friends and I are cross-debating the whole idea. If we assume for a moment that the penalties are a big improvement, long overdue and required, then perhaps we should be looking at not hiring the private inspection team and just simply beefing up the existing government inspection team and have it inspect on a random basis. Rather than conducting the number of inspections being done right now, perhaps over the next year we could double or triple the number of inspections. The private sector should not be involved in inspections that risk gouging the retailer.

There is a smart way to do this and we can probably resolve this at committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hard-working member for Burlington. He and I were elected at the same time. He has worked very hard to ensure fairness at the pumps and to protect consumers, as well as victims with our criminal justice legislation.

For some time now, Canadians have been calling for this important legislation. This bill would move Canada forward in establishing fairer business practices in industries that measure or weigh products they sell. Canadians continue to worry about whether retailers are improperly charging at their local gas pumps or overstating the weight of groceries purchased at the local supermarket.

Today our Conservative government is taking a bold step forward to fix this problem, hopefully once and for all.

It is the responsibility of the Industry Canada to ensure that consumers and businesses receive fair and accurate measures for the goods they purchase. Although the importance of enforcing accurate measurements may sound obvious enough, experience has shown that only through a carefully monitored regulatory regime can Measurement Canada accomplish this task. The fairness at the pumps act would provide the foundation for such enforcement.

Once this legislation becomes law, retailers will be able to build a solid track record that will go a long way toward developing renewed trust with Canadian consumers. Consumers have the right to know exactly what they are paying for each and every time. Our Conservative government's goal with Bill C-14 is clear: to give Canadians greater confidence when they purchase products and goods in the market.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that at present many Canadians have little faith in the measurement practices of the businesses they patronize. Who can blame them? Federal measurement standards took a drubbing in our national media in 2008. Article after article revealed that Canadians were being unfairly charged at the gas pumps.

Our Minister of Industry responded and responded quickly. After consulting broadly with stakeholders in the gas, dairy, retail food and other retail sectors, our Conservative government created legislation that placed the onus squarely on businesses to guarantee the measurement accuracy of their products.

The fairness at the pumps act would ensure compliance in part by calling for increased fines for offenders. This tool is an excellent deterrent to criminal behaviour but, perhaps more important, it also calls for mandatory inspections of measuring devices.

This would help to address a critical element of the measurement problem, namely, retailers who neglect to inspect and maintain their measurement equipment. As a result, customers are often unfairly charged for the goods they purchase. Many retailers may not mean to charge unfairly but, as the media articles of 2008 made clear, such errors happen all too often.

Previously, businesses were not required to have their measuring devices checked periodically for accuracy. Bill C-14 would require mandatory inspection frequencies. This means that inspections must be carried out every one to five years, depending on the industry.

Under Bill C-14, inspection frequencies would be first introduced in eight sectors: retail petroleum, downstream or wholesale petroleum, dairy, retail food, fishing, logging, grain and field crops, and mining. Other sectors may be added in the future based on the results of our ongoing consultations with stakeholders.

It is important to note that it would not be government that carries out these mandatory inspections. The fairness at the pumps act authorizes specially trained private sector firms to do the work on behalf of government. This means that once inspection firms have been designated, they will be available for hire whenever retailers need them.

Our research has told us that this will lead to many more inspections than we see under the current legislation. Just as important, government will not set a price for inspections. Supply and demand will determine price and also the number of firms that Industry Canada will authorize to carry out those inspections. This puts the mandatory inspection aspect of Bill C-14 firmly in the realm of market forces where it belongs.

Many other countries and jurisdictions, such as France, Germany and most of the American states, have used mandatory inspection frequencies for many years. Canada has lagged far behind. It is high time that we have a modernized law, such as the proposed fairness at the pumps act, to put our country's approach to retail measurement in line with international standards.

Clearly, there is a pressing need to give Canadians a greater sense of confidence in retail measurement standards. This need was the strong impetus behind Bill C-14 but we also drafted the fairness at the pumps act with a keen eye to the needs of other stakeholders within the industrial sectors I mentioned a moment ago. I will explain.

Canadian entrepreneurs have been working with great effort over several years to effect change on this issue. Honest and fair-minded business operators feel the sting and the opprobrium just as much as consumers when less conscious competitors do not accurately measure the products they sell.

This bill would help to level the playing field for small businesses. It finally recognizes that the large majority of retailers who are honest suffer by the actions of the unscrupulous few who do not want to follow an ethical approach to business.

In truth, our action on this issue predates the negative media coverage from 2008. We began working with stakeholders, including many business operators, on a broad range of proposed reforms back in 2006. We started this work when we saw that compliance rates for accurate measurements were actually trending downwards. Indeed, industry has had ample opportunity to provide input into the challenges it faces in the measurement and sale of good and services. Industry's input has been invaluable.

Our stakeholder consultations underscore the fact that retailers can also be victimized by inaccurate measurements, whether inadvertent or deliberate. In fact, it was our stakeholder consultations that led to a recommendation for mandatory inspection frequencies. Indeed, some stakeholders have implemented inspection frequencies voluntarily, and I commend them for being proactive. By establishing voluntary mandatory inspection regimes, these companies know beyond a doubt exactly how much they are selling and they face fewer inventory problems.

It is important to understand that the legislation before us today is not just another government imposed cost for small business. This law would protect average Canadian consumers and, yes, there would be some relatively minor costs associated with keeping measurement devices inspected and working properly, but, as I have just explained, the legislation offers tangible benefits for the small business operator, the independent gas retailer, the independent grocer, the rural lumber mill or the small scale cheese factory. All of these small businesses are owned by people who cannot afford to be undercut by unscrupulous competitors.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member is not out of time but, unfortunately, the debate has to end at this point. He will have a minute and a half or so when the debate resumes to conclude his remarks in a gripping way I know.

In the meantime, we will proceed with statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Abbotsford has a minute and a half left to conclude his remarks.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to get back to the real business of this House, which is to protect consumers.

When I was last speaking, I was discussing the bill that we tabled in this House called fairness at the pumps act. The whole purpose of the bill is to ensure that the consumers who purchase gas at the pump are protected and that the weights and measures that are used in determining how much gas has flowed through the pumps is accurate.

We know for a fact that there is somewhere around a 1.2% difference between what consumers actually receive and what they should have been receiving at the pump. In other words, there is about a loss of 1.2% of the quantity of gasoline that goes through the pumps, and this concerns Canadians. When we add up the price of gasoline in Canada and look at that much gas going to waste and being charged, that should be of concern.

In this bill we have also introduced administrative penalties, not only a Criminal Code offence, which is already there, but we have introduced administrative monetary penalties that would allow the measurement advocate to impose financial penalties, which are not as severe as criminal penalties. Let us face the fact that some offences that take place are actually fairly minor in nature. We want to ensure we are able to address those as well and get people back on the right track and ensure that Canadian consumers get what they are purchasing.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Abbotsford talk about real issues. I want to ask him a couple of questions about real issues.

Could he explain to me the 15° Celsius temperature compensation ripoff, which his government continues to allow, that allows as much as a litre for every 80 litres dispensed to simply be lost by some calculation that has no meteorological or scientific bearing to the temperature in Canada?

Could he also explain why the wholesale price of gasoline in Abbotsford is 65¢ a litre, and that is for every player there? If he believes that is not a relevant issue, perhaps he could also explain to us why he does not focus on the promise that he and his party made, concomitant with that argument two years ago about dealing with gas pumps, about dropping the diesel tax by 2¢ a litre.

I have a concern about the member of Parliament making a number of comments, which he probably has very little knowledge of, with respect to, and more specifically, the fact that the price of fuel at any given time is overinflated by as much as 40% as a result of hedge funders and the manipulation of the commodities market, very similar to what we saw in the stock market last week. Would he like to comment on some real issues presented by this party, yes or no?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were many questions there and, as the House knows, we do not have all day to answer one member's questions.

However, the member raised the issue of Abbotsford. One of the most frequent complaints I receive from the people of Abbotsford is about the price of gasoline. Some residents complain that different gas stations have different prices and they wonder why that is. Others complain that the gas stations all have one price and they wonder if some kind of collusion is going on.

In 2006 our government made a pledge to look at the whole issue of pricing and fairness when comes to weights and measures. What surprises me about the member's question is that he was part of the Liberal government during those 13 dark years and the sponsorship scandal. The Liberals had 13 long years to remedy the issue of temperature but did they actually do it? Of course they did not do it. In fact, today they will probably make the argument that all they needed was a fifth term and then they would have done it.

Our government is fulfilling the promise we made in 2006 to look at this whole issue of weights and measures and ensure we brought accountability into the retail sector, which is exactly what the bill would do. We are actually moving forward and fulfilling our promise.

It would not surprise me if there were more to come to address all of these loopholes and all of these failures by the Liberals to deliver on over 13 years and which we now need to deliver on.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the member's attack on my Liberal friend from Pickering—Scarborough East. If the Conservative member had been around for the last number of years he would know that the member took on his own government consistently over many years on this very issue and others. The member has always said that the problem with high gas prices is that the Competition Act needs changing.

One hundred and twenty-five studies have been done by various governments over the last few years and they have all come to the same conclusion, that no price fixing is going on, when we know there is. The definition in the Competition Act needs to be changed and if it were changed we would see actual convictions. The member knows that.

The member is fair in attacking the Liberal Party but I would ask him to be very careful about that one particular member who has done a very admirable job on this issue and others over the years.

Would the member consider--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I must stop the member there. The member for Abbotsford has less than a minute left.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has spent his whole time defending the Liberal-NDP coalition, so it is alive and well. The reality is that there is only one government that actually steps forward and protects consumers. By admission, the Liberal member must admit that his party would not even listen to him, which is probably a reflection of the kind of influence he has within that party.

The NDP member should know that it is this government that actually fulfills its promises. We are promise keepers. We delivered on a promise we made back in 2006. Today we know consumers are going to have protective legislation--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Abbotsford for sharing his time with me today. He is a leader not only in Abbotsford but within the Conservative caucus. I appreciate the effort he has put in today and every day.

It is a pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act.

I am proud to stand before members as my government takes decisive action to protect Canadians from inaccurate measurements at the gas pumps and other measuring transactions across the country. We pledged in our 2008 election campaign to expedite the issue of measurement inaccuracies, and today we take an important step toward making good on that promise.

The Weights and Measures Act has for many years set the measurement rules for the purchase and sale of products that Canadians enjoy every day and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act sets rules for the purchase and sale of electricity and natural gas, critical commodities for sustaining our Canadian way of life.

Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act, would amend those two pieces of legislation to protect Canadian consumers and retailers from inaccurate measurements. The bill is just one more instance of the Minister of Industry's energetic commitment to ensure fairness in all business practices across the country.

Bill C-14 may strike some of my hon. colleagues as a housekeeping law, but I can assure them that it represents far more than that. When measurement inaccuracies occur, whether deliberate or inadvertent, they represent a great potential liability for Canadians. The fairness at the pumps act attacks this critical and compelling consumer issue by increasing the onus on retailers to take charge of their measurement practices and ensure all customers get a fair reading of their product purchases.

The act would accomplish this by imposing fines on non-compliant businesses and by calling for mandatory inspection frequencies. This means that businesses would be required to have their measurement equipment inspected by a third party every one to five years, depending on the industry. If the equipment does not operate accurately, the business must have it repaired.

I refer to this consumer issue as critical and compelling because it has been top of mind with Canadians since 2008 when the news media reported on how very often gas pumps inaccurately measured the fuel they were dispensing. Canadians also learned from those news stories that the consumer was the loser in three out of five instances of incorrectly measured fuel.

Understandably, Canadians have become increasingly concerned about whether they are getting their money's worth at the pump. They wonder if they are being overcharged because they have no means of judging for themselves the accuracy of the neighbouring gas pump in question. It is a situation that is completely unacceptable, which is why the Minister of Industry and his predecessor have followed such a decisive course of action in developing this bill.

Despite the bill's name, the fairness at the pumps act, it extends well beyond gasoline retailers. It calls for inspections in other sectors, including downstream petroleum, dairy, retail food, fishing, logging, grain and field crops, and mining. My government may add additional sectors to this list in the future according to the needs of Canadians.

One great strength of Bill C-14 is that it has been carefully crafted to anticipate a wide range of offences, from the relatively minor to the serious. The fairness at the pumps act would ensure not only that retailers have their measurement scales inspected frequently enough to guarantee accuracy in nearly all cases, but it would also impose stiff penalties on retailers who fail to comply.

As my hon. colleagues know, some people will only make the effort to comply if there is a criminal charge to be had, only if circumstances are dire. By raising the fine of non-compliance from $1,000 to $10,000 for minor offences, from $5,000 to $25,000 for more serious offences and up to $50,000 for repeat offenders, the Minister of Industry is sending a strong signal to gas pump operators and retailers across this country: comply or pay.

Canadians are tired of being victimized by lax measurement standards. This new legislation would protect them from that. At the same time, Bill C-14 offers a means of penalizing offenders without actually prosecuting them as criminals.

Although the bill calls for swift punishment when necessary, it also recognizes that some measurement offences are relatively minor and inadvertent. As such, Bill C-14 offers what we have called a graduated enforcement approach, which means the penalty can fit the offence.

Canadians believe in appropriate justice and this legislation reflects that ethos. Indeed the fairness at the pumps act approaches the very issue of enforcement in the spirit of fairness and constructive encouragement rather than casting all offenders as hardened criminals.

Not only does Bill C-14 protect consumers and make allowances for minor offenders, it is also a boon to small business operators who will act as government appointed inspectors under the legislation. One of the media's principle criticisms of Measurement Canada's performance in 2008 was the organization's lack of capacity to protect consumer interests. My government has addressed this issue by requiring businesses to manage their own inspection schedules in compliance with this new legislation.

The fairness at the pumps act calls for the use of private sector operators as authorized service providers. These businesses would conduct inspections under the Weights and Measures Act on behalf of the government and charge for their services according to supply and demand.

Rather than imposing a top-down government-driven inspection regime, Industry Canada will train small businesses to undertake this important work. It will evaluate them every year to ensure they are doing the job correctly and then trust them to carry out their job with accuracy and integrity. If they violate that trust, Industry Canada may revoke their authority.

Will Bill C-14 put undue strain on small business operators required to comply? My government believes it does not. There will be minor additional costs for small businesses, but the conveniences inherent in the new system may well offset those costs.

For example, authorized service providers, the inspectors who the Minister of Industry will designate, could also service and repair measurement devices as they perform their inspections. In this way, small businesses will find that they can kill two birds with one store and keep their equipment working at an optimally at all times.

Gas and food prices continue to be a concern of all Canadians. With these price pressures comes a great responsibility to ensure that the quality of the product is near perfection. No purchased good can approach perfection if its weight or volume has been calculated incorrectly.

This reality rings especially true for the single mother who is feeding her family on a shoestring budget, for the small business landscaper whose company has to pay onerous gasoline bills to reach rural customers and for working parents who have to heat their home with increasingly expensive natural gas through a bitter prairie winter.

I call on my hon. colleagues to recognize that on the issue of measurement standards, these Canadians cannot afford anything less than the protections in Bill C-14. If retailers fail to comply with the perfectly reasonable stipulations of the fairness at the pumps act, they must be made to pay.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burlington and I sit on the committee together and we look forward to having more discussions about this.

The hon. member will appreciate the fact that I am concerned that this action is so infinitesimally small as to be virtually meaningless to Canadians. The reason for that is simple. The minister's announcement over a month ago, predicating this bill, attacked good independent gas retailers and called them chisellers. He forgot to point out that in his own facts and information 94% of all the random surveys of pumps in Canada were correct, 2% turned out to favour consumer and 4% did have an impact on consumers, 1 in 25.

The hon. member for Abbotsford suggested nothing had been done on the consumer side. The member will have to recognize that WestJet exists as a company in his riding as a result of initiatives by this member and this party to ensure fairness in the airline industry among other initiatives we have taken in the Competition Act.

Specifically is the member concerned about the fact that the regulation will require only two years of inspection? As he knows, in his riding, as in mine, the volume, the throughputs that many of those pumps go through are in the tens of millions. The breakdown and the probability of a breakdown that might occasion a civil response is serious. Would the member not consider an early term? Is this something to which he has given any consideration?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to speak to this point. I used to work in the retail gasoline business. At one point it was with Texaco Canada, which has left Canada, and then it was with Imperial Oil.

We need to understand the actual gasoline business. I can only speak mostly for urban areas. Oil companies own 99.9% of the fuel at gasoline stations in urban areas. Agents work there. They are not independent retailers. The fuel is owned by the company.

My first career out of university was as an auditor of gas stations. I would check the meters against the volume that the retailer said was sold. There was a dipping system and at one point I would dip tanks. That system is now electronic. As an auditor, I was always looking to see if those meters were accurate and to be frank, it was hard to tell. There was a variation in measurements. We were really looking for leaky tanks, to ensure that no gas was leaking and that the retailer was reporting sales correctly.

A two year time frame is appropriate for this. The quality of the pumping systems now is much greater than in the past. They are much more accurate. A two year time frame is an appropriate length of time for retailers to ensure those measurements are accurate.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 imposes rather stiff penalties. The hon. member also spoke of the fact that gas pumps and gas meters are quite precise.

Does the retailer have to exceed a specific margin of error in order to be found guilty?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That was an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. Off the top of my head I do not have the answer as to the amount of air that could be there, the variance. Gasoline expands and contracts with temperature. That is why the 15° is in the bill now. I assume that when our inspectors are trained, they will be able to deal within that variance.

We have to be careful when we say retailers will be facing the vast majority of these fines. Let us hope that nobody gets ripped off, that is the first goal. The vast majority of gasoline pumps are owned and operated by the gasoline companies, whether it is Imperial Oil, Shell, Sunoco. It will not be the agent who will be responsible. The oil companies will be responsible.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, The Environment; the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues who have preceded me on the debate. I apologize I was not able to be here at the outset, so the parliamentary secretary and I did not have a chance to exchange a few ideas, but I am sure his colleagues will take it to him. I also want to thank our industry critic from Montreal.

I greet today, with some degree of trepidation, this legislation. Although much vaunted as being the panacea for all consumers in Canada, it is in fact significantly short on substance, short on proof and short on the deliverables. This seems to be one of the few things that could have been done, which would be, in some respects, a no brainer.

However, there are much more important issues dealing with the price of fuel and energy that should concern Parliament and the government. However, we need to consider the heat of the moment. An election campaign was triggered by the Prime Minister, who went back on his own word. In one evening gas prices went up 12.9¢ per litre. Most Canadians know that because this member and this party pointed out that the industry had become so monopolistic in the downstream that what took place was nothing short of tragic. The Americans had a major hurricane shut down refinery alley along the Texas Gulf coast. They witnessed a 6¢ a gallon increase at the most. I know that because I spoke to Ali Velshi, a senior correspondent at CNN, to get my information. In Canada it was 60¢ a gallon, converted to 12.9¢ to 13¢ a litre.

If that does not address the fundamental concern about just how clued out we are when it comes to the price of gasoline and energy costs, then I need ask members to look no further than the context in which that legislation was proposed two years ago. It took the government two years to finally come up with something and it said it would probably deal with one in twenty-five gas pumps which it thought was faulty, that it would call them pumps and that the likelihood was they had been tampered with. The minister referred to them as chisellers.

I can not think of an example that demonstrates such ignorance from a minister who obviously does not know anything about a gas tank, let alone how to pump it. Perhaps he spends a little too much time here with his driver and does not pump his own gas so he does not recognize that there can be mechanical failures.

The hon. member for Burlington talked about his experience working at a gas station. No doubt he will be familiar with the former 25, 30 year old equipment, which is used in many parts of the country that is not served by a number of gas stations. Very small communities may be using old electronics and very old equipment. It is very difficult to compromise and to break the electronic sequence that is in those pumps. What often happens, if there is an error, and that is assuming the error does not in fact benefit the consumer, is the product breaks down as a result of wear and tear.

That is why I asked the hon. member a very pointed question and I will ask the experts. In some communities pumps are not used as much. The introduction of ethanol could have an impact. Where we have higher use, there is a probability of breakdown. It is not someone's fault. That is the result of wear and tear on machines, and no machine is guaranteed to go forever, especially if it goes through sustained high use.

I am sure we will hear from Dresser Wayne, or Gilbarco, or Oppenheimer, which has been taken over by Dresser Wayne. We will hear from those individuals who work in the industry and who will pinpoint the shortcomings of their fuel.

Suffice it to say, my website, tomorrowsgaspricetoday.com, receives 30,000 or more hits a day. Out of those are generated hundreds of emails. I probably receive more emails on this subject than any member in the House combined, especially when the prices go up or when they go down and we see the fluctuation which is out of sync with world pricing.

I am concerned because this legislation is a distraction. It is a façade. It can be dealt with by regulation if indeed there is the presence of a problem. The minister has admitted that only 6% of pumps were found to be faulty. Of that 6%, 4% of the 100% that were done, did not favour the consumer.

If we are to prepare ourselves to embark on an idea of working to fix these problems, I want the committee, and I certainly want Parliament and the public listening right now, when we come to fairness at the pumps, there is a suggestion that there has been unfairness at the pumps. I can say with some certainty, it would be almost impossible for independent retailers or agents, as the previous member talked about, to trigger a mechanism that might make those pumps not work. It is very difficult to do.

More important, if we look at the way a pump is made and the way retailers take inventory, to skew the numbers to try to play games for a couple of days would only hurt their inventory. They would get a call saying, “You've used this much. How come you have this much left?” Unless, of course, there is a leak or a problem with the tank, in which case there might be some environmental concerns.

However, what it does not do is address the fundamental concern that I have, and I think many colleagues in this House should have, about where there is in fact a disconnect between consumer value for what they purchase and what in fact they get.

I can say with some certainty, with years of working on this file, that the last problem we have is accuracy in the pumps. If it were such a big issue, we would have had more than one conviction over the past three or four years. I am not saying it does not happen, but I am certainly convinced it is not because people are deliberately fixing the pumps. First, as I just mentioned, it is difficult to do. Second, it skews the inventory to such an extent that it becomes a self-defeating exercise. If they in fact do these things, they are only hurting themselves.

I received two emails this morning that dealt with a far more credible issue that the government could have addressed and may fall into the very same category that we had when we were in government. I note that the hon. member for Abbotsford and some of his colleagues said our government did very little about it. I want to encourage the members of the government to recognize not to make the same mistakes of fooling themselves into the belief that somehow what they provided here is a panacea. In fact, it is very much a tinkering, a glossing around the edges of a very serious problem.

By that I mean the following. In every region in this country today, every community has the identical wholesale price, and I see that the rack price is out as of just a few minutes ago. I cannot think of a more vivid example of the lack of competition than when we see the exact same price in any community across Canada. I will be glad to show members, for the purposes of their edification. If I look today, for instance, I will see that the rack price is identical everywhere in Ottawa. Everyone will charge the same thing tomorrow. It will be somewhere in the vicinity of 60.8¢ a litre; Quebec's will be 61.4¢; Montreal's will be 61.4¢; Toronto's will be 62¢. The hon. member for Abbotsford will happy to know his will be 66.8¢. The point is that the price is determined by one player. No one challenges that price at the retail level nor at the wholesale level. And so, what Canadians are faced with tonight is a 2¢-a-litre increase. That is above world prices as established at the NYMEX just 25 minutes ago.

So when members talk about a skew in a pump of 1% on 80 litres, which would be the average fill-up of most cars in my community, that is .8¢.

How about the 2¢ ripoff that is going to happen tonight?

Let us deal with some real issues in this House for once and not go around contenting ourselves with some idea that we have a better widget than the people who preceded us or than the ones who preceded them. The reality is far more serious.

I know that members on the industry committee should have the benefit of all the questions, not just Measurement Canada, but to look beyond this first step. I am hoping it is a first step, because members will recall that, in the 2008 campaign, the Conservative Party pledged to deal with the issue of potential problems at the gas pumps, which I might point out came from an Ottawa Citizen article during the 2008 election. That Ottawa Citizen article seems not to have a lot of people backing it. Certainly people at Measurement Canada have not verified it. So, it is interesting that we have erected today two years of investigation based on an article for which no one really wants to take credit. More important, why should they?

When the CBC national news runs with a story saying 75% of all pumps are skewed, what a great horror. Every pump we are using now, almost every one is going to rip us off.

Let us try to infuse some facts into a debate on something that is important to Canadians. For every penny they save at the pumps every given week, that could mean hundreds for a family at the end of the year.

As members will know, if someone can get away with having a monopoly in the gasoline industry, one might be able to have the same or near monopoly in the propane industry or the natural gas industry.

I will not get into the issue of arbitrage because that is not for the debate today. However, it is important for us to understand another ripoff, which the government fails to understand.

How is it possible that a wholesale price of 60¢ a litre for regular versus mid-grade at 62.3¢, which is a 3.25¢ difference, or premium, which is always 5¢ above regular, translates into a 13.5¢ ripoff?

Someone has to have a lot of control and a lot of power to be able to move prices from a wholesale differential of 3¢ to 13¢. I want hon. members in the House to understand that we are dealing now with not one penny or one-eighth of a penny or 1% when it comes to premium, when it comes to mid-grade, which many vehicles must run on, or when it comes to diesel. We are dealing with a wholesale margin translated to the retail level that could be in excess of 8¢ to 10¢ a litre. Then multiply that by 50.

I can guarantee that, when we look at those kinds of numbers, it is very clear that the government has either tried to distract the public with this legislation, a bit of smoke and mirrors, a bit of a smokescreen, or it just does not want to address the fundamental problem that exists with this industry, as it may with others.

I am not saying there is not a desire to change. Members know that I have built part of my career on trying to deal with this, but I am very suspicious of the context of this legislation. It is a quick fix aimed at the wrong people, which gives false hope that somehow people are going to see better prices at the pumps come this summer.

Let us be honest. Summer driving season is coming up. Although demand for fuel across North America is low and supply is very high, we now see prices heading north for no reason. If we had competition that would not be the case.

Every week the Americans provide what is called the weekly petroleum status report. Since 1979 the Americans have ensured that every drop of energy that they produce, that they use, that they anticipate using for inputs and refineries, is accounted for.

I see three citations in this document, which gives transparency to the Americans and to the world as to what the price should be every Wednesday morning at 10:30. I see three footnotes here from Natural Resources Canada. We supply the Americans with data to help them get a better understanding of the world, to protect consumers and to ensure transparency, but we will not do it for Canadians. Why?

There was an attempt to do this in 2006. The member for Abbotsford talked about what he did in 2006 during the election. Wonderful. We had a little proposal that said we would replicate the exact same thing, a weekly petroleum report, through something called the office of petroleum monitoring. We would give Canadians a better and more accurate understanding of how much is produced in this country, including the stock market, the commodities market. Why would we want to fly blind? The rest of the world wants to know how much they are producing. That makes sense. But no, the first act of the Conservative government was to kill the petroleum price monitoring system. I still have not received an answer.

Some anecdotal discussions with people in the industry, the downstream, have told me that it was really the folks at Imperial Oil who did not like it. Esso did not like it because it did not like it. That is funny; Imperial Oil's parent Exxon Mobil in the United States has been required by law since 1979 to furnish all data on supply and demand. It just makes sense.

I would have thought that the government might have actually dealt with that particular issue, but it did not. It chose instead to go to defective pumps and translate that and torque it somehow into greedy little retailers conspiring in the dark of night to wreck their pumps to make sure Canadians do not receive full value for that which they have worked so hard to obtain.

It is important for us to recognize quite a few things that have not come forward yet.

The margins and the racks that Canadians are forced to pay are substantially higher than those around the world. This means that the infrastructure in which so much taxpayers' money has been invested over the years, to build a pipeline to serve the entire country, energy self-sufficiency being one of the goals, has now been translated into virtually a network, a system, an infrastructure that is controlled by a handful.

I come from Toronto, and my region used to have three or four refiners. How many do we have today? None. Half the supply in my riding comes from Montreal because of the number seven line that was produced to push petroleum from the west to the east to create energy self-sufficiency.

My colleagues from the Bloc and all hon. members of the House are well aware that another refinery is closing. I told them that would happen in November. The declining number of refineries is worrisome. In 2007, a report indicated that the small number of refineries in Canada would create a supply problem. Even before the Petro-Canada and Sunoco merger and the proposed closure of the refinery in Montreal, regulatory officials were concerned.

To put this in proper context, if Canada is in a tight supply situation and, even though there is plenty of crude going around, we cannot produce enough, it puts us at a strategic disadvantage not only for our ability to ship abroad but, more importantly, to make sure premium prices are not charged to Canadians because we do not have enough refinery capacity in this country.

It is important for the government to recognize this. It can pay lip service to the idea that fixing the pumps is going to somehow prevent prices from going up unduly. Frankly, that is hollow. It is irrelevant and untrue.

I can say with some certainty that, if we do not deal with the issue of supply in this country, we are going to wind up as truckers did in western Canada. Yes, western Canada. I am speaking of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, your very region. Truckers were scrambling for supply because of the way in which crude can be bent or configured and the way in which refineries are made. Some emphasize gasoline and some emphasize diesel.

It is very clear to me that we cannot afford a repeat of what happened in 2008. It seems to me that the first responsibility of any government is to ensure adequacy of supply, regardless of what party it is. It failed. It utterly failed, and it is important for the government to clue into that as well.

I will come to my last concern. I want to devote the last three minutes remaining to something far more serious, which Parliament appears not willing to understand, much less address. The government, in particular, must understand this in the context of the comments by the Minister of Finance and I am sure it must concern the Minister of Industry. That is the speculative and changing nature of our markets.

Ten years ago it was acceptable to see NYMEX, the New York Mercantile Exchange, as being the way in which prices were derived. A producer or consumer would go in and trade, and on a 30-day or 60-day basis, act on the deal, sell a bit of oil and take delivery of the oil. That has all changed.

With the growth of Goldman Sachs Commodity Index, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley and over-the-counter derivatives, traders right here in Canada, in Winnipeg, through the Intercontinental Exchange, we have seen massive distortions in the price of fuel, which hurt industry, retailers and refiners. Bringing the price of crude up to $147 and then dropping it to $35 is in no one's interest. Yet it happened.

Whereas that happened two years ago, what happened just last Thursday? I know some are wanting to say there are fat fingers and someone made an error and put million or billion. The way in which trades take place today is that there are high-frequency traders on computers who, if they see something drop 1%, will suddenly sell everything they have. The market then closes and many companies are left in ruin.

We have a golden opportunity at the G20 and G8 next month to lead the charge to regulatory reform, which is at the heart of the cost of energy for Canadians and the price they pay for gasoline. I know what I am talking about on this subject. The Obama administration is trying to tackle this, and I think Canada can play a leading role at precisely the right time to signal to the rest of the world that we want real people consuming and producing. We do not want index investors or sovereign investors, people who go in high, bid, hold the product at a certain price and create volatility in the market, which destroys the market.

I call on the government to look a lot further than the nano or micro step it has taken with respect to regulation of gasoline pumps. Look at the bigger picture, stand up for constituents, hear what I have said and measure it against what we have seen around the world today. Stand up for Canadians and I think Parliament will have their support.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that Bill C-14 does not really solve the problem of the price of gas at the pumps. It is my understanding that he believes that competition is the solution.

Does my colleague believe that if the Competition Bureau had real investigative powers, it would foster more competition? We know that more competition often results in consumers paying the true cost.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I still believe that the objective of people who draft laws such as the Competition Act may be to respond to or create a situation that gives an advantage to other competitors. We must recognize the power of that approach and also recognize that the Competition Act needs to be overhauled.

The last significant amendment dates back to 1986—I know one amendment was made two years ago—and was suggested by representatives of the oil companies, Imperial Oil in particular. It was a misunderstanding. Peter C. Newman said something interesting in his book Titans:

He states:

It was the only time in the history of capitalism that any country allowed anti-monopoly legislation to be written by the very people it was meant to police.

That is quite odd. I think the government could have gone in that direction but it did not and it wants to give the impression that it is doing something.

We must also find out about certification of the people who will be doing the inspections. Are these people certified? The bill says nothing about that. The bill before us states that the company must be certified. The people carrying out the inspections will not solve the problem. That is one amendment I would like to suggest.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for his presentation on Bill C-14 today. I certainly have supported his work over the last number of years on this particular issue, but in terms of this particular bill itself, it seems to me that increasing the penalties is something that is long overdue and should help in the situation. I think the member would more than likely agree with that.

Given that we are bringing in this bill to save basically $20 million, are we looking at the other side, which is the cost to the businesses?

The only time a Conservative government ever brings in consumer legislation is if there is an offset to business, and the offset to business here is that it is going to allow private people to get into the inspection business. It is going to let the inspection services be determined by market forces. That means that these little retailers, in some cases in the rural areas and up north, are going to have to shop around for an inspector, maybe at a cost of hundreds of dollars, to come and inspect their pumps.

It seems to me that with the random system we have right now, inspection by the government, there is no conflict of interest there and that is the system to have. Maybe we should be doubling the number of government inspectors and keeping the inspections on a random basis so that the retailer does not know when the inspector is going to show up.

This proposal says that they have to find their own inspector and that they are going to know when the inspector is going to show up to do the inspections.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona raises some very important concerns.

I am not in the business of giving false hope to people about what this legislation is going to do. Anybody who thinks that the complaints are going to stop because there are more inspectors is dreaming in Technicolor. What is important for us to understand is how one is doing the inspection.

We have demonstrated, time and time again, that the way in which one actually meters a pump, a slow flow, a quick flow, the prover that is used to compare what is said on the meter and what is said on the actual container requires several standard types of analyses. I do not think most inspectors are up to it. We are asking, in a very short period of time, very critically, that we get a tenfold increase in the number of inspectors. It is going to have an impact on retailers. There is no guarantee of certification.

As I said to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, we have to ensure that the people who are there are also held responsible. They cannot go around saying as the hon. minister has said, “Your pump is wrong. It is your fault. You are a chiseller”.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague explained the situation very well. It is clear that the Conservative government has no desire to make things better. The system is in place. The Conservatives have formed the government for four or five years. We have had problems with gas prices in this country for a number of years, but the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing. Now they have supposedly come up with a solution, but the solution already exists. They form the government, yet they cannot even put rules in place and ensure that the system is properly checked.

Does my colleague agree that the Conservatives have had plenty of time to come up with solutions? They are trying to fool people by talking about rules and measures that exist but that they do not want to strengthen. It is as though they do not want to solve the problem of gas prices in this country.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche is quite right. Clearly, the government's position is not meant to solve the competition problem or reassure people that they are getting what they pay for, and it will not do either of those things.

I said earlier that if the government were serious, it would do away with the standard of 15 degrees Celsius, which is what the provincial Conservatives did when they approved the report I submitted in 1998. When you pull up to a gas pump, it indicates that the volume is corrected to 15 degrees Celsius. This means that the volume the consumer gets is lower, because this correction is far higher than the Canadian norm.

The average temperature in Canada is five or six degrees. Even with heat and global warming, it is not 15 degrees. The 15-degree norm is good for Hawaii.

I think this is wrong. If the government really wanted to do something, it could do away with this standard. The other thing it could do would obviously be to reverse its decision to kill the petroleum monitoring system that told us how much was produced in Canada.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for many years Manitoba had a random system of inspecting vehicles. It was a case where the government inspectors would send out letters over a period of years. One never knew when one would get the letter but over a 10-year period the car would be called in for inspection. People trusted the system because it was a motor vehicle branch person who inspected the car. If it needed repairs, the owner was ordered to a garage to get them done.

About 12 years ago the Conservative government, under the guise of helping the consumer and under lobbying from the motor dealer association, turned the whole affair over to the private sector garages. Basically, it was a licence to print money. The price of used cars went up substantially when the legislation took effect. Garages were proven to be overcharging people because there was a conflict of interest.

We cannot have garages certifying cars when they are in the repair business as well.

Does the member think it is a reasonable idea that people would trust a government inspector, inspecting on a random basis, far more so than one where people had to shop for an inspector who also might have some other conflicts?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would want to ensure that there are a number of regulatory organizations, TSSA being an example, that could qualify and ensure that the apprentices are properly trained. That would also limit the conflict of interest.

I understand where the member is coming from, but I want to make it abundantly clear that it is not who inspects. It is how many inspect and the credentials which they bring. Otherwise, there is no veracity to the system and we may be impugning people who ought not to be.

I want to remind the hon. member. Our party got rid of the GST as it relates to rebates for people on home heating fuel and other things. We were concerned about the price of fuel back in early 2000. We acted on those on two occasions.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for giving me this opportunity to voice my support for the fairness at the pumps act, an act that upholds the integrity of many Canadian industries, an act that boosts consumer confidence and promotes competition in the marketplace, and an act that honours the promise my hon. colleagues and I made to Canadians when we formed this government.

I urge members of the House to recall that promise now, to remember the events of two years ago. At that time, gas prices were rising steadily across the country. With each passing month Canadians were pressed to dig deeper into their pockets to drive their children to school, commute to work, and to purchase consumer goods transported long distances to local stores. By spring, the cost of fuel was reaching historic highs.

That is when the news hit. Some retailers were capitalizing on the hardships of Canadians fraudulently. Media outlets covered the story recalling that as a result of inaccurate measurements at the pump, many people paid for fuel they never received. Canadians cried foul and rightly so. The fundamental rights of consumers had been violated. The vital trust between buyers and sellers had been broken. The time-honoured principles that formed the very basis of this country's market economy had been dishonoured.

The Government of Canada took action immediately. We vowed then and there to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. We vowed to ensure that people across the country receive what they pay for at the pumps. We vowed to protect consumers in all trade sectors that depend on accurate measurements of goods.

We made a promise in 2009. Today, we keep that promise. We keep that promise through the introduction of the fairness at the pumps act, a piece of legislation that holds retailers accountable to buyers for the volume of product sold, that enshrines consumers' rights to know what and exactly how much they buy of any product, and that promotes fairness, honesty and decency. These are the values all Canadians cherish.

I am sure many members of the House agree with me. Such legislation is vitally necessary, but will Bill C-14 be effective? Will Bill C-14 accomplish the goals to which it aspires? Will Bill C-14 prevent fraud in the retail petrol sector? These are valid questions.

Too many well-intended laws lack the robustness needed to bring about real change. The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act are proof enough. By virtue of these laws it has long been a criminal offence to cheat the measurement of goods and services and so deceive consumers. Still, many retailers fail to follow the letter of the law.

In 2006-07 Measurement Canada made it a priority to get to the bottom of the issue. Indeed, the special operating agency declared its resolve to address the problem of measurement inaccuracy in eight trade sectors, including the retail petroleum sector in Industry Canada's 2006-07 report on plans and priorities.

Since then, Measurement Canada has consulted extensively with industry leaders, small business owners and with members of the public. In each discussion one truth continually resurfaced. One truth that now provides the rationale for the specific amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act presented in the fairness at the pumps act.

There are two types of non-compliant retailers. There are retailers who mislead consumers inadvertently and much more seriously, there are retailers who cheat consumers maliciously.

Let me speak first of all to those who mislead consumers inadvertently. By and large, these are honest retailers. These are decent, otherwise dependable men and women who through ignorance or negligence fail to monitor and maintain the accuracy of their equipment.

At present, the only means to punish even minor contraventions to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act is in the courts. Prosecution, however, is not always the most appropriate means to penalize careless retailers. After all, these are not necessarily felons. These are not people whose actions are so monstrous as to warrant a lifelong criminal record. These are people who should be warned, who should be disciplined, and who should be taught to be accountable for the distribution of their products and services.

For those retailers the solution is simple: more frequent inspections. Under the fairness at the pumps act, businesses would be required to have the accuracy of their gas pumps or other measurement equipment validated and certified regularly by the authorized service providers trained to meet Measurement Canada's performance criteria. Retailers found to be non-compliant with consumer laws would face monetary penalties in line with the severity of their offence.

What about retailers who cheat consumers maliciously? What about the second type of non-compliant retailer who knowingly undermines the accuracy of his or her devices so as to profit at the expense of others? Periodic audits of measurement accuracy are not enough to protect Canadians from such racketeers. Strong enforcement mechanisms are necessary.

Here is where the existing legislation falls flat. At present, the maximum fine for non-compliance is $5,000. A minor offence runs retailers a mere $1,000. The penalties are a pittance compared to the money dishonourable retailers stand to gain. Make no mistake. Tampering with the accuracy of measurements is not a crime of passion or revenge. It is not a crime of hatred or a crime of fear. It is a crime of greed. Money is always the motive. Therefore, let money also be the deterrent. Let criminal behaviour be made less lucrative. Let criminal behaviour be made less compelling.

The fairness at the pumps act would increase court-imposed fines up to tenfold and would add new administrative monetary penalties. Retailers who commit minor transgressions would pay for their non-compliance with a fine of $10,000. Retailers who are more conniving, unscrupulous and deceptive would face fines of up to $25,000 and could find themselves before a judge. Retailers who are found to measure fuel or other goods inaccurately more than once would risk a $50,000 and legal prosecution.

In this way, the fairness at the pumps act would provide what existing legislation lacks: a strong arm to enforce the law and deter criminal behaviour before it starts. For this reason, I am confident that Bill C-14 is not merely a mouthpiece for consumers. Bill C-14 is a champion of consumer rights, with the backbone to defend the interests of Canadians at the gas pump and everywhere else consumer goods are sold on the basis of measurement across this country.

I urge my hon. colleagues to also defend the interests of Canadians. I urge my hon. colleagues to contemplate the merits of the fairness at the pumps act and pass Bill C-14. Indeed, I urge my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of this act with as much conviction, as much determination and as much principle as Canadians did when they elected us as their representatives and entrusted us with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure and tribute to the hon. member. I know his fine standing. We have worked together on a number of files. I appreciate the opinion of the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex. I value his concern and commitment to this issue, as do many others. It works well for me to be with him on the industry committee once again. Much was accomplished in the previous Parliament. I hope the same for the next Parliament.

I am wondering if the hon. member might be able to indicate to us the willingness among his colleagues to look at the big fry. It is important to recognize there are people who might, by accident, create problems with a pump. A pump may break down and the retailer of course would be responsible for that, but we would not say that the retailer had done it deliberately. The member made a very good argument to that effect.

However, when a bank in Canada advocates that people buy a barrel of oil or one of the commodity offerings because oil will be $200 a barrel, it drives the price up artificially and has an enormous impact and damages the economy, industries and consumers alike. I am wondering if he has given any thought to discussing with his colleagues, in advance of the G20 and G8 meetings, the prospect of raising the issue of market manipulation and limiting those who, as swap dealers or as derivatives traders, ought not to have anything to do with the commodities markets.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's fondness for the industry committee. We have both done remarkable work and have seen remarkable work done in that committee. I am very glad that he is on that committee. I also give the member credit for his knowledge with respect to gas prices and the industry as a whole.

I remind the hon. member that this bill deals with a specific problem. This bill answers what our constituents have been asking us to do, which is to remedy a wrong that is taking place in the marketplace.

The hon. member probably has seen me with my book. I take it everywhere and write everything down. One of the things that I have written down in the back is his formula for the price of gasoline. I give him credit for that. I get calls every day and my constituents will say, “This price is being manipulated. What is going on? It has to stop. You are the member of Parliament”.

I tell them that the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East has done fine work in figuring exactly the price of gas. It is not rocket science. It is right there. We can figure out the crude, dividing by the number of litres, adding the margin for the refining cost, the profits. That gives us the price of crude, and then we add the refining margin, the Ontario tax, the federal tax, the GST, the retail margin, and then we get the cost at the pump. It is wonderful and is very accurate.

What the member is talking about, and he would agree with me, is that on a number of occasions we tried to see if there was manipulation taking place. We are not seeing that. I know what he is attempting to do and I agree that we need to continue to look at that, but at this point we have not seen any of that.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, so I know the member who spoke very well, since we have been working together on this issue in committee for a few months now. The hon. member has often seemed to be much more reasonable than his own party.

I believe the purpose of Bill C-14 is to ensure that consumers receive the correct amount of gasoline for the price they are paying, but it does not propose a measure to control gas prices. We need such a measure. Consumers are not paying and will not be paying a fair price, because competition does not work the way it should.

Can the member tell me why the Conservatives did not put any measures in Bill C-14 that would encourage competition and allow consumers to buy gas at a fair price?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to sound like we have a lovefest at the industry committee, but I think it is fair to say that we have a great rapport. I have a high regard for the member opposite as well. Again, he makes a great contribution to the industry committee.

My answer to the hon. member would be that this specific bill deals with a specific problem. The legislation itself will narrow in on that problem.

He raised the issue with respect to increasing competition. That is a very fair question. It goes to the very heart of what will determine prices. If we do not have enough competition, there exists the possibility of corporations taking advantage of that in prices. He is absolutely right.

In a number of the studies that we have done in the industry committee, we have looked at what is going on in the oil industry. It is very expensive. What seems to have happened in the oil industry is that the number of refineries has been reduced. That is to combat the enormous costs that take place when we refine oil. Today there are fewer refineries in Canada than there were perhaps 20 years ago.

Very near my riding Shell Oil was looking at the possibility of beginning a refinery. That did not happen. I think it spent $10 million just on doing the studies but it has retracted from that.

I would share my feelings with the hon. member. I think we need more competition. We need to encourage oil companies. One of the things we need in this country is another refinery. It would help tremendously with respect to the price of oil.

Perhaps at a future date we could look at that possibility and take that up as a study in the industry committee and produce another fine report from which we could all benefit.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about a subject that affects a number of citizens. Everyone has an opinion about the price of gasoline and how that price is calculated. In past years, some reports and newspaper articles shed a light on gas pumps that were not accurately measuring the quantity of gas at some retailers. Consumers were frustrated, especially since at the time, gas was even more expensive than it is now. Bill C-14 was introduced in response to these reports.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is important to modernize the legislation to guarantee better consumer protection and to deter businesses that could profit from these inaccuracies. The government must act as quickly as possible. But first, I would like to outline the position of the Bloc Québécois before I talk about our concerns about this bill.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc agrees with the principle of Bill C-14. However, the bill does not respond directly to the issue of collusion, such as recently came to light in Quebec, nor does it effectively prevent sudden gas price increases.

This is an important issue for the Bloc Québécois and we believe that we must continue to try and respond effectively to gas price increases with Bill C-452 because Bill C-14, which we are talking about today, still does not allow the Competition Bureau to initiate an inquiry. It has to wait until it receives a complaint from an individual before launching an investigation. The Competition Bureau does not have the power to investigate if it has not received a complaint.

Although the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of Bill C-14, the bill is not an end in itself. It does not deal with the major issue of apparent collusion in this industry. We believe that it is time to make amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.

First, any retailer that violated the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act would automatically receive a fine of up to $2,000. Inspectors who discover the violation would issue a ticket ordering the offender to pay the fine. The offender could then pay the fine or contest it within the timeframe and according to the terms of the ticket.

The defendant could present a due diligence defence, demonstrating that he had exercised due diligence in order to prevent the offence from being committed. Consequently, it would be up to the retailer to prove that he is not guilty, and there could be additional penalties if the retailer continues to operate in violation of the law.

However, the most important thing, I feel, is that the act would allow the names of offending businesses to be published. In an area such as gasoline sales, if a retailer were found guilty, there would be a serious impact. Word travels quickly in some neighbourhoods and since there are numerous gas stations, some businesses could lose customers. This measure would definitely force certain retailers to obey the new law.

Second, the amendment to the Weights and Measures Act will allow authorities to impose much stiffer fines on offenders.

Under the new provisions of this bill, government appointed inspectors will be authorized to enter the premises where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an infraction has been committed. They will be authorized to examine, seize and keep anything found there, use any computer or communication system found there and prepare documents based on that information. They can also restrict access to the premises and force the shutdown of defective equipment.

As is the case with the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, a retailer who violates the law repeatedly over several days will face cumulative sentences for each of the days.

Bill C-14 also amends section 35 of the Weights and Measures Act to increase the penalties imposed on offenders. In the case of a first offence, a conviction will carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or up to six months of imprisonment.

In the case of an offence prosecuted by indictment, the maximum fine will be $25,000 and/or up to two years of imprisonment.

In cases of repeat offences, the maximum fine for an offence punishable on summary conviction will be $20,000, although the maximum prison time remains unchanged at six months.

If the offence is prosecuted on conviction on indictment, the maximum fine will be $50,000, still with the possibility of a maximum prison sentence of two years.

Lastly, a fine of $10,000, or $20,000 in cases of repeat offences, has been established for offences that are not already covered by the legislation.

Bill C-14 is not meant to frighten retailers, but simply to correct a piece of legislation that no longer meets current standards.

It is only natural that, in 2010, inspectors should be able to ensure that consumers are not being cheated. Consumers must receive the amount they pay for. They must get their money's worth.

All the same, we do have some concerns about the bill, and we intend to raise certain issues when this bill goes to committee for examination.

We believe that Bill C-14 could have included an amendment to the Competition Act. The government should use this bill as an opportunity to introduce additional measures to protect consumers.

I have been a member of the House of Commons since June 2004, and every time we have debated the price of gas and rising prices, the government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has always said the same thing: their hands are tied because the Competition Bureau found no evidence of price-fixing among oil companies. There was therefore no problem.

What we really need to grasp here is the fact that the Competition Act has some major loopholes. The Competition Bureau cannot launch an inquiry of its own accord. Inquiries can take place only at the minister's instigation or if a consumer, a legal entity or otherwise, files a complaint.

I know the government says that it implemented measures to fix the problem as part of the 2009 budget implementation act. However, these new provisions still do not enable the Competition Bureau to inquire of its own accord or to take this kind of initiative.

The inquiry process cannot be launched until a complaint is received. That is how it works right now.

In fact, that is why we believe that the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-452 is still needed. It would enable the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau to inquire into an industry sector if he or she deems it necessary to do so. As it stands, Bill C-14 does not address that issue.

Bill C-452 gives the Competition Bureau the power to take the initiative to carry out real inquiries into the industry if it has good reason to do so, which is not something it can do right now. It cannot act until it receives a complaint.

It goes without saying that if we pass such a bill, the Competition Bureau will be far better equipped to fight companies that seek to take advantage of market dominance to fleece consumers.

I hope that my colleagues of all political stripes in the House will tell us what they think of Bill C-452 and whether they agree with us about the Competition Act's shortcomings. As I said before, the current Competition Act does not allow the Competition Bureau to hold inquiries of its own accord. It cannot launch an inquiry unless it receives a complaint or is authorized to do so by the minister.

For years we have also been calling for a petroleum monitoring agency to closely monitor the price of gas and to address any attempt at collusion or unjustified price increases.

The Bloc Québécois is not alone in recommending changes. For years we have been repeating the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology made in November 2003. The federal government has never done anything to help consumers and has a fine opportunity here to set up a system to monitor the petroleum industry.

In November 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology strongly recommended the creation of an agency to monitor the oil sector. A committee would be asked to submit an annual report to Parliament on the competitive aspects. The creation of such an agency would enable the government and us as legislators to keep a close eye on the industry.

To the Bloc Québécois, there is no doubt that the Competition Bureau must have more freedom to act and more discretionary power over its inquiries. The Competition Bureau must have access to all documentation when conducting an inquiry. The Competition Bureau could then effectively play its role as an advocate for competition. When there is competition, the consumer pays a fair price.

Only if it is given more responsibility can the Competition Bureau undertake a real inquiry into the true nature of the activities of an industy sector.

Today we are no further ahead than we were seven years ago. Bill C-14 is a step in the right direction, but it is just the first step. For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has been urging the government to take action to deal with the high prices of petroleum products. Bill C-452 is just the first step in fighting the high price of gas.

Bill C-452 aside, the Bloc Québécois is more convinced than ever that the industry must do its fair share. With skyrocketing energy prices and the oil industry's profits, the economy as a whole is suffering while the oil companies profit. We have to do away with the fat tax breaks the oil companies are getting.

One year after coming to power, in its 2007 economic statement, the Conservative government announced additional tax cuts for the oil companies, which will see their tax rate go down to 15% in 2012. Canadian oil companies will pocket nearly $3.6 billion in 2012 alone because of these tax breaks.

Third, we must reduce our dependence on oil. Quebec does not produce any oil, and every drop we consume makes Quebec poorer, in addition to contributing to global warming. The Bloc Québécois therefore proposes that we reduce our dependence on oil.

In 2009 alone, Quebec imported $9 billion worth of oil, less than usual because of the recession, but in 2008, oil imports totalled $17 billion, up $11 billion from 2003.

To reduce our dependence on oil, the Bloc has proposed substantial investments in alternative energy to create a green energy fund, launch a real initiative to reduce our consumption of oil for transportation, heating and industry, including an incentive to convert oil heating systems, and introduce a plan for electric cars.

We have to get ready, because by 2012, 11 auto manufacturers plan to introduce some 30 fully electric and hybrid models, more reliable cars with better energy efficiency and much lower operating costs than gas-powered cars.

I do not want to get away from the objectives of Bill C-14, but for the Bloc Québécois, any discussion of oil consumption has to include a real plan and a structure for attaining these three goals.

In closing, I will briefly go over the three steps to a more effective law. First, we have to bring the industry in line by giving the Competition Act more teeth. Second, the industry has to pay its fair share of taxes, which means doing away with fat tax breaks. Third, we have to reduce our dependence on oil by, among other things, introducing incentives for consumers to buy electric vehicles.

Better ways to prevent fraud, as Bill C-14 is proposing, are needed, but we must introduce measures that will really benefit us in future, with a comprehensive action plan.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked, as other members have, about the big picture and the big problem. We have known for a number of years that we need to deal with amendments to the Competition Act because over 125 studies have been done, which prove that the Competition Act is what needs to be changed to ensure more competition.

Would the member take the lead and introduce whatever motion, amendment or bill that would cause that to happen? We have a minority government. We could get together with the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, who is an expert in this area. He recognized the problem many years ago. I have certainly been aware of the problem for a long time. We have three caucuses of a similar mind. Why can we not get together, drive this issue and force the government to deal with the real problem rather than simply nipping around the edges?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talking about putting in place measures to foster competition, to give more powers to the Competition Bureau. I would like to remind the member that the Bloc recently introduced Bill C-452, which would give the Competition Bureau more powers, including the power to initiate inquiries. At present, the real problem is that the Competition Bureau cannot initiate its own inquiries. It must receive instructions from the minister or conduct an inquiry in response to a complaint filed by a company, consumer or legal entity.

I therefore invite the member and his party to support our bill, which will be debated in future.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this rip-off of consumers by some of these companies that are shortchanging consumers thousands and thousands of dollars was raised in the House of Commons several times. In fact, if it is across Canada, it is millions of dollars.

A study by Measurement Canada came out quite a few years ago. I read in Hansard that the former minister of industry said very clearly:

I have instructed regulatory changes to be prepared. These will increase the onus on gas retailers. Fines will be increased from $1,000 per occurrence to $10,000 per occurrence.

That was promised on May 12, 2008. That was a good two years ago and still we are here, two years later, debating this bill. Is it not unfortunate that no action has been taken for two years and consumers across Canada have been ripped off millions of dollars as a result?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government could have acted more quickly, especially since, as the member mentioned, a report was submitted in 2008 and a measure is now being proposed two years later.

In Bill C-14, the government talks about better prices resulting from competition, having more competition and having prices that foster competition. I believe that Bill C-14 does not truly address the issue of competitive pricing. It responds to the fact that the consumer purchases a certain quantity. However, the aspect of competition is truly set aside. There should be measures that deal not just with the quantity purchased but also the real price to be paid. To arrive at the real price, there must be competition and, on that matter, the bill is silent.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech on Bill C-14. It is clear that an investigative process will not help individual people. I agree with what the member said about not letting the industry govern itself.

There is also the fact that a lot of taxes were paid on gasoline that people never received. So I am wondering if the member agrees that we need a better process for ensuring that people can file complaints, and for refunding certain taxes or services that consumers never received.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, when consumers do not receive all of the gas they purchased, it is clear that they have been shortchanged by the business owner. I think this concern or these problems are particularly evident with the purchase of oil products.

The report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which was put out in 2003, recommended that the government give more investigative powers to the Competition Bureau; it also recommended that the government create an agency to monitor gas prices. If these two measures had been implemented, I believe that consumers would have had justice and would not feel they are at the mercy of the oil companies and are not getting a fair price when they purchase petroleum products.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a simple question. Has he noticed a supply problem in Canada and Quebec in relation to the number of suppliers in this industry?

Also, is he worried that companies like Ultramar sometimes pursue predatory lawsuits that are really harmful to retailers, not only in Quebec but also in Ontario?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think I understand that my colleague is talking about oil companies. At this time, for instance, it is likely that a refinery in Montreal will be closed. But when a refinery closes, the supply is reduced and oil products are taken off the market. This contributes to price increases, which further drive up the price paid by consumers. So there is an advantage to having more refineries and greater supply, so that consumers pay a reasonable and fair price.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to the government's Bill C-14. What it is calling a fairness at the pumps act seems to me to have more to do with politics than real fairness.

I was particularly impressed with the long, detailed and interesting speech by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East. He seems to have identified what I have identified, that this is mostly about what the current government has been very good at, very skilfully and successfully, quite often, at changing the channel on what the real issues are.

As I read between the lines, along with the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, this deals with a lot more than just pumps and a lot more than just fixing gas pumps with small errors in them. It would amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act and would increase mandatory inspection of measuring devices in a whole host of industries like dairy, retail, food, fishing, logging, grain, field crops, mining, et cetera. However, the way it is being marketed and sold here is that it is supposedly about the petroleum sector.

There are about 125,000 gas pumps in Canada, with about 60,000 of them to be inspected every year for accuracy under this bill. Why does this come all so late? It was over two years ago that the Ottawa Citizen and our party in the House reported on investigations that showed government inspections found that about 5% of pumps delivered more or less fuel than reported in the pump display on pumps across Canada. In the 2008 election campaign, the Conservatives were emphatic in saying that they would take immediate action. That is two years of consumers getting hosed, on average, twice a year per consumer. The government has collected taxes on all those overcharged consumers during that time. Why did the government not act sooner?

One thing that is interesting about the bill is it would outsource inspections on all sorts of measuring devices, including gas pumps, to private companies and private inspectors. There would be about 400 to 900 private sector inspectors required to carry out the inspections of the pumps alone. This would add perhaps $2 million in costs for the taxpayers each year. There would be the question of oversight of all these private inspectors. What is to stop a company in the oil business from having its inspectors in this position in a biased position?

A lot of questions are left unanswered by the bill. One problem the bill tries to solve is that while occasionally the pumps give consumers extra gas they did not pay for, far more often they give them less gas than they paid for. That can hardly be coincidental. As a former scientist, the degree of difference here does not seem to be random or accidental.

The bill would increase fines for pump discrepancies to $10,000, or $25,000 for big offences, and would add new fines of $50,000 for repeat offenders.

However, the biggest problem is not inadequate fines right now. Getting caught with inaccurate pumps already results in fines. The problem is authorities do not have the investigative power to gather evidence to impose fines where they are needed in the first place, not with inaccurate pumps, but with the price of gas itself.

Gas station owners should have properly calibrated pumps, and in fact the vast majority do. However, targeting them with more frequent inspections and higher fines is missing the big mark. The bill would use them as scapegoats, and the government seems to be unwilling to tackle the real problem. The bigger problem is not faulty pumps. It is high gas prices and unconscionable margins and probably collusion and price-fixing, prices among competitors that mysteriously go up in lockstep with one another and prices that shoot up quite quickly when the price of oil rises, but never seem to fall very fast or very far when the price of oil drops.

The real problem is that once again we are changing the channel away from the real issues. My region of northwestern Ontario knows this all too well, perhaps better than almost anywhere in Canada. My office hears over and over again from people who feel they are getting hosed. I do not blame them. Over the last 48 hours, eight out of the top ten most expensive pump prices in Ontario were in northwestern Ontario and the other two were in northeastern Ontario. In fact, our gas is usually more than 20¢ a litre more than in most parts of Ontario or in Manitoba.

This weekend while gas prices were as low as 89¢ a litre in Ottawa and 95¢ in Toronto, they were $1.10 or more in Thunder Bay, $1.13 in Terrace Bay and $1.15 in Longlac, among some of the highest prices in Canada. It is outrageous and fines for faulty pumps will not fix this. The problem is not with the pumps and it is not with the small gas station owners either for the most part, who as I said, the vast majority are honest and have accurate pumps. Most do not make very good margins themselves. Most do not even set the prices. It is the big oil companies that set those prices.

If we want to help a minority of consumers getting cheated at faulty pumps twice a year, that is okay. However, what about helping the vast majority of Canadian consumers who are getting gouged every time we fill up on gas? There are lots of unanswered questions. Why are prices in some regions like northwestern Ontario 25% higher most of the time? Obviously, different provincial taxes and periodic problems with refinery supply and shipping play a role in gas prices. The freight cost of transporting gasoline to the northwest is often given as a reason as well, but other regions in Canada just as far away do not have a whopping 25% price difference. As Thunder Bay's the Chronicle Journal newspaper wrote on July 10 of last year when things were really out of hand:

—the one definitive study into city gas prices...determined that prices here should be a maximum of only four cents a litre higher than the rest of Ontario.

What is needed is a public inquiry into price fixing in the gas market and industry oversight with real teeth. I know that when my colleagues in the NDP have called for public inquiries before, the government has suggested that consumers should take their concerns to the Competition Bureau. It knows full well that the Competition Bureau cannot do anything without a smoking gun. About the only time something really gets done is when an informant comes forward from inside the scheme, like we saw in the Quebec gas fixing cartel in 2008.

Virtually all the convictions from price fixing in the last two decades come from that one single case because someone on the inside came forward. In that case, the Competition Bureau commissioner at the time, Sheridan Scott, said an overwhelming majority of gas businesses in the markets involved were accused of participating in the scheme.

Eleven companies were charged with things like illegally fixing gas prices. They were able to convict four and only because they had an informant. I wonder how much similar activity goes on today across Canada that we cannot prove because there are no informants tipping the Competition Bureau off and the bureau does not have the authority to perform more than a cursory investigation of any consumer complaints. It can only investigate violations to the Competition Act, so a great majority of gas price complaints can go nowhere.

I hope the government will be open to starting a real inquiry into the matter and a public investigation of what can be done to really improve the situation for consumers.

One thing my party has been calling for is a gas price ombudsperson. Since the Competition Bureau is so limited in what it can do, we need an ombudsperson who could handle public complaints and give us strong and effective consumer protection.

Our member for Hamilton Mountain has tabled Bill C-286, which would do just that. It would enable Parliament to appoint an independent ombudsperson to investigate complaints about gas pricing and report to the ministry of industry if it is not satisfied with the response from the oil or gas supplier.

If given adequate investigative powers, the ombudsperson would help provide strong, effective consumer protection, including fines of half a million dollars if necessary, to ensure the really big offenders did not get away with swindling consumers. It would help ensure that we paid a fair price for gas so small and independent retailers would finally have proof that they were the good corporate citizens, as most of them are. It would ensure there would be greater oversight and accountability on the big oil companies. It is these big offenders and big distributors we need to go after, even more than those small business people with faulty pumps or the rare unscrupulous gas station owner who might nickel and dime customers.

There is one more thing I would like to bring up when it comes to fairness at the pumps.

No discussion of gas fairness is complete without talking about the harmonized sales tax. As we know, the HST being imposed by the Conservative government on consumers will raise the price of gasoline by 8% in Ontario. This price hike is orders of magnitude more costly than any savings Bill C-14 might ever bring to consumers.

Passing Bill C-14 off as a magic bullet to fix gas gouging, as the government is doing, while hiking gas prices across the board, is the biggest bait and switch in gas marketing history. It has been calculated that the average family of four, through the HST in Ontario, will be hit with an increase of $232 per year, even more in Thunder Bay where it is based on a higher price, and about $900 million across Ontario each year. It is a tax grab.

The Conservative government is tabling a fairness at the pumps bill to crack down on the 5% of pumps that are faulty, but hitting 100% of pumps with the biggest gas tax hike in history. Is this what Conservatives think of as fairness?

To conclude, this bill pays lip service to controlling unfair business practices in the sale of gas. Significant measures need to be added to the bill to make it really worthwhile for Canadian consumers who need it desperately. Do the Conservatives really care about consumers? Do they care about taxpayers? Do they care about average Canadian citizens, or do they really just care about big oil and oil and gasoline distributors?

It is my understanding that the amount of oil and gasoline that we export to the United States is roughly equivalent to what the east coast imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. We know where the real priorities of the Conservatives lie, especially the Alberta-based Conservatives.

I hope the government will prove me wrong and will be open to stronger consumer protection measures in Bill C-14. It will be a litmus test to see whether the government really wants to tackle gas price gouging or if it is all just political positioning.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for the compliment on some of the work that has been done. I think we agree with far more than we would disagree.

Could I get from the hon. member a better understanding of where he sees the greatest impetus to be placed on the cost of energy? Would he encourage his colleague, the finance critic for his party, to gently persuade the Minister of Finance to make market manipulation, particularly in the commodities futures market, a priority, particularly as one understands the role that derivative and swap dealers have played in distorting the market as much as 40% and 50% today on the price that we see?

The hon. member will know there is a 4¢ increase coming to his constituents tonight, even though markets and the Canadian dollar have shown virtually no increase whatsoever. I am very familiar with the concerns in his riding having lost a number of independents like Domo and Mohawk, which have been taken over by large players.

Perhaps he could focus his comments on where there is a real problem driving the cost of energy over and above the issue of taxation, over and above the scandalizing of the odd gas retailer that somehow he or she is a chiseller? Could he encourage his members to focus on the G20 and G8, focus on market manipulation, one of the reasons we are spending $1 trillion to help bailout a couple of countries?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the ironies about the party that I sit with is that I have three small businesses. I do not have much to do with them these days because I am pretty busy here and in my riding, and my managers take care of them

But in the small business community there is lots of competition. Adam Smith's rules of supply and demand work relatively well in the small business community. Having read The Wealth of Nations not once but twice, I would urge the Conservative Party members to read it. There are a couple of big caveats in Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Adam Smith pointed out that the only time his theories of the invisible hand work is when we have lots of small and medium-size buyers and sellers, so that no one distributor or producer can control supply or demand or price. That is the real theory of Adam Smith. That is the real theory of capitalism.

Ironically, on top of that, 87% of all the jobs created in Canada over the last several decades have been by small business people across Canada.

Therefore, the myth that our future, our economics, lies with big business is just that, a myth, particularly when and if there is little or no competition in those marketplaces.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the United States and a few other leaders across North America in the last century understood this and acted effectively to control trust, to control predatory non-competition. It is time we had it again.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member would agree with me that increasing the penalties is a positive element in the bill, but that the real flaw in the bill going forward is basically the privatization of the inspection services.

I mentioned before that for many years Manitoba had a government run inspection service for vehicle safety. Vehicle owners would get a letter in the mail on a random basis. They would be called in for a safety inspection and a government inspector would fill out a safety report on their car and the people would go to a garage of their choice to get the repairs done.

Around 11 or 12 years ago the Conservative government in Manitoba, under the guise of consumer protection that basically was under pressure from the motor dealers association, decided to make the vehicle inspections mandatory when new cars were purchased.

There were no more government random inspections. They were mandatory inspections. They had to be done by local garages. Guess what? The price of used cars went up considerably when this took effect. There was rampant abuse of the program because the same garages that were inspecting the cars were also the garages where the cars were being fixed.

Therefore, there was incentive to find a lot of things wrong with these cars. As a matter of fact, we had the CBC go into different garages basically on a ghost car basis to find these abuses. It found lots of them. It went back another year to the same garages and found the abuses had not gone away.

Does the member agree with me that the penalties are not the big flaw in the bill? We agree with the increased penalties. However, the fact is that the government is going to basically privatize the inspections. Small businesses in northern Ontario are going to have to shop around to find an inspector to inspect their pumps, when a random inspection done by a government inspector is the way to handle this by hiring a few government inspectors. Perhaps that is the way to go.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we have to shop around for in northwestern Ontario, similar to what the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has just said, are inspections on scales and measures of any sort.

When I was younger, whether a person went to the meat market, the supermarket or the gas station, there was a nice, fresh, clean sticker on all those pumps that gave real confidence that it had been inspected relatively recently. I do not know about the rest of Canada, and it would be interesting to find out, but most of the scales, pumps and measuring devices in northwestern Ontario either do not have the stickers anymore or the stickers have peeled off or faded so much that a person cannot even tell when they were put on there.

It has been clear to me for a long time and it has been observed by many of my constituents that we need more inspectors and more zealous inspecting. However, as the hon. member knows, this is true in just about all federal employee hiring and statistics across Canada. We are cutting services.

It is a simple, straightforward game that the Conservatives are good at. First, they cut taxes to large corporations so that they are approximately half of what they are in the United States. They create huge deficits and then say that they cannot afford to do their jobs anymore or have real government professionals doing those jobs to ensure that they are done properly.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East on a very brief question as there is a minute and a half left.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two very brief questions. First, in his capacity as a scientist, does he agree or disagree with the 15°C temperature compensation, which is currently invoked and foisted on consumers?

Second, will he work hard to end the Enron loophole that is destroying the integrity of our markets and hurting consumers with inflated prices one way or another? It is a skew that could be 30%, 40% or 50% higher than it ought to be. Is that right for his constituents?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, a brief answer.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid the brief answer is simple. Until today, I really had not thought about the ambient temperature by which we measure these things, so I am going to have to research that one.

On the second one, until today, this has not really been my field. I have become fascinated through this debate today and I want to investigate further into why we have the kind of obscene margins and lack of competition in this field that we seem to have.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, one in 20 gas pumps in Canada are shortchanging consumers. People drive to their local gas station and fill up at one of the pumps. Victoria Day is coming. It is a long weekend when people tend to travel. Millions of consumers each year will drive up to gas pumps.

Government inspections do not happen very regularly. There was a big study conducted from 1999 to 2008 and Measurement Canada discovered that consumers were getting less gas than they were paying for. Consumers are being ripped off regularly. Twice a year, on average, each motorist is being shortchanged. People are driving off with less gas than they paid for. Some even have to buy an extra two litres to top up their tanks because they are being shortchanged.

One would think that if a gas pump is not functioning, consumers some time would pump more gas and at other times less gas. One would think it would even out, that some consumers lose money and others may gain more gas. Surprise, surprise, far more people, in fact three out of four consumers, get less gas at the pumps rather than retailers getting shortchanged.

Consumers are getting cheated. They are getting hosed at the pumps. Some speculate that the reason this is happening is because if a pump is malfunctioning, retailers are likely going to fix that pump first if it is pumping more gas than what consumers are paying for; whereas, if it is pumping less gas and retailers think they can get away with it, they will not fix it or it takes them quite a long time to fix it.

The report was released by Measurement Canada two years ago and yet nothing was done. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute said it would do some work, that consumers should trust it, and it would find some ways to make the situation better. The Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association said to trust it, it would do its thing and it would get fixed. Yet, again, nothing got done.

There is a report that says that if 40 billion litres are sold per year, $240 million worth of gasoline is being stolen out of consumers' pockets. This is really a theft. People pay and yet they are not getting the product they paid for.

The Conservative government talked about being tough on crime and yet consumers have been hosed at the pumps for two years, May 2008 until now, May 2010. No action has been taken. The Minister of Industry was questioned on May 12, 2008 by the member for Toronto—Danforth who asked:

--one in twenty pumps is not correctly calibrated and consumers are paying the price. In addition to shortchanging people at the pumps, the big oil companies are not even giving people the gas they paid for. At $1.30 a litre, every cent counts. When will this government create an ombudsman position to protect consumers from the big oil companies?

The Minister of Industry said that he had met with the president of Measurement Canada and that he had given him instructions to increase enforcement over the course of the summer with additional inspections and that he had asked that regulatory changes be prepared. He said, “These will increase the onus on gas retailers. Fines will be increased from $1,000 per occurrence to $10,000 per occurrence”. Of course we know that did not happen for the entire two years.

Finally, the former minister of industry for the Conservative government said that he would be writing to all Canadian gas retailers asking them for their co-operation. He said that they would get the job done. We know the job did not get done and yet now, just before the summer break, the bill has finally been presented. Who knows who long the bill will take to get passed at second reading and go to committee. It will probably come back in the fall for third reading, et cetera. However, that is no excuse.

Further on, the same former minister of industry, now the Minister of the Environment, said that the government would increase the enforcement to protect consumers, et cetera, but there was no action. Consumers have $240 million a year being stolen from their pockets and yet there has been no action all this time.

Now we have a bill before us that is full of flaws. I want to contrast this two years versus what happens in the House when the government wants to make something law. It can be done in two days. The HST, the harmonized sales tax, is an example of what can happen. It was introduced just before Christmas last year. It was a Christmas present for people in Ontario and the good citizens of British Columbia. It was introduced in one day and the next day it was passed. In two days action was taken to take money out of the taxpayers' pocket. Whereas this bill is trying to protect the pockets of taxpayers and in two years it got no action.

It is quite amazing what kind of priorities this Conservative government is looking at, a government that has claimed to be tough on crime and yet it takes very slow steps in trying to protect the consumers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to allow the member to finish her comments and then perhaps other members could ask questions or make their comments at that time.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Obviously I have touched a raw nerve somewhere here.

That contrast is quite stunning. We know, with the HST coming in July, that $2,000 to $5,000 will disappear from a family's pocket, and that was passed in two days. In this case, however, when millions of dollars are being lost at that pumps, no action has been taken. It takes a long time.

Maybe we should not be surprised. Even though we have raised the issue of tax subsidies to big oil and gas companies over and over again, we still see at least $1.2 billion in tax incentives going to the big oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars of profits. We have noticed that there is a bill that is about to get third reading with the support of the Liberal party and members of Parliament here, Bill C-9, which would again give these very profitable oil companies a total of $6 billion with all the corporate tax cuts.

In the other bill, we have seen that oil companies would be able to skirt around environmental assessments. Also in that bill, environmental assessments are being removed. Companies do not need a federal environmental assessment if they get a few dollars of federal funding.

A different kind of assessment or check and balance is supposed to be done through the environment side. Instead, however, whether or it is drilling or oil sands explorations, it will to be done now through the National Energy Board. It apparently has nothing to do with the environment. We just recently had a huge oil spill that is having a devastating negative impact on the environment, wildlife, birds and the species in the water. This whole addiction to oil is really quite astounding.

Bill C-14 does not deal with the price fluctuation. Sometimes the price could be at an all-time low in terms of gasoline prices and yet at the pump it is high. All of a sudden it goes up to $1.20 for no reason. It is supposed to be about supply and demand but it seems that often there is no connection.

The bill also has no increase in the number of government inspectors. It is all done by non-governmental inspections. Government has a role to play, which is to inspect to ensure that industry is doing the right thing, and yet that is not in this bill.

The bill does not establish an ombudsperson, something that the NDP has asked for over and over again. We need an independent office to evaluate the problems, investigate complaints and to ensure consumers are given justice and fairness. It is not here in this bill and it is not fair.

What else is not fair? If people were being cheated, they would think that they would get some of that money back. In this bill, even though the government would be collecting more fines, which we support, the bill says that the government would be fining minor offences up to $10,000, major offences up to $25,000 and new fines for repeated offences up to $50,000. Hopefully the government will send a message out there and fine a few gasoline companies.

However, one would think that if the government were collecting a few dollars out of it, that it would at least compensate and ensure the gas companies compensated and refunded those who were being ripped off, but no, there is nothing in here to protect the consumers. This is, in many ways, really unfair because every dollar counts, especially if and when the price of gasoline goes up.

What else does it not do? It does not actually repay the GST. The gas tax right now is 10¢ per litre but if the consumers are being shortchanged, which the last I saw amounted to $240 million, one would think that with the taxes that are charged on these so-called phantom purchases at least there should be a refund on the taxes being collected on the purchase. The bill says nothing about a tax refund or any type of compensation for those who have been ripped off. It contains nothing to deal with the price fluctuations and nothing to protect the consumers. It says nothing about an ombudsperson and there is no place to file a complaint. It is no wonder the government is known to just make a lot of noise. It makes it appear as if something is being done but it takes very little action.

Our consumer critic and industry critic will be making a lot of amendments when this bill comes to the committee and if the Conservatives and the Liberals really want to protect consumers, they will support the kinds of recommendations and amendments that the New Democrats will be pushing.

I suspect that this bill, unfortunately, may not pass until the fall. With long weekends and the summer coming up, how will people who are travelling to visit their friends and families protect themselves? I looked up some pointers. One of the pointers that I found quite fascinating was that we should put in 10 or 20 gallons and then multiply the price by 10. We would then know precisely how much we were paying and know exactly the amount of gas that we paid for. It looks like the consumer needs to resort to those kinds of activities to protect themselves since the Conservative government, unfortunately, is dragging its feet and not taking real action.

We will support different aspects of this bill, such as the mandatory inspection frequencies and the additional fines, but we will not support using private sector authorized service providers. We will not support the kind of privatization of inspections that we see in front of us because we believe that regulations put out by government should be done by government. We have seen far too many times that when we privatize inspections, it just means that the retailers end up having to pay more and the consumers continue to get ripped off and hosed.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting to listen to some of the comments the hon. member made, including dealing with issues of transit. She would not have complimented the Liberal Party for being the one that initiated the GST tax on tax to be used for the very purpose which she well knows as a former councillor in Toronto is extremely beneficial and helpful in the early days of pioneering transit as an alternative.

The hon. member also may have erred on a number of occasions about the facts, that 5% of the pumps that were the target of the study by Measurements Canada was in fact only 4%.

The hon. member seems to suggest that there is a problem. I am concerned as she is with the fact that we are asked to measure on our own to see if these things work. The reality is if we put something in a plastic container that is 10 litres or 20 litres, or whatever the case may be, there is room for expansion, as well. Exposing gasoline from ambient temperature in the tanks eight or ten feet below ground versus the temperature outside may contract or in fact expand the volume. Those are not effective measures.

I want to ask the member this one thing because I think she is concerned, as I am, about what impact this is going to have on gas retailers, as well as on consumers.

The theory goes that some things that are too onerous, like spill containment and environmental standards that have been advocated in the past, have had the unintended effect of actually reducing the number of retailers in this country.

I wonder if, as a councillor, or now as a member of Parliament, she might not take into consideration the actions of municipalities that have had a devastating impact on the licensing and zoning and the ability for small independents and other retailers to survive. This may in fact have contributed to the demise of many retailers, many wholesalers and, at the same time, may have driven up prices.

I wonder if she would like to comment on that, given her experience on Toronto council.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that if the government did the inspections, it would give the retailers a bit more protection regarding price fluctuations.

However, I noticed that when the Liberals were in government, they tended to adopt an approach of everything being done in a voluntary way. If toxic toys were the concern, they tended not to do a mandatory recall but would let the industry regulate itself and check whether or not the toys were toxic. If they were toxic, industry would tell Health Canada, but Health Canada would not do a mandatory recall. It was all about voluntary enforcement, which is no enforcement at all.

In many ways, there has to be firm guidelines, regulations or policies that if retailers are cheating consumers, they will be fined. There needs to be accurate measurements. There should be performance follow-up inspections. All of that is really important. Inspectors at Measurements Canada, which is the federal agency, should be solely responsible for the enforcement actions. All of those are important.

Also, increasing the number of annual inspections of gas pumps to approximately 65,000 is important. Right now there are only 8,000 inspections. I do not think that is anywhere near enough.

As for the 5%, I thought that between 1999 and 2007 the government's inspection of over 200,000 fuel pumps found that about 5% of the pumps delivered less fuel than reported on the pump display. In some places like Windsor, almost 25% of the fuel pumps inspected were discovered to be faulty.

As for the question in terms of the gas tax, right now 5¢ goes to municipalities. We think there should be an extra 1¢ gas tax, which would be about 440 million per 1¢ of gas tax. We think that at least 1¢ or 2¢ of that should be designated for public transit. Right now it is done per capita, which means that the city of Toronto, for example, where there is a large number of people taking public transit, is not getting the share it needs in order to fund public transit projects, such as the Transit City.

As a result, we have in the city of Toronto a lack of public transit. To go from one part of the city to another part sometimes takes two hours one way. Imagine people spending four hours taking public transit from home to work if they live in different parts of the city. That is not good enough. Traffic clogs the highways and the roads. It is important for us to invest in public transit

This bill does not deal with the gas tax. It does not deal with the price of gasoline. It just deals with the inspections and fairness for the consumers.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening quite intently to the blustering of the hon. member from the NDP party. It is quite amazing some of the things the NDP party members try to purport as facts, such as the HST. I do not know if they really understand that it is up to the province to decide whether in fact it wants to bring in the HST.

Those members did not support our budgets which meant that they did not support any of the activities and the building Canada projects which would have been in their own ridings. I am wondering why they try to confuse the issue with non-facts.

In terms of protection of consumers in Canada, in fact it was the Liberal Party and the Senate that blocked Bill C-6 which would have afforded Canadians protection with respect to dangerous products in Canada.

Why have the NDP members been fighting our budget, fighting their own constituents? Why do they not want to have projects done in their own backyard?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. First, NDP stands for the New Democratic Party of Canada. The extra “P” that the member added could stand for protection. That is what we want to do. We want to protect the consumers, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals.

We supported Bill C-6. We supported making sure there are clear mandatory regulations governing toxic toys and making sure that Health Canada has the power for mandatory recalls. Yes, it was unfortunate that it was shot down in the Senate.

I want to know why the Conservative government is not bringing back a bill that would protect the children of Canada. Because right now--

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We will.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Well, we haven't seen it yet.

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

Prorogation.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Oh, that is what happened. It was prorogation that actually made Bill C-6--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It was prorogation that killed Bill C-6 in the Senate. It was not just a senator. I thank the member. That was the real reason. Where is that bill? It has not come back here.

If we are talking about consumer protection, whether it is hockey sticks, gas pumps, toxic toys, all of those things, we have to be tough on crime because it is a theft from the pockets of consumers. They need to get the gasoline they pay for, every drop of it. If not, it is not fair.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina was all about accountability, which we have not seen from the Conservative government. The deregulation of Measurement Canada and having industry investigate itself is the same as the Conservatives saying they are going to be tough on crime and then turning around and saying that the offenders should regulate themselves.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on Bill C-14, the fairness at the pumps act. As members of the House may remember, an investigation by the Ottawa Citizen revealed that between 1999 and 2007, government inspections of over 200,000 fuel pumps found that about 5% of the pumps delivered less fuel than reported on the pump display. The government inspection data showed that about one-third of Canada's gas stations, or about 14,000, had at least one faulty pump.

New Democrats certainly have some concerns with this bill. Most of them have been heard by now. Still, it is certainly worth repeating some of them for the benefit of the people who may have just tuned into this debate.

When we hear Measurement Canada say that 5% of the pumps are delivering less fuel than reported on the pump display, we feel even more vulnerable. There are major concerns with what is happening. I hear it constantly from people in my riding with regard to the price of gas, the fact that the measurements are not correct, and temperature comes into play as well.

It will come as little surprise to most of us that gas prices in my constituency are through the roof. In the rural parts of Canada, people pay more for gas than people pay in the cities. Today the price of gas in Elliot Lake is $1.053. In Kapuskasing it was $1.10 this morning. In Sault Ste. Marie it was around $1.069 and in Sudbury it was around $1.049.

I travel a lot. My riding is over 102,000 square kilometres in size. I still cannot figure it out because I can drive from Sudbury, where the price is anywhere from 99¢ to $1.03, but when I get to Nairn Centre, which is not even an hour away, the price of gas there will be either 2¢ higher or 2¢ lower than the price in Sudbury. Then another 20-minute drive away and the price of gas will have jumped by 5¢. Is that fair?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but she may continue her comments when this debate resumes. She will have about 17 minutes for her comments.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing had the floor. There are 17 minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks. I therefore recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as it has been two days since I started my speech, I will take some time to refresh the House a little.

This all came about because of an investigation by the Ottawa Citizen which revealed that between 1999 and 2007, government inspections of over 200,000 fuel pumps found that about 5% of the pumps delivered less fuel than reported on the pump display. The government inspection data showed that about one-third of Canada's gas stations, which is about 14,000, had at least one faulty pump. That occurred more than three years ago and the government has waited this long to respond.

It will come as little surprise to most members that gas prices in my constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing are through the roof. When we hear Measurement Canada say that 5% of the pumps out there are delivering less fuel than reported on the pump display, we feel even more vulnerable based on the already too high gas prices we pay.

New Democrats have some problems with the bill and, by now, members will have heard most of these. Still, it is worth repeating some of them for the benefit of people who may have just begun to pay attention to this debate.

I would like to talk about some of the gas prices in my riding at this point. In Elliot Lake on Monday the price was 105.3 and today it is 104.9. In Espanola today it is 105.9. In Kapuskasing last Monday it was $1.10. Unfortunately, I could not get the price today because I did not have a chance to check. In Sault Ste. Marie on Monday it was 106.9 and in Sudbury it was 104.9.

In the rural parts of Canada we pay more for gas than in cities. I would like to read some of the emails that I have received over the last couple of years. I have just picked them randomly because it is important to show that from year to year there have been some concerns by the citizens in my area. This email is from Eric Vincent of Elliot Lake. He says:

The daily gas prices shown on the [member for Pickering—Scarborough East]website should be enough evidence to see that the 2 gas stations here in Elliot Lake are not lowering their gas prices when others are lowering theirs and that they are too slow to lower them when they finally do.

I feel that we are continuously overcharged here. For example: we are no further remote from the refineries than Ottawa is. Tankers get to Ottawa one at a time the same as the tankers that arrive here, one at a time, to deliver gas to the only 2 stations that we have. Then these two stations always sell gas at exactly the same price.

Every day we hear of prices falling across Ontario, yet ours stay pinned at the same price long after any lower prices appear elsewhere.

For example: our price here [November 21, 2008] is 91.9 cents per litre which it has been for many weeks, while the gas price in Ottawa is 73.5 cents per litre. This is a whopping 20% difference today.

If you were able to locate the Gas Baron by phone to advise that immediate attention is needed to remove this major discrepancy, I am certain that it would result in immediate fairness at the pumps that could result in them making changes daily here in Elliot Lake and across Your entire constituency.

That is exactly why we need a commission and exactly why we need an ombudsman.

I have another email from Maurice Drolet who says:

As you may have noticed, the gas price has risen quite substantially in the past month. I do not understand why here in the North East Ontario, where we depend on vehicles as there are no transit or subway, the gas is much more expensive than anywhere else. The barrels are at a price where we used to pay around $0.78 a litre [February 13, 2009] but now we are paying $0.91.9. I feel that the people in the North should be hearing on the news, and newspaper that you are screaming bloody hell to the government about this outrageous lack of concern from the government toward us.

It is the not the first time that I bring the issues of the gas prices and gas gouging to the House. This one is from Jerry Allen, who wrote on March 2, 2009:

I and many others are wondering how long the government is going to allow the oil companies to keep gouging the public. The price of oil per barrel has dropped dramatically, but the price of a liter of gasoline HAS NOT dropped accordingly.

On November 18, 2009, Garland Sullivan wrote:

...I was going to Sudbury the other day and I filled the car up at Thessalon, at a buck six [$1.06]. When I got to the Espanola turnoff, it was ninety three [93¢]. When I get to Sudbury, I saw two places at ninety two [92¢]??????.

I have been in the transportation business most of my life, and there is no way anyone can justify that much of a difference in cost to move the stuff, and the expenses to operate a business in the Soo are no more than they are in Sudbury, SOOO back to the old adage we in the north are getting it where it hurts. Now what do we do about this, this seems to be a slap in the face to the northerners because we here in the north need our gas and fuel and I have not heard of ANYONE taking up our cause here in the north.

Just thought I would let you in on the secret.

I want Canadians to know that we certainly have been raising this issue here for the people in the north, and there continues to be concern that no one is being heard.

Some people say that the price of gas depends on where one is in the north and it depends on the markets and on whether the price of a barrel of oil is up. Recently I went to a reception on the Hill with some of the gas providers. I was told that it depends on whether or not a gas station sells other things, that the owner could make up the profit from those sales and lose a l bit on the gas.

My colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, and a provincial colleague talked about the price of gas and that a case of beer, no matter where it is bought, is the same price. Another thing I was told was that if a location sold a lot of gas, the price of gas could be reduced because it is cheaper to buy it in bulk. Well, if more beer is sold at one of the beer stores, it is still the same price no matter where one buys it.

I regularly get phone calls from people about accuracy at the pumps and, of course, the high price of gas, as I have mentioned. It is a hot button issue in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

I want to read another comment, which I received on May 10. Mr. Tracy in Little Current talked about the price of crude oil and the disparity with regard to the price of crude oil when it is $20 a barrel at the well head, and the price quoted on TV is around $90. He wrote:

With Canada pumping 2 million barrels of crude oil per day the Canadian public are being taken for a ride.

Example - TV price of oil in the past year or so went down to around $40 a barrel - and the public have been told as much as $140 a barrel. YET AT THE SAME TIME A BARREL OF CRUDE OIL WAS ALWAYS LESS THAN $20 A BARREL AT THE WELL HEAD.

We need to look at what is really in this bill. This type of legislation has been needed for some time. On paper the bill seems logical, yet the bill before us is difficult to support in its present form, which is a shame. The idea is good, but it is framed inside the same old Conservative fixtures.

The way in which the private sector is being utilized in this bill seems almost quasi-official. It is the first layer of bureaucracy that will decide if the next layer will be needed. If I understand this correctly, it is little more than a screening process. The actual inspectors from Measurement Canada would be required to do the heavy lifting.

The fact that there is no ombudsman being established in this bill is a huge oversight. This leaves no method of recourse. Let us not forget that it would not always be the consumer who required the assistance of an ombudsman. Very real taxes have been paid on what amounts to phantom fuel. We can look at this any way we want to and it still amounts to taxes paid on nothing at all. Consumers who have been ripped off would have no means to regain lost money, nor would there be any refund or restitution for taxes collected for phantom gas purchases.

As I mentioned in this House in November 2008, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is a big riding and there is not a lot of public transportation. I have also discussed this in my speech today. Things that many Canadians take for granted, such as the ability to get to work or a doctor's appointment, can be a big deal for many of my constituents because the gas prices in the riding are much higher than they are in the major centres. This is just not right. When people have no choice but to rely on a car to get around, we can understand the frustration of those residents when they know they are being gouged at the pumps due to higher gas prices, inadequate measurement and false temperatures.

Information gathered shows that a motorist gets shortchanged at least twice a year. The results from a review of gas stations in Windsor showed that 25% of fuel pumps inspected were faulty. This study took over eight years. Again, let me remind members that not only were people shortchanged on the amount of gas they paid for, but also on the amount of tax paid on that gas.

Consumers have been gouged by millions and are now being told they will have to settle for a process that would do little to address all of the issues related to consumer gouging.

The proposed fairness at the pumps act would actually remove the federal government from the inspection process and would allow the oil industry to police itself. Can anyone imagine that?

My colleague from Windsor West, who happens to be the NDP industry, automobile and border critic, said:

The shocking revelation is not that this was only exposed by an access to information request by a media outlet, but that the Minister has not even met with the oil companies to correct the massive anomaly of a quarter of the fuel pumps in the Windsor and Essex area that are defrauding ordinary Canadians. This rip off needs to end now....

It is unfair that Canadians are being gouged at the pumps while big oil companies continue to reap record profits. We challenge the government to stand up to its big oil buddies and ensure fairness at the pumps.

I raised this issue in the House in November 2008 and again on February 11 in my speech on the budget. In that speech I told the government it is unacceptable that people in northern Ontario are paying ridiculously high prices for gas as the price per barrel of oil drops.

Unfortunately, there is currently no government department or watchdog that would deal with the issue of high gas prices or the gouging that makes gas more expensive from some companies but less expensive from others. This is why the creation of an ombudsman who could serve as a watchdog is so critical.

Gouging at the pumps is not fair, especially in regions such as northern Ontario, where there are no other viable methods of transportation. We need fairness at the pumps for Canadians.

I want to read a couple of sentences from an article that was in the Ottawa Citizen on Monday, May 12:

Most of the pump errors were small--between 30 and 60 cents' worth of gas on a fill-up at today's prices. But some pumps have shown much larger failures. Last year, a pump at a station near Chatham, Ont., was caught shorting consumers by one-and-a-half litres on a 50-litre tank, which is common to most average-sized cars. Drivers who visited one pump in Corner Brook, NL, would have had to buy an extra two litres to top up their tanks. And at a certain outlet in Yarmouth, N.S., a fill would have cost about $2.25 more than it should have.

This is going on across Canada. The articles continues:

Measurement Canada conducts inspections based on standards set in the Weights and Measures Act, which peg the allowable maximum error for gasoline dispensers at an internationally accepted standard of 100 millilitres for every 20 litres pumped, or 0.5%.

That means on an average fill-up of a 50 litre gas tank at today's prices, a pump can legally shortchange the consumer by about 30 cents' worth of gas and still fall within the allowable tolerance zone.

As I have indicated, the bill seems to be a step in the right direction on paper, but there are so many difficulties with it. There is still the issue about the privatization of the inspection service by mandating frequent inspections that must be carried out by the newly created authorized service providers of private companies. We are asking them to police themselves. That is wrong.

We know what happened in the forestry industry when we asked companies to police themselves. We might as well be telling criminals that we are going to put them in jail and when they are on probation they can regulate themselves, or we can put people under house arrest and say that we will count on them to follow the guidelines.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 will increase fines and introduce administrative monetary penalties. The fairness at the pumps act proposes to strengthen consumer protection and provide greater deterrence against inaccurate measurements by increasing court imposed fines and mandatory inspections. The fairness at the pumps act proposes to increase retailer accountability and use of private sector authorized service providers. Mandatory inspections would be conducted by authorized service providers. Fees for independent inspection services would be determined by market forces. It is estimated that the number of annual gas pump inspections would increase from 8,000 to approximately 65,000.

Could the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing tell me what the problems are with the bill?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during my speech, the most important part of the problem is that the government sees fit to allow companies basically to police themselves.

It is great that the government is increasing the fines, but we know what happens when one polices oneself. We do not really see what is actually occurring and we will continue to see the problems that we are experiencing today.

The other issue is with regard to mandating private inspections which will now increase from 8,000 per year to 65,000 per year. We are telling the companies that we want them to police themselves and we expect them to do all of these inspections. For some of these organizations that is not financially viable.

I will wait for the next question because I have a few more things to add.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that stood out in my mind as the member was speaking was that Bill C-14 allows the industry to police itself. That is kind of scary for me, given what is going on at the pumps.

A year and a half ago we were paying almost double per barrel what is being charged now and the prices at the pump were about $1.00 or $1.01. The prices now are about $1.00 or $1.01 and the price per barrel is half the price what it was.

There has to be some regulation. If we are allowing the companies to police themselves, God knows what is going to happen tomorrow. Could the member elaborate on that for us?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is that we need to change the Competition Act in order to deal with that.

The member brought up the issue of the companies policing themselves. That is one of the biggest things about this bill. It is fine to say that we are going to increase fines but if the companies have the ability to police themselves, it just does not work.

The other thing is there is no recourse for a customer to get reimbursed for being gouged at the pumps. We need an ombudsman in place to ensure that will occur.

Although the bill seems to be a step in the right direction, there is a lot of meat missing from it.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member that relates to northerners.

I am her neighbour as well as a neighbour of my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt. We all seem to know a story from one individual or another who continues to get fleeced at gas stations.

We also know that our economy in northern Ontario, specifically in greater Sudbury, is hurting due to the strike at Vale Inco and the layoffs at Xstrata. We need to see a lot of things change. These poor individuals are being fleeced by companies.

What does the member think we can do in this bill to make it better, to help northerners from getting fleeced by big mining and oil companies?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to change the Competition Act. I am glad the member mentioned Vale Inco. My husband happens to be one of those people who are on strike. Our laws are truly unfair. The fact is, over and over again, the Liberals and Conservatives have voted against anti-scab legislation to deal with the issue.

With respect to the gas issue, people who are on strike are hurting right now because they are having to pay higher gas prices.

We need to deal with other issues as well. As I have indicated, it is not just a matter of a complaint and then an investigation. We need to have the ability for the consumer to have recourse with those companies. We need a process that will allow for a refund and compensation for consumers who are ripped off. We need refunds or restitution on the taxes collected on the phantom gasoline purchases. Also, we need an ombudsman office.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague concerning concentration of ownership distribution in the industry and how it affects the little guy.

I come from a small city in New Brunswick. The member comes from northern Ontario. There are towns, cities and villages that still have independent operators, operators of small stations who pump the gas themselves.

Does she have any statistics regarding how this concentration of ownership might affect the small, independent retailer in a negative way and what might we do in Parliament to make people aware of that concentration of ownership and lack of competition?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, we need to change the Competition Act.

The impact of the bill on small gas stations is whether they will be able to police themselves. A lot of these entrepreneurs do not have the dollars to do more investigations.

We need to change the Competition Act. Bill C-452 is coming up today. It would address that. I hope the members will speak on that bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has nailed the real problem 100%. Over many years, the provinces have done about 125 studies on price fixing, trying to nail those gas companies, those retailers. In fact, Bill C-452, as proposed by the Bloc, comes up this very day. The bill would amend the Competition Act to authorize the commissioner to conduct inquiries into the entire sector.

We have always said that the bill has some pluses to it. The increased penalties are a positive. However, the idea that giving an offset to the private sector and farming out the inspections is the wrong way to go. If I were a retailer, I would rather have the government doing the inspection on a random basis than pay some private entrepreneur who may charge me double or triple what he or she should in this situation.

The Conservatives never come up with consumer protection unless there is an offset to private business, and that is what this is.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. It should not be left to the private sector to police itself. Government needs to do it.

I remind the House that a question was asked of the government whether it would create an ombudsman position. The answer from the industry minister at that time was “we will not be creating the position of ombudsman”. That is a sad day for consumers.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speeches about Bill C-14. The member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was right to say that the bill needs to be studied in detail.

I, too, am worried that the oil industry has been asked to police itself. Oil companies are being asked to evaluate how well they respect the laws. That is incredible. They are both judge and judged. The Bloc Québécois has the solution and it is Bill C-452, which will be debated a little later today.

Bill C-14 is also of direct interest to me. I often travel back and forth between Ottawa and my riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. Obviously, I have to take my car. Every time I stop to fill it up at a gas station, I cannot help but wonder why prices vary so much from region to region. In the same city or an area of a few kilometres, the prices may be the same or they may differ, oddly enough, by a number of cents a litre.

I often wonder if the prices at the pump are accurate. Those are a few reasons why I am interested in today's debate. I think that Bill C-14 is a good start, and because of that, I agree with it in principle. It would amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. However, the bill does not directly address collusion problems amongst oil companies, nor does it effectively prevent sudden gas price increases. I still believe that we need to continue our efforts in this area and encourage the members to pass Bill C-452.

In order to better understand the Bloc Québécois' position, it is important to understand what this bill is proposing. As its title indicates, the bill would make two amendments to two different acts. It would amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act by providing for higher maximum fines for offences, as well as punishing repeat offenders. It would also amend the Weights and Measures Act to require that retailers cause any device that they use in trade or have in their possession to be examined within a prescribed period. Non-compliance could result in penalties.

Bill C-14 introduces fines for violations of the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act. An inspector who noticed a violation would be able to impose a penalty on the offender.

In addition, a person who wanted to contest a fine would have to prove that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the violation.

Another interesting point is that the penalties can be cumulative. A violation that continues for more than one day is considered a separate violation for every day during which it continues. This measure is more stringent, because it requires offenders to act quickly and make the necessary changes to comply with the act.

Still in the section on amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, Bill C-14 would allow the Minister of Industry to make public the names and address of persons who had violated the act. The advantage of releasing this sort of information is that people could avoid offending retailers.

We noted that a violation under the act would not constitute a Criminal Code offence, which means that an individual found guilty under Bill C-14 would not have a criminal record. This should be examined in more detail in committee.

Bill C-14 also amends the Weights and Measures Act. One of these amendments would allow inspectors to enter a retailer's premises. A government-appointed inspector who had reasonable grounds to believe that a violation had been committed could examine and seize any document that could prove that there was a violation. Under this provision, the inspector could even limit access to the premises and require that the retailer stop operating faulty equipment.

Bill C-14 provides for large increases in the penalties under the Weights and Measures Act. A person found guilty under the act would not be fined $1,000, as now, but up to $10,000, in addition to being liable to imprisonment of not more than six months for a first offence.

In the case of a first offence prosecuted by indictment, the fine is increased to $25,000 and can be accompanied by a maximum prison sentence of two years. In the case of a re-offence, the bill increases the maximum fine to $20,000 and if a repeat offender is tried for another conviction on indictment, the fine can go up to $50,000 with a maximum prison sentence of two years.

I am very anxious to hear the minister's arguments on this once public servants are invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to justify these sentences and elaborate on the problems at the pumps.

Much like the amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the proposed changes to the Weights and Measures Act will allow for cumulative sentences to be imposed for each of the days the offender is found to be in violation. The bill introduces stricter penalties and allows for cumulative sentences. Repeat offenders will be punished. That is basically what the bill aims to do.

The Bloc Québécois has several concerns. When the Conservative government prorogued Parliament in December 2009, the Bloc Québécois began a pre-budget tour. I met with many citizens and various associations from Vaudreuil-Soulanges to find out what they wanted and what they expected from the budget. These meetings confirmed that the public's main concerns are the environment and the economy. The Bloc Québécois' positions are explained in the document Saisir l'occasion pour le Québec.

As I said in my speech, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-14 in principle, but Bill C-452 is also a direct response to the problems related to competition. My colleagues, the hon. members for Shefford and Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, will discuss that a little later today.

The Bloc Québécois' Bill C-452 addresses the flaws in Bill C-14. At the risk of repeating myself, we have some concerns about Bill C-14, but since we are a responsible serious party, we are suggesting solutions.

In response to Bill C-14 and the shortcomings of the measures put in place by the January 2009 budget implementation bill, we have introduced Bill C-452, which would give real powers to the Competition Bureau. The Bureau could act on its own and initiate inquiries, without waiting for permission from the minister or for a complaint to be filed. If the Bureau had reasonable doubts, it could investigate.

Bill C-452 would strengthen the Competition Bureau and would better protect the public against the actions of some businesses, which might take advantage of their position to unfairly fleece and gouge consumers.

We have other possible solutions. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I strongly believe that we must adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the rising cost of petroleum products. There are three criteria needed to apply this comprehensive strategy.

The first criterion to make our comprehensive strategy a success is that we must continue to support initiatives that help us decrease our dependence on oil. The rising cost of oil is making Quebec poorer. Increased prices affect the economy in many other ways. Increased exports of Alberta oil tend to increase the value of the Canadian dollar. Our manufacturing companies are the ones who suffer.

The Bloc Québécois has three ideas to decrease our dependence on oil, and my colleagues can read about them in detail on the Bloc Québécois site, because the document is public.

We must increase the budget of the ecoEnergy for renewable heat program, and expand its scope to solar thermal power, to include forest biomass.

We need a program to support the use of forestry byproducts in energy and ethanol production. We have to stimulate new product research and development. We can do this by offering refundable tax credits for research and development so that companies can benefit even if they are at the development stage and are not yet making a profit.

There are many other suggestions and ways to reduce our dependence on oil. We just have to be bold and focus on the importance of acting now to help the environment. We need to think about what consumers, what our fellow citizens, what Quebeckers are really paying for when they use oil products.

Bill C-452 meets one of those criteria. Its goal is to discipline the oil industry. As parliamentarians, we have to show people that we are ready to protect their interests.

I encourage members to discipline the industry by voting for Bill C-452 because it gives more powers to the Competition Bureau. The government should commit to setting up a petroleum monitoring agency. It is time for oil companies to respect people. They have to be accountable.

The final criterion is to make the oil industry contribute. The price of oil is going up, which results in higher prices for transportation and many consumer goods. Because of this, the oil industry is raking in huge profits. The very least these companies can do is pay their fair share of taxes.

As part of our comprehensive strategy to address the rising cost of oil products, we want the government to eliminate tax breaks. In 2003, the government cut oil companies' taxes from 28% to 21%. In 2007, the Conservative government proposed another tax cut, and according to the 2007 economic update, oil companies will be taxed 15% in 2012. Why should such a rich sector of the economy benefit from so many tax breaks?

The oil industry needs to be part of the solution. The $3.6 billion pocketed by oil companies is not available to the public. That money could be reinvested in society.

Our comprehensive strategy to address rising oil costs is reasonable and feasible. There are only three ways to change the way we deal with oil. We have to reduce our dependence on oil, make the oil industry pay its share by eliminating tax breaks, and discipline the oil industry with Bill C-452.

I will give the House a short overview. In May 2003, before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the commissioner of competition pointed out that the Competition Bureau did not have the authority to initiate an inquiry.

Since 2003, subsequent governments have not taken action. The government never takes action when the price of gas fluctuates. It believes its inertia is justified by the fact that the Competition Bureau is not able to prove that there are agreements among oil companies to fix the price of gas.

[An hon. member]

Well, that is obvious.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

How can investigative powers be given to an institution when it must bow to the will of the minister or when this institution is only able to take action after receiving a complaint?

The Bloc Québécois wonders why it takes a complaint and a request by the minister to set the wheels in motion. If the Competition Bureau has information pointing to collusion, it should be able to initiate an inquiry immediately.

Still in 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concluded its study on fluctuating gasoline prices with some recommendations. The first was to create a petroleum monitoring agency. The second was to toughen up the Competition Act.

According to the committee, this agency would have been able to clear up confusion among the general public regarding the price of gas by providing existing data to the public. The agency would have overseen all aspects of this activity.

That same year, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology spelled out the changes it wanted to see made to the Competition Act.

Obviously the Bloc Québécois agrees with this recommendation and it pushed for the government to respect the work of the committee and agree to implement this monitoring body, something it did not do. In response to the committee, the government of the day said it did not feel it was necessary to create this monitoring agency and it argued for the status quo.

In 2005, the Liberal Party of Canada had proposed, through Bill C-19, amendments to the Competition Act allowing for measures to mitigate rising gas prices. Note that, once again, the government did not incorporate the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology into its Bill C-19. The committee had recommended reversing the burden of proof to address agreements between competitors and to make it possible for the Competition Tribunal to award damages to parties affected by restrictive trade practices, where applicable.

The purpose of the first recommendation was to make it the responsibility of the parties wishing to enter into an agreement between competitors to prove the ultimate social value of that agreement. The second recommendation of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology would have made the pendulum swing back the other way since measures restricting the business practices of the guilty parties could have been imposed.

You can guess what happened. Bill C-19 died on the order paper since it was introduced just before the election. That is why, in 2007, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-454. That bill made it to second reading stage, but another election saw the Bloc Québécois bill scrapped. In 2009, a little more recently, the Bloc Québécois noted that the Conservative government had adopted part of Bill C-454. Nonetheless, the government does not think it is necessary for the Competition Bureau to initiate its own investigations.

It is clear that in 2010 nothing much has changed. The flow of information has not improved much and there is no agency governing the attitude of the oil companies, quite the contrary.

The government must deal with problems of fairness swiftly and I want to know what it is waiting for to take action. Consumers are sick of bearing the cost of fluctuating prices at the pump.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, and I am pleased to see that she is very knowledgeable about this subject. I know that this issue will be discussed later this afternoon, when we examine a bill from one of her Bloc colleagues. The former commissioner of competition clearly indicated that he needed the power to initiate investigations. I will quote the then-commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, in English, because I unfortunately do not have this quote in French. It was in response to a question he was asked by my former colleague, Serge Marcil, who unfortunately passed away in Haiti. Mr. von Finckenstein's response at the time was:

We have the power to undertake investigations ourselves, but we generally respond to complaints. If you are talking about tools, yes, we have all the tools we need. The provisions of the Competition Act give us the mandate we need to do our work.

What I am trying to say to the Bloc member is that we are talking about a power that perhaps already exists. Perhaps there truly was a misunderstanding, despite the good intentions of the member who will present his bill later this afternoon.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

He listened closely to my speech. I did refer to the commissioner's comments. The problem this bureau has is with launching inquiries of its own accord. Yes, it has tools: it can use wiretaps and do investigative work. The problem comes when it wants to undertake an inquiry. The commissioner does not have the latitude needed to determine the scope of the inquiry and the structure of a particular industry or sector. That is what Bill C-452 is referring to.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really do think that the Bloc's Bill C-452, sponsored by the member for Shefford, has a lot of potential. I have been following this issue for probably 20 years now and there have been 125 studies done in this country. Piles of studies and thousands of dollars have all come up with the same conclusion: the authorities cannot track down the price fixing in the gasoline industry because of the Competition Act.

This bill is going to amend the Competition Act to authorize the Commissioner of Competition to inquire into the entire industry sector. I think that this Parliament owes it to debate this Bloc bill later on today and refer it to committee. I think we are going to have some real potential here for some real change.

Dealing with Bill C-14 itself, I do want to ask questions of government members, but for the last two days I have not seen one yet. I do want to talk about the whole area of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. This hon. member is an experienced parliamentarian and knows that this is a period for questions and answers. This is not time for speech making. If there is time, he can ask a second question, but we try to hold questions to one minute and 15 seconds to a minute and a half. This member has been going on for more than two minutes now. I indicated several times for him to wrap up, which he did not.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we will have a chance to hear him speak later on. Given how often he speaks in the House, my colleague will have ample opportunity to finish his thoughts.

I would like to thank him in advance for his support for Bill C-452. The Bloc Québécois is proposing this legislation to strengthen the Competition Bureau's authority. I believe that a comprehensive strategy for dealing with increases in the price of petroleum products would close the loopholes in Bill C-14. I spoke about that strategy earlier.

The member said that he has been following this issue for about 20 years. I agree with him because I have been driving for about 20 years, and I have seen gas prices fluctuate from one region to the next. One thing I have learned in the House is that you have to have patience if you want to take on the banks and oil companies.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have a brief point of clarification. When I rose a minute ago, I said it was time for questions and answers. It is time for questions and comments. Members do not have to pose a question. They can make a comment, but it is the time period that I was referring to.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a brief question. There was a petroleum monitoring agency that was in place by the Liberal government so that oil companies, refineries, et cetera, could get the information collected and out to consumers. It would help them very much, but the government has closed that agency and refuses to fund it. I think the member's party was very supportive of that agency. Does she have any comments on the fact that it has now been closed?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency is a recommendation that has come up repeatedly at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I referred to that in my speech.

Several aspects need to be considered when looking at fluctuating gas prices. Four parameters need to be examined. I believe that if Bill C-452 passed and were sent to committee for study, we could then have a closer look at the price of crude oil, the refiner's margin, taxes and the retailers' margin. Thus, we could better understand how the industry works. The committee might then conclude that a petroleum monitoring agency should be created.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges for her speech on this bill. Bill C-14 will privatize the inspection of gas stations. But putting that in the hands of private enterprise is a little like putting prisoners in charge of prisons, or the fox in charge of the henhouse. We can see the result of companies being left to regulate themselves right now in the Gulf of Mexico.

I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion on this. What does she think of the fact that private companies will regulate the oil companies?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the first items I addressed at the beginning of my speech on this issue. The oil companies are both judge and judged. In the legislation, the people who will be called to examine the devices, those who will be called to evaluate compliance with the law, will be people from the industry itself. I believe there is a flaw, a major gap in this bill when it comes to this provision on the industry policing itself.

It is incredible to see that the oil industry will be put in a position of being both judge and judged.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to finish my previous question. Under the Weights and Measures Act, section 27 deals with the issue of odometer rollbacks, odometer replacement and odometer tampering. Inadvertently by bringing in the new penalties in this bill, those cover odometer rollbacks. That is a good thing for consumers. Is anyone aware of that and why is it not mentioned in any of the government press releases?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question on all these new penalties. I summed this up earlier. The government will focus on guilty retailers who are repeat offenders. There will also be cumulative penalties and the need for retailers to act swiftly. Nonetheless, my colleague's question is also quite relevant.

I invite the committee that will examine this issue to look at the problem and the solutions in detail. Of course I am disappointed that the government did not give us more statistics on the problem and on what the actual situation is and that we have to turn to the newspapers for some of the information we are missing.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-14. I want to offer up my comments as a theme to the consumers of our country, the hard-working men and women who each day use vehicles to get to work, to take their children and their families around communities and to survive. Perhaps more than the people in the House, the issues of price of gasoline and the fairness of those prices and the lack of competition in prices of gasoline and fuel products are very important to them.

I also want to offer up my comments as a theme to the small independent retail service station owners like Lyle Hogan on St. George Street in Moncton, New Brunswick, and I will get back to that.

First is the issue of the framework of the bill. Bill C-14 is the government's highly publicized fairness at the pumps act. The legislation attempts to address tampering at the pumps and has been presented as the great hope that consumers have been waiting for across the whole stretch of issues that I mentioned. However, we have to analyze the bill to see if those expectations and hopes are met.

The Minister of Industry introduced the bill last month with much fanfare. He aimed to provide court imposed fines under the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. The bill would see higher fines for offences committed under either of these acts. As well, regular inspection and enforcement have also been heralded by the government as key elements in the proposed legislation.

The House should certainly support measures to protect the public against unfair retail practices, because confidence in the accuracy of measured goods and services is essential to a vital, efficient Canadian economy.

First, as I have briefly covered, the fairness at the pumps act would see increased fines and administrative penalties for inaccurate measurements. I do not think anybody can argue with that.

Court-imposed fines under the two acts that I mentioned would rise from $1,000 to $10,000 for minor offences and from $5,000 to $25,000 for major offences. Again, I do not think anybody quarrels with that fine imposition. It marks a change in time that these are serious offences under regulatory schemes that should be addressed. The act also addresses the need to deter repeat offences of inaccurate measurement, such that the ultimate fine is $50,000 for repeat offences. That is significant.

The act would further allow for new administrative monetary penalties to allow for graduated enforcement reflective of the severity of the various offences. With fines for minor offences and prosecution for serious and repeat offences, Canadians can be assured of appropriate and effective regulation and enforcement at the pumps.

Similarly, the use of prosecution would mean that offenders would not face tough penalties and a criminal record for minor violations, but for more serious offences.

The second item of interest in the proposed act is the much discussed introduction of mandatory and regular inspection of retail devices. This kind of accountability has no doubt been long overdue and it is high time Canadians see this sort of retailer responsibility.

Measuring device accuracy would be carried out through increased and regular inspection. At present, the bill proposes to phase in measuring of devices in the sectors of retail petroleum, wholesale petroleum, dairy, retail food, fishing, logging, grain and field crops and mining. Needless to say, the bill would seek to bring accountability to a number of economic sectors.

I fully support this amendment, because regular mandatory inspections are the norm in the G8 countries, in industrialized nations like France and Germany and nearly everywhere in the United States.

Canadians want this, even though it is a bit late in coming, because they expect to get what they pay for. With regular pump inspections, Canadians will get the goods and services they are entitled to.

I should point out that the recommended frequency of mandatory inspections is the result of consultations held across the country.

Finally, the other significant aspect of the proposed legislation would be the use of private sector service providers. The bill would provide the minister with the authority to appoint inspectors from outside the government under the Weights and Measures Act. Government has stated that this privatization of inspections would allow for Measurement Canada to “leverage its resources fully” and “enforce its mandate”. If the bill goes to committee, clearly at that stage these claims must be examined in detail.

The government would see Measurement Canada inspectors responsible only for enforcement actions. Meanwhile, independent inspectors or authorized service providers, as the government likes to call them, would be conducting the proposed increase in inspections.

I think consumers might want to be aware of the word accountability. Effective responses to complaints must be ensured as Canadians deserve this. However, ensuring these mandatory and frequent inspections are conducted with appropriate follow-ups may not necessarily be best accomplished through out-sourcing. This is but another example of matters that must be fully explored in detail in committee.

If the government is to provide independent inspection services, how much will that cost Canadian taxpayers? Bill C-14 may lead to more competitive inspection services, but that has not yet been proven.

Under this bill, the number of inspections will rise from 8,000 to 65,000 a year. Naturally, this increase will come at a cost, and the House has a duty to see that the services cost Canadians as little as possible.

The provision of the bill on independent inspectors includes small businesses that could take on this role. We have to be sure that we understand the full impact of this provision before we pass this bill.

When I first read the bill and examined the outsourcing of inspections, I could not help but think about the first experience I had on Parliament Hill as an elected person. That was not as a member of Parliament, but as a mayor of a city. I was brought up here to be a witness, under my own steam, I might add, in case there is some inquietude about that, to give evidence with respect to water quality and water management in the country as a result of what happened in Walkerton in 2000.

Members of the House will remember with regret that neither of the two men working for the Utilities Commission in the Walkerton incident had any formal training whatsoever. The tragic results of water contamination in Walkerton will not be forgotten and should teach us all a lesson about accountable and effective inspections, no matter what the industry.

I am reminded of why engineers have a steel ring on their little finger when they graduate. It is to remind them that the construction of items under their control are very important because it was linked of course to that very famous bridge collapse, which was an engineering failure.

Every time that we outsource a government service, we should be very mindful that the service serves the public and serves a very good purpose, which, we should all remember, in the Walkerton incident did not work.

The first thing we should note today in examining the preliminary evidence before it goes to committee is that industry analyst Michael Ervin made some comments about the proposed legislation. What he said, which was illuminatory to me, was that we are debating what really is, in effect, the Weights and Measures Act anyway. As he put it:

--there are laws and regulations around the metering of gasoline through pumps already. And to my mind they are more than adequate.

The act in question requires that consumers get fair and accurate value for whatever they buy, and that measuring equipment must be held to certain standards. While the government may want to assure consumers that they are being burned by the retail gasoline industry, the effectiveness of the measures in this bill must be examined. If customers are being charged an additional $1.50 to $2 each time they fill up, they have every right to be upset. That is very unacceptable, of course. I have no doubt that in this House there is agreement that hard-working Canadians deserve that protection.

The Ottawa Citizen did a study in 2008 that revealed that of more than 200,000 government inspections in less than a decade, 6% of the pumps were inaccurate. In fact, 2% of the time, the pumps erred in favour of the consumer and 94% of inspections revealed consumers were getting what they paid for.

I likened it a little bit to my job in the House as vice-chair of the justice committee. We hear that there are vast and grave problems with the administration of justice in our community. We are beset with a new law every day, but in many cases the evidence shows that the real solution to many of the crime issues is to put in the resources with police, put in the resources with corrections officials, and I do not want to stray too far from the topic, but it is somewhat the case here. Yes, there is a problem in 4% of the cases, but is that enough to herald this as the panacea to all problems with respect to gas prices at the pumps?

Retailers evidently want a fair and level playing field with regulations that apply to all. Moreover, fair treatment of the consumer must be a priority and the amendments to regulations must be based, however, on solid evidence.

A constituent of mine, a small, independent retailer whom they call the little man, is Lyle Hogan. He is the guy who runs the station that still fills up the gas with an attendant. My 81-year-old mother searches all around town to find a gas station like that because she never quite figured out how to use those automated systems. Lyle Hogan has expressed to me some very real concerns about the laws that are applicable across this country. He told me how alarmed he was at the increased cost this legislation would visit on the independents in addition to what already occurs. His quote was, “Annual inspection is $2,000 for calibration and I am completely unaware of faulty equipment amongst others in this area”.

Mr. Hogan's worry is probably well founded because he is an honest, hard-working guy, out for the little man. It might even make it harder for the independents, who never make a lot of money in this industry, where the real problem is the concentration of ownership and the lack of competition in gas pricing in this country.

Lyle Hogan represents the hard-working Canadians whose livelihoods depend upon the retail gasoline industry. It does not matter what riding they are from. We all know them, and we also know, like the drug stores and millinery shops on Main Streets across this country, that they are a fading entity. They are the little guys. They are the Alan Jackson song, The Little Man.

We should be concentrating on the bigger issue. I hope that the debate that takes place at committee will follow a lot of the advice and information that we have received from the gas guru, my friend from Pickering—Scarborough East.

Hearsay of gross inaccuracy at the pumps in a malicious business practice about Lyle Hogan is not going to solve the issue. What is going to solve the issue about what affects Canadians is this. How often do we say the Americans are ahead of us with respect to retail price protection? They are. With respect to the Weekly Petroleum Status Reports, which come out of the energy information administration in the United States of America, they can give people like my friend from Pickering—Scarborough East the information that he needs to become the gas guru and know about the lack of competition, the wholesale industry of prices, and the substantial overvaluation of energy markets that occurs right now.

In other words, there is enough crude oil in the world. There is a supply in stock and it does not reflect the prices at the pumps. The prices at the pumps in this country are artificially high and the margin for retail operators such as Lyle Hogan might be 3¢, 4¢ or 5¢. He does not have a lot to play with.

When we talk about the retail industry, there have been mergers, acquisitions and closures to the point where in any town or city across this country, there are perhaps more gas stations, or bigger ones, but fewer owners and operators, brands, distinctions and diversification.

How is it that we can say there is probably a problem with information? We can say it because in the United States the service is there. The Americans know exactly what crude stocks there are, what prices ought to be, and what investors, through their Wall Street machinations, are doing to control upwards the price of retail gas.

Then we ask ourselves, why does any member of Parliament have to resort to an American publication and link it to Canadian stocks and the Canadian situation? The reason is because there was an idea floated around in 2005 of having a petroleum price information service for Canada, the same thing available in the United States. It has not been acted upon by the government. In fact, every inquiry to give it life has been quashed, and energy consumers, people knowledgeable in the industry, are left to use American information.

We have a situation where we do not really know what is going on in the Canadian industry. We can surmise from world crude prices. We have a concentration of ownership that is affecting the consumer dilatoriously.

Luckily enough, in my own province of New Brunswick, the provincial government saw fit to institute a regulator scheme. I am not saying it gives the right lower price that consumers deserve, because that is a Canadian issue, but it does give some regulation and some consistency over a period of time to prices, which at least allows people not to be shocked by price changes and not be subject to those long line-ups that we see in other provinces when it is announced that prices are going up or down, depending upon the market whims.

We are in May of 2010 now and the Ottawa Citizen's investigation came to light in May of 2008 with respect to pump accuracy. If Canadians had been gouged at the pumps, as the government maintained years ago, why did it not act on it sooner? I could say one word “prorogation”. That is something that we ought to bring up in this House. We ought to say that we have not been here as much as we would like to in order to speak to bills like this because the government keeps pulling the plug on legislation. It keeps pulling the plug on the democratic process and this minor fix to the bigger situation was delayed because of that.

More important, the bigger fix to the bigger issue, which is to look at the issue of concentration of ownership, the lack of information from a government agency, has been delayed even further because we have not been sitting enough. The Prime Minister and his press gang are so busy having drive-by press conferences that they do not want to really get down to the issue of prices at the pumps for Canadians.

In closing, this is a bit of a smokescreen. The bill should definitely go to committee. However, at committee, I am hoping the members of that committee discuss the real issue, which is why consumers, hard-working Canadian men and women, who have to drive their kids to school, who have to take them to minor hockey, who have to get to work, are paying too much at the pumps and why people like Lyle Hogan, who has a one-man operation, may be out of business because we have not, at this time, in this place, addressed the real issue of who is being gouged and who is doing the gouging.

I urge the government to get on this issue for the good of all Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right to note that this is very much a minor fix, that it is actually a smokescreen, with the overall industry challenges related to accountability, pricing, and availability to source.

However, one of the things that has been unique is that this country has given up a lot of its sovereignty, with regard to NAFTA. We have included energy as part of that agreement. I would like to hear his comments about the vulnerability and the limitations that we have because of NAFTA

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a challenge, if that member thinks the Windsor Spitfires can beat the Moncton Wildcats. I wanted to finally say that cannot happen and he knows I get the last word on this.

However, on the issue of NAFTA, obviously, we have been into NAFTA for a long time. The bigger issue that he and I could have common ground on is, what is the government currently doing about the stock of information, about what refineries, wholesalers and retailers are doing about gas prices in Canada?

When the Americans have more information regarding consumer protection than Canadians do, that does not sound like the Canada that I grew up in. It does not sound like the Canada that the Liberal Party stands for, which is having government involved, at least in the information, with respect to what affects consumers.

We need to do that work. We need to come together as parliamentarians and understand what the real price of gasoline is for consumers.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can recall, and I would like to remind the hon. member, that a number of years ago we had 16 to 20 major refineries. The member's party decided that it would bring in the dratted NEP, as it was so called. We saw what happened with the socialization and what it eventually did to the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

However, in his rush to come up with a socialization and/or basically a one-party price, what I would like to ask the hon. member is, within his province, where there is control over the pricing mechanism rather than the pre-market reign of the other provinces, just how much more are consumers paying for gas than they are in the other provinces?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there are mixed reviews, to answer the hon. member's questions, on whether the regulatory scheme in the provinces work. We followed P.E.I., in this regard. People are generally happy with it. The consumer watchdogs, however, not having the overall information about what consumer prices should be, are at a loss to describe whether these schemes work on a provincial level.

I think the debate here is not what each province is going to do, but what the federal government should do to give at least the information to consumers, consumer watchdogs, and allow some competition.

I should also remind the member, just as a little sally back, that it was former Prime Minister Mulroney, I recall, and I think I was in high school at the time, who allowed companies like Imperial Oil to run the board on mergers.

So, if he is saying NEP, I am saying Brian Mulroney. Maybe off camera we can decide that not exactly all of it was good for everybody.

What should be good though is that he, as a government member, should stand up for consumers and get the information into the hands of the people who can protect consumers, whom we all represent.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hit some key points and I liked the way he mentioned Lyle Hogan. The Conservatives often speak about competition and they go back to Adam Smith in the 1700s and talk about small competitors and how that would be a perfect market.

When I look at something like this, Lyle Hogan gets thrown out. He does not stand a chance because the big companies can afford to bring in their inspectors. I am not exactly sure where Lyle Hogan is but I think of my small producer in northern Ontario who is far away from major centres. He or she has to bring in a private inspector, not a government inspector, and major cost is involved. How does this disadvantage Mr. Hogan as opposed to the big monopolies or the oligopoly that is out there in the oil industry?

Maybe my colleague could explain how it really solidifies the hold of the larger companies while really getting rid of the small competitor that the Conservatives say they are helping but who they are hurting tremendously by basically putting them out of business.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member answered his own question and I agree with him 100%.

Lyle Hogan has operated a small place on St. George Street in Moncton for 40 years. He was with the big chains but is now an independent. He mentioned in our talk that this would be harder on him than it would be on the major service stations.

We have to figure out whether we as parliamentarians represent the little guy or whether we just represent the big companies, not only in gasoline distribution but in many sectors of life.

I think we could all agree that there is a growing concentration of ownership and a lessening of concern for individual workers and customers. If we cannot do something about that by at least agreeing, on a non-partisan basis, that information should be marshalled and publicized by the government, what are we doing here if we cannot at least do that?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to asking my question of a government member but I have not been able to find one to speak to this bill over the last couple of days. However, I know the member is a rather good lawyer and I am sure he will be able to answer my question.

I referred a question a couple of days ago to legislative counsel about whether Bill C-14 would inadvertently increase the fines for odometer rollbacks, which members know has been a big issue in this country for many years. People are not discouraged from rolling back odometers because the fines have been too low over the years. Clause 27 of this bill deals with the altering of odometers. The government has brought in increased fines, which is just great, but it also covers the rollback of odometers. I am just wondering why the government is not taking credit for that.

Why is there no mention whatsoever of all this good news for consumers in any of the government's press releases? Does the government even know it has done it?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a good lawyer I would not respond to something I have no idea about.

On the issue of rolling back odometers and consumer safety, this is something we have addressed in this House. It is very important. It goes along the theme of measuring and being honest to consumers, which is what this bill is all about.

Frankly, if this bill had been proposed as a minor and positive change, that would be fine, but I fear that sometimes in this game that we play we leave people with the impression that we have fixed the issue of gouging at the pumps. For most people, the issue of gouging at the pumps is the high price they pay. It is not the 3% of the time that they pay $1 extra. It is the higher taxes at the pump that the Conservative government said that it would address. The Conservatives ran on the platform that they would address excise tax. They had an opportunity to do that but they did not.

The other issue that they need to address concerns the ownership concentration of the few setting the price for the many. There has been no action on that from the government. It does not seem to care about talking to big business about how to help little business.

The government will make announcements at Tim Hortons, which is a fine establishment, but it is not the little guy either. The little guy is the mom and pop coffee shop. Maybe it is symbolic. As much as I like Tim Hortons, it stands for the mid to large to larger to Goliath industry representatives and not the little guy like Lyle Hogan.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.

It has been termed the fairness at the pumps act but it is actually a series of different measurements for a series of different products. This is an attempt at a smokescreen by the government to try to appear tough on the oil and gas industry, in particular to the retailers in this instance, who are not the culprits at the end of the day in terms of high pricing. That comes from other parts of the industry.

It is important to note that we will not be supporting this to go to second reading because this is really about de-regulation, less accountability and would cause greater problems for the Canadian public as opposed to fixing the current system under Measurement Canada, and penalties that could be done as well.

My colleague who spoke before me was speaking out about the upcoming Memorial Cup. I can say that the Spitfires will be returning as champions. We will continue that debate another time. However, I wanted too ensure that he did not have the last word, as he thought. He was wrong on that and he is wrong on his predictions as well.

This particular bill comes about in a very interesting way. It was actually a number of years ago that there was a challenge to the industry through Measurement Canada. That information was gathered a number of years ago and did not go public. A freedom of information request by the press broke the information and the story opened. It then led to some interesting discussions.

I would remind the House that on May 12, 2008, my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, asked the then minister of industry at that time, who has since been punted to another department, about this issue and whether or not the government would do anything on it.

In the response to my leader, the minister at the time said:

Second, I have instructed regulatory changes to be prepared. These will increase the onus on gas retailers. Fines will be increased from $1,000 per occurrence to $10,000 per occurrence.

Meanwhile, it took approximately two years for this to happen, and it was under another minister.

The government was very clear about trying to distance itself from this issue by not acting on it. It is rather perplexing because what it has offered are some modest changes in terms of accountability. I do want to run through some aspects of this bill, which is very important, and some of the background to it. I will also tackle some of the deficiencies of the bill and why it is just a smokescreen for an attempt to appear accountable to Canadians about this industry when the government really is not.

As I mentioned, a media story appeared in the Ottawa Citizen after an investigation was done by Measurement Canada which found that 5% of the 200,000 fuel pumps that it investigated between 1999 and 2007 delivered less fuel than reported on the pump display. The government inspection data showed that about one-third of Canada's gas stations, about 14,000, had at least one faulty pump.

We had a chronic situation with regard to that and it was uniform. There was a big story in my paper in Windsor West because we had some of the worst pumps in my riding. What that means is that people are not only getting ripped off by what they are paying at that time to the company, but they are also paying tax on phantom gasoline.

Despite having put this bill forward and despite having that information over all that time, the government did not use any of the available tools to either do one of two things: to fine the companies for doing that, which it could have been doing; or attempting to restore, from its own coffers, the theft from Canadians when it actually took taxes on phantom gasoline.

That is important because it just shows the lack of respect in terms of fixing the problem. We do not have a study that goes for nearly a decade which finds a significant problem across the board and then wait for a couple of years to introduce legislation. Ironically, this legislation would lead to the industry self-policing itself. Basically, it would be a wink-wink, nod-nod approach to accountability that would allow the industry to actually grow itself.

I will get into it later, but the inspectors who would be part of this process would likely come from those very companies. They would be creatures of the companies. As the testing, the equipment, the measurement and all those things are very specialized, it would be very difficult for independent companies to get into the market.

Measurement Canada would end up going to the administration of fines and penalties as a sole responsibility. It will probably be a lot less busy because it will probably get a lot less evidence about the actual situation. I have no confidence whatsoever that consumers would benefit from the particular changes outlined in this bill.

I mentioned that the bill is about other issues and I want to read them off. This is about measuring devices for a series of things: retail petroleum, downstream or wholesale petroleum, dairy, retail food, fishing, logging, grain and field crops, and mining. We are going to have deregulation in all of those elements as well. We do not accept that as a process to move forward.

I would point out that this industry has already gotten off enough with lack of regulation by not having the significant strength of a competition bureau. It does has some tools to it. In fact, a find was levied on a company just a little while ago today. It can happen but they are still not sufficient in terms of having an ombudsman office or the accountability monitoring that has been recommended since 2003.

I know the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, who has done terrific work on this file, will remember the days of coming here in the summer to have hearings and have the industry basically rule the roost and once again put this issue on the back burner. Unfortunately, we still have not seen accountability, although that member has done terrific work on this file.

I want to follow up now with the issues related to this that would change. It is important to notice in legislation that we can refer this to committee, and that is sometimes a reasonable approach to take. For ourselves, however, we will not do that because we do not want to see the use of private sector authorized service providers being activated by this legislation at the end of the day. The risk is far too great.

We have habitually seen abuse from this industry upon nations and upon customers, which is one of the reasons that we have to get off our dependency on oil and find other alternatives. We just have to look at the Gulf of Mexico right now where once again the industry was able to get its way. For those who say that it did not, that it is nonsense, because we all saw the political campaigns of the United States that said, “Drill, baby, drill”.

That has all evaporated right now but what has not evaporated is the hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude that is threatening the ecosystems that affect not only the United States but also Canada. We have asked questions about that and the Conservative members have heckled us saying that we are in Canada and not in the United States. However, those ecosystems are shared by a number of different species that have a connection to Canada. We also know that some of that oil can eventually reach into some of the international streams and eventually, if it is not plugged, reach into our own system here

This is a very serious issue and deregulation and letting industry self-police has led to that problem over there. When the “drill, baby, drill” campaigns were going on during the presidential election, the end result was that even the Obama administration loosened up standards to allow for more offshore drilling. The Americans have now put a moratorium on that, but there was enough of a penetration to open that up.

On the Canadian side, we have seen a whole debate over a number of years about the taxation policy of this issue. The taxation policy of this issue in this chamber has happened for many years and that is because there is basically a breakdown of our taxes into three taxes: the crude oil cost in terms of the price at the pump; the gross profit margins for retailers and refiners, which is around 16% to 18% for marketing; and taxation at 38%. Canada's taxation on this comes from royalty taxes, excise taxes and sales taxes.

I do not want this debate to be forgotten in terms of what members have previously said here when they talked about the cost and the price at the pump. I think the minister pointed to the cameras and warned the retailers that they were coming after them for the amount of money that they might have been scamming from not having the proper pumps fixed right, either knowingly or unknowingly.

There have often been government and opposition members talking about the cost of this to Canadians, that it is really important for our lifestyle, important for our environment and important too for how we use our natural resources.

I want to read a quote from the House of Commons on May 12, 2004:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that across the country Canadians are struggling with record gas prices. Canadian businesses are being hurt. Canadian consumers are burdened with the difficulties this is causing, but the government itself is rolling in record gas tax revenue.

Will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and agree to lower gas taxes for Canadians?

The member who said that was the current Prime Minister. It was the current Prime Minister who was advocating for the reduction of taxes on gasoline, something that the government really has not done.

When they tried to do that by removing the GST, there was no accountability in that for the system. What we have seen is the coffers of the nation suffer with the reduction of gasoline taxes at the pump from the GST without the savings being measured and paid back to consumers.

That is a real problem because the companies are getting record profits, record tax cuts and also extra revenue now from the taxation policies that were never followed up with proper accountability. That is because we do not have an ombudsman office. We do not have a system in place that ensures the policies are going to be fulfilled by the actual objectives and that was unacceptable.

I will read another quote:

...when all is said and done, the government seems content with high gas prices. The reason is the government does not want to reduce gas taxes, so it actually wants high gas prices....

Will the government admit that the real reason it does not want to do anything is that $1.40 is its actual target price for gasoline?

That was the current Prime Minister who was once again advocating for a policy that he has never put in place, and that is the policy of reducing gas prices for Canadians.

We never saw any of that with regard to this announcement. We did not hear the Minister of Industry say the government was going to ensure that any of these savings are going to be passed on. In fact, the creation of this system and this regime that is being proposed could actually increase the cost of gasoline for the retailers and subsequently for Canadians. There is going to be an increase in inspections, which I argue is good in a sense, but at the same time those costs are going to be borne by the retailer, and the retailer will pass those on. The margin of profit for the retailers is very small, especially for an independent operation. They do not have the same luxuries as some of the larger ones.

When we go to our gas station, it is almost like a drug store these days. They sell chocolate bars, pop, chips, coffee, and they partner with different organizations to run small businesses out of their stations. They have a whole series of different products and services, because gasoline has such a small margin of profit that they end up having to rely on other measures.

When this issue is going to be passed on to the inspectors, when they have to pay the fees for it, it will be interesting. They will be able to set their own prices for this. They will be able to keep a system in place that will be very difficult to challenge. As I mentioned earlier, the industry will have a key advantage. Who has the training, who has the equipment, who has the knowledge, who has the skill set to be able to do the type of testing that is necessary and make a business out of it?

They will have behind them a wealth of backing in terms of loans as well as operating costs that will give them a strategic advantage over any independent business or organization that may want to bring about accountability by being independent and doing that measuring outside the realm of the industry itself.

I suspect it will be a subsidiary, or it could be a spin-off, or it could end up being relied upon to get training, equipment and a series of things that will create a dependency model. We will not see the type of innovation that we will need on this issue.

We will see a continuation of deregulation. We will see the industry police itself and it is an industry, once again, that has shown no support whatsoever to being more competitive. That is critical. When we look at supply and demand we know that right now we have a record high supply of a number of different gasoline and fuel products, yet pricing still remains above a certain level. That is unacceptable.

We also do not necessarily have to have collusion in this industry, because there is a lack of competition with the vertical integration that has taken place. I would look to the issue, for example, of the Burlington refinery station that was shut down by Petro-Canada. Instead of investing in that facility and ensuring more competition for refining, it mothballed it and shut it down and then bought Esso gasoline to put in Ontario Petro-Canada sites. So there is no competition with regard to the product and the actual use of it on the open market. It is important because it does affect daily lives for a number of people.

We have everything from low income people who are very significantly affected by gasoline prices to truckers, in particular, who are dependent upon this. We have been talking about this issue since 2002-03 when it went to committee. Many truckers have moved into more independent operations and are getting squeezed right now. There is also the rural element where they have to traverse over a greater distance and have no choice but to use private transportation to ensure getting to a destination to be able to work or whatever it may be. They also have stronger winter conditions, using more fuel for a series of things.

When we look at this act being supposedly more accountability for consumers at the gas pump, in Ontario they will wake up on July 1. I do not know why the Prime Minister and Mr. McGuinty cannot leave Canada Day alone when bringing in a new tax. This is Mr. McGuinty's second taxation date on Canada Day. First it was for health care and now it is for this. Maybe we need an act of Parliament to stop taxation from starting on Canada Day. But when the HST comes into effect in Ontario, there is going to be a windfall for the McGuinty provincial government.

I had parliamentary research do some work for me. For those out there, parliamentary research is available for all members of the House. It is a very important part of our democracy. It allows economists, lawyers and other types of researchers to do independent work for members who may want to share it later on, but it is independent from an MP's office, other members and the government, and it is critical.

I asked for a breakdown on the HST in a responsible way. Researchers looked at 13 major cities across Ontario and the average price of gasoline over a number of years, I believe five years. Under the regime right now, they expect the provincial government to bring in an additional $1.2 billion in gasoline tax, and another $500 million is going to come in, so $1.7 billion in total, just for gasoline and diesel for the province of Ontario next year. That is if the price remains just under $1 a litre.

This windfall the provincial government is stepping into is available only because the Conservative government has agreed with the harmonized sales tax, and we can quote the finance minister talking about policies on this and wanting to bring it to other provinces. Ironically, we are borrowing $4 billion to bring this into Ontario. So we are borrowing money, we are going to pay interest on that money as we are in a deficit right now and we are then going to ask Ontarians to pay an additional $1.7 billion more in taxation at the pump this summer.

In conclusion, we need to have real accountability. We do not need deregulation in this industry. We need to make sure it is going to be held accountable. Every time anything is brought up, the government claims foul, that there are no issues, but I can say there is an issue and it is that Canadians have been getting hosed at the pumps not only by the retailers having poor equipment but also by the government's not living up to what it said when it was in opposition and introducing policies that increase taxation on people.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the hon. member's comments today and he was literally all over the map. One would assume he was talking about a complete national energy program rather than the bill that is before the House, to which he could and should be addressing his comments. Admittedly, this bill will not cure every problem associated with consumer pricing, but it is a bill that deals with one element of a problem and that is why I ask him to be specific.

After 30 years in the retail sector, I have a bit of knowledge of what I am saying. Whether one is talking about slippage, theft or fraud, the fact remains that it can and does and has gone on. It is an issue that has to be dealt with if we believe we have a duty to protect and save the public dollars. That is what this bill does.

As to the onerous costs, it takes about two minutes to do a pump test by weights and measures. It is simple. Someone puts 22.4 litres into a can, measures it and dumps it. Is it there or is it not? The pump is calibrated and adjusted. Either a seal goes on that it is accurate or it does not. It is not a cost that is going to be borne by the masses. It is a very simple cost.

As a retailer, I did not mind doing it because I wanted to ensure my customers were getting value for money. What is wrong with saving the customer money?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that he has a bit of knowledge on this. My comments were inclusive and certainly in order about the overall industry. It is the prerogative of members to point out that, when a bill is introduced that is so scoped and does not have the proper strategy behind it, it leads to other consequences and they all match together. I do not apologize for that. It is critical to connect the dots on this.

In specific answer to his question, yes, the process might be really short but, once again, where is the competition for measurement of this process going to come from? People in that industry are going to demand a profit for service and delivery and they are going to have to do it over different geographies, and that cost will be borne by the consumer.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Windsor West speak on this matter. We have worked on this issue over a number of years.

I certainly know the hon. member will recognize that what happened 30 years ago in the gas industry was very different from today. The comment made by the previous questioner demonstrates that even temperature compensation did not exist in those days and it takes a lot more than two minutes, using a proper prover and clinical requirement, to ensure that there is in fact an appropriate and accurate calibration.

The hon. member's riding is very close to the U.S. border. In the days of the NEB there was a made at home Canadian price. Now we are subject to international prices and it has become alarming not just with what happened last Friday, with a 1,000 point decline in the stock market, but the hon. member will probably know better what has happened with Goldman Sachs, its commodities and the fact that there has been a significant involvement of swap dealers, hedge traders, funds.

I am wondering if the hon. member would like to comment on the fact that it means that today, as we pay for another increase in the price of fuel, the price of fuel may in fact be overrated by some 30% to 40%. Because the Enron loophole has not been closed and we have subjected ourselves to international pricing, consumers in his riding and mine are now being badly affected, to the tune of not 1% of 1 in 25 pumps but, in fact, 30% to 40% of the actual cost of fuel regardless of where one is in the country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I left that part out of the debate and it is an important part.

At some of the hearings we heard that more paper barrels of oil change hands in some of the markets than are pulled out of the ground each day. With hedge funds, in particular, speculation affects the price and it is completely counter to a productive society that requires this fuel source to be part of its market-based system.

One of the things that needs to be examined again is the effect of the sale and trading of these products on our overall economy. It makes little sense for us to continue to fight over these tiny scraps like the 5% of pumps. It is a serious issue that people should get what they pay for and accountability should exist, but when the overall industry is at about a 30% price inflation right now, they are still going to get hammered far more significantly.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the price of gasoline in northern Ontario remains a huge issue. This past weekend it was $1.08 a litre. With HST coming shortly, it is going to increase even more.

There is one thing missing in this bill and I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on it. There is no refund or restitution on the taxes that have been collected on so-called phantom gasoline purchases. I wonder if he would like to comment on that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important point of fairness. From 1999 to 2007, citizens discovered this equation of gasoline not being provided to consumers. No attempt was made to measure that and either refund Canadians or, alternatively, create a petroleum monitoring agency or enhance the resources of the Competition Bureau.

The government could have done a series of things with the money it gained. It was an absolute theft. The government knows it has resources in its taxation policy to cover products not provided to the customer. There could have been a way to redirect some of those funds, either directly to the consumer or, if that was too costly, through competition issues to ensure there was more accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question. He referred to the comments by the member for Prince Edward—Hastings, that is, that verifying the accuracy of the measurements takes two minutes.

I think the Conservative member forgot to say that those checking the pumps will not be doing so on foot. They are definitely not going to walk with their little bucket and measuring tool from one gas station to the next. They have to travel fair distances, which results in transportation and equipment costs. In rural areas such as mine—a riding with an area of 10,000 km²—some gas stations can be 100 km apart.

I would like my NDP colleague to respond to the comments by the member for Prince Edward—Hastings, who said that it only takes two minutes to check the accuracy of measurements. Given the distances that must be travelled, it takes more than two minutes. What does he think?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have not been provided any evidence on the duration of the process for testing. I cannot imagine it being two minutes. I take the member at his word with regard to the process.

My colleague is correct. All kinds of equipment will be required as well as storage facilities and transportation to get to those locations. We will be dealing with hazardous materials so there will have to be some regularly requirements and training elements, which are critical. A whole series of infrastructure will be required.

I do not believe there will be competition in this business. I do not believe there will be three or four operators in the city of Windsor West who will do the testing. It will probably be done by one operator out of the general region who will have close connections and ties to the industry.

A number will be assigned to the retailer and the retailer will have to pay for it. What are they going to do? Are they going to then try to bring somebody from the Toronto area to come down and test, or some other area if the operator is in the North or in Quebec. There will be vast jurisdictions where one person will cover off a whole series of things, literally driving hundreds of kilometres to get to those sites. People charge a per diem do those types of things.

Moving it out of Measurement Canada is a mistake, in my opinion, because it will pass on to the consumer those extra costs. Also, it will be too close to the industry to bring it the accountability that is necessary, which the minister purports this will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. I acknowledge the good work the member for Windsor West has done on this. I know many members in the House have probably followed his conversation on this over a number of years. However, I want to highlight the fact that back in 2008 the member for Windsor West raised this issue a number of times, including in question period.

A report was done on this and then a lot of media coverage followed. I will touch on some of the media coverage of a moment.

An article from May 12, 2008 Ottawa Citizen, entitled “Hosed at the pumps”, says, “Across Canada, about one gas pump in 20 shortchanges consumers”.

It goes on to talk about the fact that they were looking at a May long weekend and during that period of time:

—fuel prices scraping up against their all-time highs, and some will pay for more gas than they actually put in their tanks. An investigation shows that between Jan. 1, 1999, and Aug. 28, 2007, nearly 5% of gas pumps tested in Canada -- about one pump in 20 -- failed government inspections by dispensing less fuel than they should.

And while some faulty pumps give out more fuel than they charge for, more often than not, it is the consumers -- not the retailers -- who get hosed, government inspection records show.

The government clearly identified that there were some serious problems at the pumps. The article goes on to say:

The problem of faulty pumps appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. About 30% of all gas vendors tested have had at least one pump flunk an inspection by shortchanging consumers, according to the inspection reports.

Based on those rates, motorists who fill their tanks at different pumps each week were, on average, likely to drive off with less gas than they paid for at least twice a year. And those who gassed up at the same pump every time could have been hit far more often.

Most of the pump errors were small - between 30 and 60 cents' worth of gas on a fill-up at today's prices. But some pumps have shown far larger failures. Last year, a pump at a station near Chatham, Ont., was caught shortchanging consumers by 1.5 litres on a 50-litre tank, which is common to most average size cars. Drivers who visited one pump on Corner Brook, N.L., would have had to buy an extra two litres to top up their tanks. And at a certain outlet at Yarmouth, N.S., a fill-up would have cost about $2.25 more than it should have.

This is a very lengthy report, but it goes on to say:

But the inspection reports reveal a puzzling trend: Canadian consumers are squeezed by faulty pumps far more often than vendors. When a gas pump fails a measurement test, 74% of the time it is the motorist who is disadvantaged by the error, and not the retailer, according to inspection data.

In its conclusion, it says:

On more than 1,100 occasions since 1999, inspectors have shut down pumps altogether because they were giving out as much as nine per cent less gas than the consumer paid for. Although the measurement mechanisms inside pumps are sealed to prevent tampering, Measurement Canada has found cases of suspected fraud more than 100 times. The agency can refer cases to the police if warranted.

In 2008 a government report identified some serious problems. The member for Windsor West raised it in the House of Commons and in other venues. Of course we had no response. We are now in 2010.

The bill outlines some cases of increased fines, introduction of administrative monetary policies, mandatory inspection frequencies, use of private sector authorized service providers and so on. I know the member for Windsor West has raised some concerns about this process, but I will talk a little about why this is so important to Canadians.

The government side says that we have been through an economic recession and that we are in a recovery. However, this kind of initiative is very important for consumers in Canada. Part of the reason for that is many families in Nanaimo—Cowichan and in other parts of the country still suffer the impacts of the recession.

I point to a report from Citizens for Public Justice, titled “Bearing the Brunt: How the 2008-2009 Recession Created Poverty for Canadian Families”. These are the very families who will often fill up at these pumps. Some may say that maybe a $1 or $2 is not that big of a deal. However, when people are cash-strapped and wonder whether they can feed their families, that $1 or $2 makes a difference.

I point out that many of these families are still bearing the effects of the recession. In this report, it states:

THE 2008-2009 RECESSION created poverty and economic insecurity for Canadian families. While we have to wait until 2011 for most published measures of poverty to show the recession's impact, there are a number of key economic indicators that already show the trends of increased poverty and economic insecurity throughout the recession....

Evidence from the last two recessions demonstrate that recessions can have a long-term detrimental impact on the poverty rate and well-being of low income Canadians....

Between 2007 and 2009, there was a significant increase in the poverty rate and the child poverty rate. This increase mirrored the considerable rise in unemployment, caused by the recession. The number of EI recipients increased, but so did the number of unemployed Canadians not receiving EI benefits. In fact, despite the steep plummet in employment, the rate of EI coverage only increased to 51%. This meant that social assistance had to fill in the gaps created by EI, leading to mounting welfare caseloads.

Those in low wage jobs who were most vulnerable before the recession began were the most likely to lose their job, but those lucky enough to keep their job or find a new job were not untouched by the recession as the proportion of precarious jobs increased.

In ridings like mine in Nanaimo—Cowichan, many workers, for example, forestry workers, fishing workers, are in and out of work. I hear consistently from forestry workers in my area that the way the employment insurance scheme is set up, they get less weeks than the unemployment rate in our area demonstrates they should get. Therefore, we have long-term workers in a particular sector who are struggling to pay their bills. When we have those kinds of things happening at the gas pumps, that has a direct impact on their ability to raise their family in a reasonable way.

This report goes on to talk about unemployment. It says:

Job losses during the recession disproportionately affected those most economically vulnerable, as 1 in 4 workers making $10 an hour or less lost their job....It took almost 8 years after the last recession for unemployment to decline to its pre-recession rate. Without a concerted government effort, it could take years for unemployment and poverty to decline to their 2008 rate.

It goes on to highlight a number of other details around what happens post-recession.

The kinds of initiatives that have been proposed could go a long way toward closing that gap. However, as the member for Windsor West points out, part of these inspections and those kinds of things are outsourced to private companies and what we have is another system that does not give any degree of confidence to consumers that their rights will be protected. This follows on in kind of a legacy we see from the Conservatives.

On May 12, 2008, in the 39th Parliament, the member for Toronto—Danforth raised the issue around the Ottawa Citizen report. He said:

—the Ottawa Citizen has reported that one in twenty pumps is not correctly calibrated and that consumers are paying the price. In addition to shortchanging people at the pumps, the big oil companies are not even giving people the gas they paid for. At $1.30 a litre, every cent counts.

When will this government create an ombudsman position to protect consumers from the big oil companies?

The response from the minister of industry of the day was that the government would not create the position for ombudsperson to look at what had happened to consumers and whether they were protected. This is an ongoing pattern.

I want to touch on other consumer protection issues, because this is all part and parcel. New Democrats have consistently been calling for consumer protection, whether it is gas pumps, whether it is product safety, whether it is credit cards or cellphones. It goes on and on. A number of matters have been raised in the House about protection for Canadian consumers and they have been completely ignored or paid lip service to by the members of government. It is pretty shocking.

I will touch on credit cards. The member for Sudbury has raised this issue a number of times. I will talk a bit about the time frame.

On November 24, 2008, New Democrats were the first to raise the alarm bells over Canadians being gouged by outrageous credit card rates. We see a bit of a pattern here. The member for Windsor West raised the issue around what is happening at the gas pumps, and the member for Sudbury raised what is happening with credit cards.

On March 27, 2009, a nationwide poll showed a whopping 82% of Canadians with credit cards support tighter rules for the credit card industry.

On April 27, 2009, listening to Canadians, New Democrats passed a motion in Parliament calling on the government to protect consumers from credit card gouging. The New Democrats' plan called for legislation to end abusive fees and interest rate hikes. We are protecting young people and those who pay their bills on time. A majority of MPs voted in support of the New Democrat motion.

On May 8, 2009, the Conservatives introduced their own credit card reform, which turned out to be little more than an information campaign to better show Canadians just how they are getting gouged.

On June 30, 2009, the Senate committee report recommended that consumers have their pockets picked even further. The report suggests that merchants be allowed to charge an extra fee to consumers who use premium credit cards.

On October 27, 2009, the deadline set out in the New Democrat credit card motion came and went with no action from the government. Consumers were again left out in the cold by a government that puts banks and credit card companies first.

On November 19, 2009, the government once again sided with its corporate friends by passing a toothless voluntary code of conduct for credit and debit card industries as a way of consumer protection.

We see a pattern here. The private sector will be doing the inspections for the industry that are outlined in Bill C-14. There is a credit card voluntary code of compliance, which we know has no teeth. I am continuing to hear mainly from small businesses in my riding that they have no guarantee when somebody pays with a credit card that they are not going to pay some outrageous sum as a credit card transaction fee. They cannot tell by looking at the cards. These businesses often operate close to their margin and simply cannot afford to pay that extra charge.

Financial literacy workshops are happening across this country. Working families and poorer families in my riding say that they do not know what the government is hoping to achieve with a financial literacy workshop. Their problem is that they only make $10 an hour. They are financially literate with that $10 an hour. They know how to stretch it so that they can pay their rent, feed their children and maybe if they are lucky, run their car. They do not need a financial literacy workshop to tell them how to manage their finances. What they need are decent paying jobs. That is where the Conservative government has fallen down.

New Democrats bring things forward. They talk about credit cards. They talk about the need for a financial plan for Canada. They talk about gas prices and the gouging that goes on at the pumps. What we get from the government is a financial literacy consultation process, or we get a voluntary compliance on credit cards. That will not put food on the table for people in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

What we need is some meaningful action. What we need is the kind of reform we have been talking about in terms of providing income security to people.

Who gets hurt by high gas prices? I have talked a little about the low income families. I have talked about working families, some of whom have seasonal employment, like many of the forestry workers in my riding and some who are in low wage jobs and are trying to make ends meet, but I have not talked about seniors. Many, many seniors in this country are on fixed incomes. Many seniors in this country had investments or perhaps they were lucky enough to have a pension plan. However, there are seniors who have been collecting their pensions from companies that they thought would be in business forever and they are watching those companies go bankrupt.

I was at a heartbreaking meeting a number of weeks ago. I will not mention the company, but a large company in my riding is teetering on the edge. I met with a roomful of men who were between 65 years and 70 years of age. They had worked their entire life for that company and they are wondering if they will have enough pension left. One man said to me, “I am 70 years old. How can I go out and find a job to support my wife?” That is an important question for that 70-year-old man who had worked in forestry all his life.

I urge the government to put in consumer protection programs, whether they be programs to provide credit card protection or pension protection for workers, so that we do not have to work with pensioners to find a plan that will enable them to support their families in their declining years.

I was pleased to speak to this bill. I am hopeful that members of the House will take to heart what the member for Windsor West said when they are considering this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan will have four minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has four minutes left to conclude her remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have left there are a couple of points that I want to bring to the attention of the House.

Bill C-14 is entitled fairness at the pumps act. I just want to briefly talk about what fairness means. It means conformity with rules or standards, ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty, and the attitude of being just to all. Fairness could be that everyone gets the same, but maybe that should be that everyone gets what they actually need and I think that is an important point.

Fairness at the pumps is part of the title of this bill.

New Democrats have been calling for a number of measures for consumer protection over a number of years. I alluded yesterday to the fact that the member for Windsor West since 2008 and earlier has been calling for some fairness for consumers when it comes to overall gas price regulations and fairness at the pumps.

New Democrats have a much broader agenda when we are talking about consumer fairness and consumer protection. We have been calling for a number of initiatives. This measure that is before the House is a step but it is not adequate. We have been calling for fairness for consumers with regard to ATM fees, interest rates, fees charged by fringe banks, and for air passengers.

Many members of the House have spent all kinds of time in various delays at airports. I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona has been working hard on fairness for airline passengers.

The member for Sudbury has worked on capping the interest rates on credit cards to a maximum of five percentage points over prime by amending the Bank Act.

We have called for an ombudsperson when it comes to gas prices. We have asked for funding for citizen oversight committees to monitor fees, rates and regulatory decisions as part of the formal regulatory and rate setting process for banks, telephone companies and cable corporations.

We have been asking for an investigation and recall of unsafe and toxic consumer products including toys, groceries and pet foods. We have asked for increased testing and inspection of imported products and a requirement that federally-regulated agencies provide better customer service as well as better complaint mechanisms and measurable high quality customer support.

There is also the leaky condo crisis in my own province of British Columbia. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the leaky condo crisis is an ongoing crisis for many families. We would like to see the responsibilities of federal agencies, as promised by the Conservatives, to hold an inquiry into the roles and responsibilities and tax exemptions for repair and restoration. We would also like to see mandatory labelling of farm fish.

Finally, we would like to see all consumer related federal agencies under one roof, by naming a minister specifically responsible for consumer affairs. Canadians deserve a minister devoted to protecting their interests. In terms of gas pricing at the pumps, that would make a lot of sense.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to listen to my colleague from Nanaimo--Cowichan both yesterday in the early evening and today again about something that is a hugely important consumer protection issue.

I have been hearing about it from my constituents not just this year but frankly since I was first elected. It seems to me that every long weekend, every time the weather turns nice, we see the price at the pumps going up.

I recognize that the bill that is before us today only deals with a small part of that. It deals specifically with the actual pumps and the recalibration of the pumps, but I think there is a much larger issue.

As far as I am concerned, the bill leaves the profiteering oil companies largely untouched. It goes after the small business retailers with enforced inspections, with this new mammoth bureaucracy, when really what people want is to stop the gouging at the pumps.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague has any thoughts at all about what the bill might do to some of the smaller businesses that actually operate family-run gas stations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is right. We are coming up to a long weekend and I expect that each and every one of us will go back to our home communities and surprisingly find that gas prices have gone up 5¢ to 10¢ a litre. It is a tradition on long weekends in Canada. Sadly, it is a tradition that affects consumers. Yesterday in my speech I mentioned that low income Canadians are even harder hit by this kind of pricing. The member for Windsor West has long called for oversight on how prices at the gas pumps are arrived at.

I want to come back for a moment to why this piece of legislation was introduced. The member for Hamilton Mountain pointed out that it does not go nearly far enough and adversely impacts on small retailers. I want to refer to the Ottawa Citizen article in 2008 which talked about the report that eventually led to this piece of legislation. It said:

But using the most conservative figures, pumps that fell outside the tolerance zone would have shortchanged consumers by at least $17 million annually if projected across the entire industry. At the same time, however, fast pumps would give out $8 million in free gas. On the small percentage of pumps outside the tolerance zone, consumers come out about $9 million behind.

It went on to say:

But if pumps that passed inspection also skewed against the consumer by about the same rate within the tolerance zone, Canadian drivers would be out of pocket even more.

With about 40 billion litres of gas sold in Canada, the 0.5% variation within the legal tolerance represents a potential swing of $240 million in either direction. If the variations in gas flowing from these pumps evened out, it would have no effect on consumers. But even a small shift could represent millions of dollars.

That article points out that not only are consumers impacted by the variations in the pumps, but the small retailers are as well. Their margins are pretty tight. If they are giving out free gas, they cannot afford that. The much broader issues around regulation of gas prices and effective oversight into pump regulation require attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the great appearance of what it intends to do which is to create fairness for consumers at the pumps and at the same time make it easier for retailers, but therein lies the problem with the bill.

For retailers the Conservatives have thrown much of the enforcement into the realm of the private market. It is similar to when people wanted to receive rebates for doing work on their homes so that heat would not escape. The problem was the consumers had to pay for the inspection. It was that upfront cost. In this case what bothers me is throwing it to the private market to allow inspectors to come in and do the inspections. Unfortunately, that could cause problems for smaller retailers especially in my riding and perhaps in the member's riding as well. I would like her to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding includes a number of small towns and small retailers. We also have a very proud co-operative movement. There are a number of co-operative gas bars that service Nanaimo—Cowichan and other parts of Vancouver Island. These small retailers cannot afford to have downloading on the prices. The solution is to increase the number of government inspectors that are available--

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Random inspections.

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

The member for Elmwood—Transcona is pointing out that random inspections are the way to deal with it. The government inspectors do a very good job, but they need the resources to do that job effectively. More inspectors are needed. Random inspections would certainly help to identify where there are problems.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen Conservative consumer legislation, ever, that does not have an offset for private business.

In this case, the government wants to turn a random inspection system done by government inspectors which the industry will trust over to the government's private sector friends who can charge an arm and a leg for the inspections. They will be making appointments, I presume, so the retailer will know when the inspector is showing up. I cannot think of a worst case scenario than what the government is proposing.

We had a very similar situation in Manitoba a number of years ago with automobile inspections. The inspections were done on a random basis over the course of several governments over many years. The public was satisfied with that system. Cars were called in on a random basis once or twice over a 10-year period and the required repairs were done. The Filmon Conservative government turned the system over to the private garages, which have a conflict of interest. Not only are they certifying the vehicles as safe, but they are also doing repairs. There is an incentive for them to drive up the repairs. When this system was brought in under the Filmon Conservative government, the cost of low-end cars doubled overnight.

The other thing is that an inspection is not done unless the car is being sold. If someone drove a car for 15 years, it would never be inspected no matter how many things need to be done to it. An inspection is only done when there is a change in ownership and the garage hits the owner up for maybe hundreds of dollars' worth of repairs.

This is the type of Conservative approach to consumer affairs. There is never an approach like defending air passengers by passing air passenger protection because there is no offset in that for private business. That is what the Conservative government is all about.

We would like to support legislation like this, but we would like to see it being fair to the public. We do not want it to be legislation that turns some of the public sector over to the private sector so that it can benefit. I do not think we are going to see a lot of happy private businesses.

I would like to know when we are going to hear from a Conservative speaker on this bill. I have been waiting three days now for one of the government members to speak because I have some interesting questions to ask about an unknown part of this bill, and that is the rollback of odometers. While it is covered under the Weights and Measures Act, this bill would actually increase the penalties which would cover the rollback of odometers. That is great news. Why is there no mention of this in the government press release? As a matter of fact, rollback of odometers probably costs the Canadian public much more than what shortages at gasoline pumps cost them.

I would like somebody to answer that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona touched on a number of subjects in his question, but I am going to come back to the use of private sector service providers for the inspections.

There is a larger issue here. Canadians look to their government to provide some certainty around the products that they consume or fairness at the pumps. Over a number of years they have seen an erosion of that confidence in their government. We have seen toy recalls. We have seen problems with pet food. We have seen problems with cosmetics. We have seen this problem at the gas pumps. What that says to Canadians is the government is not putting the interests of Canadians first and foremost.

Private inspection agencies is simply the wrong way to go. That is a job that rightfully belongs to the government, with government inspectors and regulators.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that we are now at the point in the debate where the speeches will be 10 minutes and the question and comment period will be 5 minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.

When it comes to transportation, we have made monumental advances in technologies. Inventions such as the train, bus and airplane have allowed us to explore the world we live in at relatively modest prices. Industrialization gave us the ability to mass produce public transit vehicles so that everyone could be free to move, but sadly, we are still using primitive and environmentally harmful petroleum fuels to propel most of our modes of transportation.

Both gasoline prices and carbon dioxide emissions are creating a growing transportation problem. As a result, governments are being forced to consider implementing better public transportation initiatives in an effort to reduce the impact of the declining oil economy on both our environment and on financial markets. What we need now from the senior levels of governments is a meaningful funding commitment to research and develop renewable energy sources that will allow municipalities, which are already struggling, to overcome their congestion and pollution problems.

In an ideal world, cycling and walking would be the preferred options for most Canadians, but unfortunately, with urban sprawl and a growing number of people who need to commute for work, they cannot avail themselves of those options. That leaves public transit as the only other sustainable solution because it is inclusive and economical, mitigates climate change and improves air quality. But progress in this area is moving at a snail's pace and in the meantime, people have few options but to stay in their cars.

That means the price of gas is an enormous factor in the day to day lives of Canadians. Whether they commute to work, travel to visit friends and family across the country, take meals to housebound seniors, drive their kids to weekend tournaments, or need gas to transport goods for small businesses, filling the tank is a constant struggle for millions of Canadians.

I have been hearing from people from right across my riding of Hamilton Mountain about the hardship that is caused by the rising price of gas, but what is worse is that they have no confidence that the price they are paying at the pump actually reflects what is happening in the market. They believe they are being hosed at the pumps. Here are just a few of the stories that they shared with me.

Jeff said, “It isn't fair that I can barely pay my bills, and paying for fuel keeps me from paying off debt, while gas companies increase their profits by billions”. Vivian said, “I'm retired and finally have some time to visit friends and family. But the car sits in the driveway because I can't afford to travel. The gouging oil companies have taken away our way of life”. Dennis wrote, “If we cannot count on the huge oil conglomerates to treat us fairly and not gouge us...the government should step in and do it for them...we are all being gouged big time”. Mark said, “The oil companies are making billions, while driving has become a luxury we can't afford. Who has the power here, the government or the oil companies?”

The price of gas drives up the cost of all commodities. From food to building supplies, manufactured goods to public services, the price of gas is a key cost driver. It affects all of us, whether we drive or not. Government has a responsibility to ensure Canadian consumers are treated fairly. It is the job of government to protect Canadians from the dubious business practices of big oil companies who steal from consumers with faulty gas pumps and gouge Canadians with price hikes inexplicably tied to weekends and warm weather.

Unfortunately, if predictably, Bill C-14 addresses only one element of that complex problem. It promises to increase fines and penalties for retailers who operate gas pumps that significantly shortchange consumers. To say that this is a day late and a dollar short is a profound understatement.

It is worth reviewing how we got here, how we got to a place where years after clear fraud has been exposed, this allegedly tough on crime government is only now getting around to proposing completely inadequate, half-baked remedies. It has been two long and expensive years since the Ottawa Citizen first reported that the government knew that its friends in the oil and gas industry had been ripping off consumers for decades. When the government was finally forced to release the Industry Canada report showing that fully 14,000 gas stations in Canada have at least one inaccurate pump, the New Democrats demanded action. The government said, “Good idea. We will get right on that”, and did precisely nothing.

During the last election campaign, the government again said to Canadians that it was going to do something about fuel pumps that deliver less fuel than the consumer paid for. The Conservatives indicated that this time they really, really meant it, yet they still did nothing. Finally, with this bill, the government has proposed an increase in fines and penalties for retailers who steal from their customers, but that addresses only part of the problem.

In advancing Bill C-14, the government has completely ignored the other critical issues that need urgent attention. In fact, the list of issues that this legislation does not address is more impressive than the legislation itself. We see no mention of the price gouging policies of big oil that mean consumers pay more for gas on long weekends and over the summer. There is no means of refunding consumers for decades of overpayment resulting from faulty pumps, estimated to amount to millions of dollars a year. There is not a word about restitution for the taxes that the government has collected on those overpayments, and this legislation is silent on the repercussions of privatizing inspection services, a move that essentially leaves the gas industry to police itself. We have seen how well that works.

The government must demonstrate that it gets it, and the bill does not do that. It is so bereft of meaningful solutions to the challenges Canadians face that one cannot help but suspect it is little more than a token to consumers, while big oil is left free to operate much as it has always done.

Then again, this is a government that has chosen to spend $6 billion this year alone on corporate tax cuts to big corporations like the oil and gas industry, so I suppose I am not surprised that this is where its priorities lie. But it is adding insult to injury by punishing hard-working Canadians even further with the much hated HST, which will increase the price of gas by another 8%.

Time and again the government shovels tax dollars by the truckload into the hands of profitable corporations while it fails to stand up for consumers. Canadians want a mechanism to protect them from the excesses of the big oil companies. They want an independent arbiter who can hear their concerns and complaints and make decisions in the public interest.

That is why I introduced Bill C-286, legislation to create an oil and gas ombudsman who would be charged with providing strong, effective consumer protection to ensure no big business could swindle, cheat or rip off hardworking families.

An oil and gas ombudsman would be an independent monitoring agency where Canadians could hold oil and gas companies accountable for their business practices. The ombudsman's office would investigate consumer and business complaints relating to price fixing, gouging and cheating, and provide for remediation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the ombudsman would then challenge gas companies to respond, and could report to the Minister of Industry for action if he or she remained unsatisfied with the response. Finally, the ombudsman's office would report annually to the House of Commons on the activities and findings of the office, so that Canadians would get accountability through their elected representatives.

It is time to shine a light on how the petroleum industry operates in this country and to hold it to account on behalf of Canadians. In a country as vast as ours and as poorly served by public transit, the ability to fill up the tank should not be a luxury. Exorbitant profits financed by price gouging and tax subsidies must be remedied.

I urge the government to do its job, to stand up for Canadian consumers and put big oil on notice that we mean business and we will hold them to account.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members are aware that over the last 20 years, perhaps, successive studies have been done. As a matter of fact the pile is thick. I believe about 125 studies have been done on price fixing at the gas pumps. In all cases, at the end of the day the conclusion has always been that the oil companies are doing nothing wrong, when the public knows better. The fact of the matter is that the Competition Act has to be changed. That is key to this whole business.

The Bloc has introduced a bill in private members' hour, Bill C-452, to do exactly that. Under the Competition Act, it would authorize the Commissioner of Competition to inquire into an entire industry sector.

It has been pointed out many times that gas prices are much higher here than in the United States. We know there is price gouging and price fixing going on. It has been reported many, many times by people, who actually work in the gas stations, that they get a phone call from their head office and are told to raise the price. They do this with all of their stations. They do not dare question that.

That is what is really key here, but does the government make any moves in this direction? Absolutely not. Did the Liberal government do anything about this issue during its 13 years in power? Absolutely not. At the end of the day, we can only conclude that what we need is an NDP government in this country to bring in real consumer protection, because it will not happen under Conservatives or Liberals.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the conclusion of my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I know that is surprising.

I want to speak about his larger point because he is absolutely right. When complaints have been brought forward to the government, when there have been investigations into collusion by the oil company, the conclusion has always been that there is nothing wrong here. That simply does not pass the nod test. Canadians do not believe it and Canadians deserve confidence that their interests as consumers are being protected by the government. That is not going to happen until we have an independent review.

I would remind members of the House what happened when the government committed to Canadians that it would protect their interests during foreign takeovers. Remember that we all have to make sure foreign takeovers are to the net benefit of Canada. How many of those foreign takeovers have been turned down by the government? Only one and only at the urging of the NDP.

In the meantime, we have lost thousands and thousands of jobs from companies that have taken over what used to be solid Canadian companies with decent paying jobs. They were bought out by foreigners and we have lost the jobs. We need independent reviews.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment before I ask a question. The other NDP member asked a question with respect to the Liberals. When the Liberals were in government, the price was about $75 to $78 per barrel. The prices at the pump were about 55¢ to 60¢. We did conduct a review and we did find some form of collusion that we addressed.

How can the hon. member explain this scenario, where the price today per barrel is about $79 or $80 while at the pump it is an average of $1.02 to $1.05 per litre? Some time ago in the supposed crisis, the price per barrel was at $150 and they were charging us $1.04 or $1.05. How does this discrepancy match? My constituents are upset. They say they do not mind being fair.

The Conservative government promised during the election that it would eliminate the excise tax on anything above 85¢ per litre. It has not done so. Does she think that would also help the consumer?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my Liberal colleague. We have heard the exact same consumer complaints from our constituents over and over again. The gas pricing policy simply does not make sense.

He talks about the fact that one pays the same at the pumps no matter what the cost of the barrel has been when it is compared year over year. I would make the same argument that the cost of a barrel of oil somehow does not get reflected when Canadian gas prices are compared to American gas prices. On the spot market, we are still paying the same for the same barrel of oil.

He is absolutely right. There is no consumer protection here. More importantly, Canadians are right when they say this matter deserves serious investigation. We are being hosed at the pumps. We are being gouged, and we have a government that is not doing its job.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and follow my very talented colleague from Hamilton Mountain to speak on Bill C-14, which should be called the more rip-offs at the pumps act.

As with virtually everything else the Conservative government has done, it simply does not seem to want to address Canadians' concerns. We have seen this in a number of other industries, which I will get back to in a moment. Very clearly, as the NDP critic for industry and member for Windsor West has said, the Conservative government is acting two years after the NDP first exposed the ongoing rip-offs taking place at gas pumps across the country.

Two years ago the NDP brought this forward. Two years ago the NDP started its campaign and, finally, laboriously, reluctantly, the Conservatives have brought a series of half measures to address this issue. It is simply not acceptable.

The Conservatives' underlying philosophy is that they simply do not believe in protecting Canadians. They do not believe in protecting Canadian jobs or in protecting Canadian consumers. We see this time after time.

Even with the one thing they are supposedly good at, which is their so-called anti-crime agenda, we see them cozying up to the incredibly brutal paramilitary thugs who kill people in Colombia and offering a preferential trading relationship to that regime and its secret police, paramilitaries and drug lords.

We see the difference between how Conservatives speak prior to election campaigns and what they actually do. That is why the government is in so much difficulty, not just with the repeated scandals we have seen over the past few months but also very clearly in the erosion of its support.

In British Columbia where the Conservatives brought in the HST, we are seeing a complete erosion in support. A lot of Conservative MPs from British Columbia simply will not be back in the House after the next election. British Columbians would say to bring on an election because they want to punish Conservatives for imposing the HST on them.

Getting back to Bill C-14, it is being brought forward very reluctantly by the Conservatives to address what has been a chronic mismeasurement around gas pumps. I will come back to that a little later. These faulty pumps always seem to operate against consumers. It is not as if there are cases where people are getting free gas, no siree. Consistently, hard-working Canadian consumers are being ripped off.

Two years went by before the Conservatives decided to take very reluctant action. What have they done? In this bill they have decided to, largely, privatize the inspection service. They have played around a bit with the fine component, but the problems have been inspections and the actual willingness of the government to push the industry to comply. Given that we see in this very weak bill some adjustments on fines and a privatizing of inspections, we can see that this is not an effective way of dealing with this at all.

What is not in the bill? There is no ombudsman office to evaluate problems and investigate complaints so that consumers actually have somebody to go to. The government does not want Canadian consumers to be protected in any way, whether we are talking about excessive bank fees or the rip-offs at the pumps generally and the price fixing that goes on. The government has not wanted to take action on any of those fronts. It believes in what it calls voluntary compliance, which is basically saying that we should hand over to business lobbyists the ability to determine their own rip-off regime.

In this bill there is nothing to provide consumers with an advocate to act on their behalf. It is certainly not the government. Why not an ombudsman office?

There is no refund or compensation for any consumer who has been ripped-off consistently, not only for the last two years while the NDP has been pushing this issue, but in all the investigations that have taken place over the last decade that have repeatedly found faulty pumps operating against consumers' interests. They get ripped-off because the government is not willing to act and it says that is quite all right.

The Conservatives are willing to shovel tens of billions of dollars off the back of a truck to bank lobbyists and powerful CEOs in the energy companies. They just throw money all over the place in the most irresponsible way. They never set any job targets and there is never any quid pro quo. Industry never has to respond with anything at all. However, the moment consumers are being ripped-off, all of a sudden the Conservatives say that there is no money, no refund, no compensation for them.

What about the taxes that were collected on what has been called phantom gasoline? There is no refund there either.

What we basically have through this process is a legitimization of the rip-offs that took place. This bill would just rubber stamp that. Canadian consumers have been ripped-off for years and to the government that is quite all right. It simply brings in a bill that pays some lip service to it but the Mr. and Mrs. Smiths in northern Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are all out of luck. However, for banking CEOs, the government just shovels tens of billions of dollars toward them but because consumers come from main street they are out of luck. It is for those reasons that this bill is so lamentably inadequate.

We can look at the price-fixing that has gone on that has ripped-off Canadian consumers to a stunning degree. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that one weekend of price-fixing by Canadian oil companies takes millions of dollars out of the pockets of Canadian consumers but there has been no action from the government at all.

How does that work? It is very simple. When the price spikes on a barrel of crude oil, the oil companies immediately raise the price on old stock. They purchase it at the lower price but immediately impose a new price. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and others have investigated and explained how this takes place on a systematic basis, particularly when the weather gets nice. Any change in the international price of crude oil means an immediate spike up in the price at the pump.

What happens afterward if the reverse is true? The prices do not come down. If the price of crude oil falls, the price stays up for an extended period of time. This is all windfall profits. What we have is a spike up immediately, an immediate rip-off that is then prolonged over an extended period of time.

Hard-working Canadian consumers going to work, taking their families to events and to school and supporting their communities are getting ripped-off both at the beginning and at the end. They get ripped-off with the price spike right at the beginning as a result of whatever change has taken place and they get ripped-off at the end. The Conservatives say that the consumers are out of luck. The Conservatives do not care about main street Canadians but if they are from Bay Street the government gives them tens of billions of dollars.

It is very clear that Bill C-14 would allow for the continued rip-off of Canadian consumers at the pumps. It would privatize something that should be receiving a bolstered and robust public inspection system. What do we have? We have gas companies forming their own private arm to inspect themselves. Is that the kind of voluntary compliance that Conservatives want to bring in? Is that even acceptable to Canadians? Of course not.

Canadians want to see a robust regulatory system. They want to see the public interest protected by government. This is something that the Conservatives are simply unable to even conceive. They promise it during election campaigns, as we saw in 2006 and in 2008, but they simply have not delivered.

This bill is simply ineffective. It should be called the more rip-offs at the pumps act. That is why are opposing this bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, consumer advocates have known for years that, after 125 studies gathering dust and no action being taken, the Competition Act needs to be changed to allow the commissioner to inquire into the oil industry.

It is rather interesting that in other parts of the economy and in other industries, for a quite a number of years now, the fight against price-fixing is actually being won. The travel industry, the real estate industry and the insurance industry are all industries where, for a number of years now, the Competition Bureau has sent out CDs and have held seminars explaining to them how they are breaking the law if they get together in collusion, say in a travel agency business, with the neighbour to price fix in a given area.

Somehow we are having an effect on the little businesses, which is fine, and we should, but the oil industry does not seem to be part of that whole equation. The government talks about too big to fail. Is this the case of the oil industry just being too big to regulate?

Nobody in the government seems to want to take on the oil industry. The government feels totally secure chasing around little real estate agents or travel agents to ensure they do not price fix but what about the oil companies? What is the government afraid of?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona has been a strong advocate for consumers, whether we are talking about the rip-offs taking place at the gas pumps or the rip-offs that take place around airline delays. He has been a consistently strong advocate for consumers right across this country.

We had the Conservatives campaigning on the oxymoronic slogan of Conservatives standing up for Canada. We certainly have not seen that in any area when we talk about trade. We have seen the softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout and now they are moving to sell off more of our resources and key industries in other trade agreements. They have the worst record we have ever had, even worse than the former Liberal government, which was difficult to beat. They really had to work hard to be that incompetent.

When it comes to the issue of standing up for consumers, the Conservatives are simply unable to do so. I do not think it is because of fear. I think it is because they are in the pockets of the very wealthy corporate CEOs on—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that nobody is in anybody's pocket as there are rules that we put in place about allowing contributions from any corporations, or unions for that matter, which probably affected his party.

I do have a question for the member. I did listen with interest and both he and his colleague from Elmwood—Transcona mentioned the 125 studies completed by the Competition Bureau, all of which I think they said came to the conclusion that there was no collusion going on.

What does the member think the reason is for those conclusions? Are the people at the Competition Bureau just a bunch of morons? Does he see something more sinister going on at the Competition Bureau? If that is what they think, they should be clear about that.

There are some provinces in Canada that do more regulation of gas prices, in the Maritimes for example, and their gas prices are very similar to all the rest. They do not change very quickly. I would ask the member if he thinks that is the solution he is looking for.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the investigation showed that between 1999 and 2007, 5% of gas pumps, about 1 in 20, failed the inspections by dispensing less fuel then they should. Very clearly, that is something the government should have taken action on. These studies are available to the government. It does need to take action.

I do want to comment on one thing. I know the member is from British Columbia. We have the Conservatives who brought in the absolutely hated HST. We now have over 60 of the 85 ridings in British Columbia that have signed the petition campaign to force a referendum.

Will the government respect—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to speak since I just gave notice a short time ago. I thank the parliamentary secretary in particular because he is such a fan, albeit a moderate fan.

I have some great concerns about this particular bill. Looking at the surface of it, one can see that the bill has some great merits. It would cut down on potential gouging. It is not a tremendous part of the market, but nonetheless, in some instances it is a way to be more fair. It would also impose fines that are more dramatic and therefore may act as a larger deterrent.

In certain instances, we need to be concerned about the enforcement measures by which we want to put this out there. In order for it to be effective, it obviously needs to have some teeth. This bill does deserve more study. I support that measure, in and of itself, because this is an issue. As consumers go, it has become a larger demand as energy prices rise and as we have become far more dependent upon fuels for the sake of transportation.

I say that because I am from a rural riding that does not have the benefit of mass transit and therefore people rely more on singular vehicles and drive longer distances because of the distance between communities. I have 171 communities in my riding and close to half of the people in my riding do not work in their own community and sometimes drive to other communities. Therefore, the price they pay at the pumps is something that concerns them greatly.

When this bill was first introduced, the intention was one that merited a lot of attention because there are measures in it to protect consumers. I received an email from a person I know in my hometown of Bishop's Falls. He is not only a concerned consumer but he is the former petroleum commissioner of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, he was the one who originated the office in Newfoundland and Labrador to help regulate gas prices.

I want to pass along to the House some of his thoughts in his email because I think they are relevant. These are the types of questions we should be asking within the context of the committee. He uses a consumer in rural Newfoundland as an example. He says:

For example, a consumer in rural Newfoundland who buys fuel at a local general merchant with a single gas pump in his community, and feels he has received too little product for the price paid, decides to report his complaint. Who does he call? What official? If he does reach someone, what would they do? Who would investigate? Who would contact the consumer and what procedure would be followed? What investigative tools would be used to prove that his pump is inaccurate? What means would be employed to enforce the act? What court is used to challenge the charge? How will it be administered? The list of questions go on and on.

I wanted to read that to the House because his questions are quite pertinent in this particular situation. On the surface, the spirit is great, but the problem is that in practice it will be a little harder to enforce. I will get to that in a moment.

Mr. Saunders goes on to say that he is a little worried about the absence of a supportive bureaucracy and a regulatory system. He also wishes us all the best in putting this through. Not only was he the commissioner, but he started the office and knows quite a bit about the particular industry.

On the other side of this thing, I am concerned about the enforcement of this and how it would be put toward the private sector. In this particular situation, it all sounds great when we have fines that are levied and fines that are severe and doubled in many cases, but one of the issues becomes that they have put it to the private sector for the sake of enforcement.

What is troubling is the cost of enforcing this may come back to the consumer. This issue has been brought up in the debate already and I share that view. I gave an example of one retailer, the one gas pump in a smaller town in a rural community. Where would the retailer go to find an inspector if no inspectors were available? Who pays? The inspectors come at a cost. They perhaps have to travel a great distance. It is harder to find qualified inspectors in a much larger rural area.

What bothers me is this situation is similar to the rebates for heating homes. Rebates are available for people who insulate their homes for more efficient heating. How do people become eligible for these rebates? They have to hire an inspector to tell them what rebates they qualify for. They pay some to get some. I do not think that was the spirit of government legislation from the very beginning.

These questions should be posed at committee. On the surface, a lot of this is put upon the private sector, which in many cases would be the one to follow through with the enforcement and enactment of this measure. It may be something that is great for the consumer. It sounds nice, but in practice it could be complicated for areas of greater distance, areas with smaller communities, especially in the case where there is only one pump or where there are independent retailers.

I would like to bring up some other situations. Some communities' pumps are not used as much. Therefore, little things end up making this complicated. For example, because the pumps are not used as much, the introduction of ethanol could have an impact. Where we have higher use, there is a probability of breakdown and it is not really someone's fault. It is the result of wear and tear on the machines like any other machine that depreciates. It is a guarantee that goes on forever. With the introduction of elements such as ethanol, some of these older pumps may be affected as a result. Again, someone will have to pay for this. The inspector is brought in, the inspector finds something the government finds fault in and the fine is levied. What happens to that one independent retailer in that situation? Things get complicated. It is not only about the consumer, it is about the smaller retailer as well. I hope this will be addressed at committee.

I am also concerned that the legislation could also be a distraction in a small way, and this goes to the political realm. It could be dealt with by regulation, if there is the presence of a problem. The minister admitted that only 6% of the pumps were found to be faulty. Of that 6%, 4% of the 100% that were tested did not favour the consumer. Therefore, that makes it even more minuscule at that point. Just because the number is small does not mean it should be ignored and we should throw this out. What I am saying is it is going to be an onerous way of enforcing certain rules. Therefore, I am highly concerned about how we are throwing this on the private sector, as my hon. colleague in the NDP has pointed out on several occasions, and I agree with him.

Finally, I will quote from the member for Pickering—Scarborough East who said:

Let us deal with some real issues in this House for once and not go around contenting ourselves with some idea that we have a better widget than the people who preceded us or than the ones who preceded them. The reality is far more serious.

I know that members on the industry committee should have the benefit of all the questions, not just Measurement Canada, but to look beyond this first step. I am hoping it is a first step, because members will recall that, in the 2008 campaign, the Conservative Party pledged to deal with the issue of potential problems at the gas pumps...

We hope they will follow through on that.

Again, the hon. member has said this is a first step. At the second step in committee, I would implore all members of the House, and certainly the members of the industry committee, to look at this and fully analyze what is about to come down the pipe as it were.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is absolutely right about the proposed inspection system.

If the Conservatives had done proper consultations on the bill with the industry and with the independents, I am sure the independents would be more than willing to see the government inspection team beefed up and perhaps over a period of a couple of years we could double or triple the number of inspections. However, I think those independents would trust a government inspector over a privatized inspector.

Let me tell the House what can happen with a privatized inspection system. It is contemplated that the privatized inspectors will be able to set their own prices. The member talked about a small town with a single gas pump. The operator will have to pay for that inspector, who might have to drive a couple of hundred miles. Since the inspector can set his own prices, he can charge an arm and a leg for that inspection.

The other issue is there now will be random inspections. Therefore, the operator will never know when the inspector will show up. We will have a system where the inspector will phone first, tip the operator off and then charge the operator triple the price that would be paid under a government program.

This is all messed up. This is typical Conservative consumer legislation, always an offset to private business.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listened to the member's speech. He brought forward his experience in the Manitoba legislature, and I thank for that.

I have witnessed this in the past six years since being elected as a member of Parliament. Some programs, as I have said before, have been thrust upon the private market. I do not want to mislead anyone by thinking this is the wrong way to go in all general circumstances. In certain cases, we talk about public-private partnerships. Some of them have effective measures and some work substantially in many areas. However, the problem is the oversight and enforcement involved, or lack thereof. Even if that element is put upon the private sector, we could run into some problems as the member pointed out.

Private inspectors in rural areas have to travel and that costs money. They have to stay overnight in hotels, which costs money. All these costs, one after another, are thrown at the consumer.

I go back to the example about applying for rebates to make homes more energy efficient. The problem was with the inspectors. The government said that the inspectors would only cost a couple of hundred dollars. It was more than that in rural areas. People had to pay for the inspector's gas mileage and they had to pay for the hotel if the inspector had to stay overnight. They were lucky enough to share these costs with other people, but it became that much more complicated. The private sector decided the price. Let us face it, when it comes to setting the prices, inspectors will charge whatever the market will bear. Therefore, that makes its way up the scale. It was harder for people with low incomes to avail themselves of the program because they could not afford the inspection process.

I bring that up as an example only because we may have the same situation. I know the Conservatives scoff at the idea, but I hope they bear this in mind. It could become a problem for the consumers in the near future. I hope they will come up with suggestions to change the legislation so we protect the consumers from being gouged in more ways than just one.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)