Debates of May 16th, 1995

Canada Elections Act

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

The hon. member for Delta knows of which I speak.

There are 32 ridings in Atlantic Canada. The Tories scored fairly well, better than they should have and better than they did on the national average. Yet if that were a regional party in Atlantic Canada it would have garnered only about two per cent of the vote nationally. I have a problem with the percentage. Two per cent is probably too high, and perhaps the percentage should be lowered to about one per cent.

Another concern is with respect to the establishment of minimums. When we establish minimums, many times they become maximums. Perhaps down the road, if this bill is fortunate enough to gain the consent of the House, people might say there is a precedent that there have to be certain criteria before you are deemed to be a legitimate political party in Canada. It may also be that at some point you must win seats in more than one province or more than one region before you get a political rebate.

I know that is not covered in the member's bill. I worry that at some point, unless a bill like this is crystal clear and the the debate is crystal clear leading up to the adoption of such a bill, somebody would try to use it as a precedent to do those certain things.

I do not support our colleagues in the House who represent the Bloc Quebecois. I believe that deep down they are good individuals but they are terribly misguided with respect to their desire

to take the great province of Quebec, la belle province, out of the great Canadian Confederation.

However, they have a legitimate right as a political party to voice their concerns, to go out and seek support in a general election through the democratic process. I would not want to see at some future point even separatists in the province of Quebec somehow trying to use a restrictive bill like this which seeks to put parameters on legitimate political parties for the purposes of rebate to stifle political thought they found to be objectionable.

I commend the hon. member for putting thought into this bill and I hope it does go to committee so it can get some fuller debate at committee.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Edmonton Southwest on Bill C-319. It is very obvious the debate has started members thinking about a very important issue.

I will approach it in a slightly different way. One of the issues it raises which is so important in our electoral process is appearances. I remember my own election campaign, which was a first experience for me since I had never run for election before, going to all candidates meetings in which there were the five major parties represented as well as another four candidates from very minor parties.

I do not reject the right of groups to try to run as national parties; I think it is fine. However, we have to draw the line somewhere. At these candidates meetings I found myself with the candidates from the other major parties speaking on issues, then having to waste my turn while these very minor parties spoke. In the case of the Natural Law Party-its members will forgive me for saying this-their platform which had to do with levitation did not really seem to fit seriously into the issues of the day.

While I agree they had the right to speak and the right to run as parties in the election, they did dilute the debate when we had our candidates meetings. They also diluted the debates when they appeared in the media. It has a responsibility to provide equal space to all candidates in an election. Perhaps the debate was not as good or as serious as it could have been. I agree we can do nothing about that.

On the other hand, I find myself supporting the member's bill on this point. If the public were to perceive, as it does, that anyone is eligible for compensation in running for election regardless of any limit in the number of votes they garner, it trivializes for them the exercise of candidacy, the exercise of running in a national election.

If the Natural Law Party wants to run for election, that is fine. If it wants to field candidates, that is fine. If it wants to use an election as a platform for promoting its particular agenda of metaphysicalism or whatever it is, that is fine too. It becomes a problem when the public perceives it is funding that type of group. This is the difficulty.

It is the same with all the other parties as well. If the public perceives a group is out promoting itself in a national election and does not have much support or has trivial support, and the government funds its election expenses because it can afford to put the money out there, then we erode our political system and the faith people have in the process.

I do support the principle of Bill C-319. We have to draw the line somewhere. Whether it should be 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 5 per cent, I cannot say. I actually rather like 2 per cent. Nine of the 14 parties that ran in the last election had less than 2 per cent of the vote.

It is interesting to run down the percentages of those nine. Beginning with the Abolitionist Party of Canada at 0.1 per cent, the next was 0.2 per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.2 per cent, 0.1 per cent, .01 per cent for the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. It is not doing well. Then we go on to 0.6 per cent and 1.4 per cent, which was the National Party of Canada which I happen to agree had a message.

I agree with the intention of Bill C-319. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I do not know if this bill is the answer. As the member for Dartmouth and others mentioned, we should bring this to committee for further debate. In the final analysis I do not think it will affect regional parties. We will still be able to go forward with certain amendments to the bill which will make the process more efficient.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, there have been conversations earlier this day among party whips. If you would seek it you would find unanimous consent that the vote be deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall I call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, on May 8 I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister whether the G-7 leaders at the June meeting in Halifax will discuss the important issue of making the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund environmentally sustainable institutions.

At present, the lending programs of international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary fund, provide mostly developing countries with over $30 billion a year in the form of loans. Too often these loans fail to take into account environmental and social considerations as in the case of dam construction.

Closing the gap between the rich developed nations and poor developing countries must remain the principal goal of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We all agree with that. However, these institutions and their initiatives in developing countries must aim at alleviating poverty while protecting the environment. That is where the point needs to be made.

In the case of the International Monetary Fund, we feel that instead of relying predominately on economic considerations, economic and environmental goals should be integrated.

As to the World Bank, while it has made some progress toward greater accountability, it still has a long way to go to fully incorporate sustainable development principles into the decision-making process. Furthermore, at every opportunity the World Bank should ensure that the principles of international environmental agreements such as the convention on climate change and the one on biodiversity, to mention two, are upheld and reinforced by its decisions.

It is my understanding that the Prime Minister intends to discuss the role of international financial institutions at the next meeting of the G-7 in June in Halifax. Therefore, in that context I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can inform us whether the urgency of incorporating the principles of sustainable development into the activities of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund will be discussed there.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, first let me say that the meeting hosted in Hamilton by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment for the G-7 environment ministers reached substantive recommendations and conclusions.

With respect to the question of international institutions, the ministers looked at two different aspects. First, they discussed the roles and responsibilities of the primary international institutions that address the environment and sustainable development. The ministers agreed that the United Nations environment program should be reinforced in its efforts to be the global environmental voice, while the United Nations commission on sustainable development, created just over two years ago in the aftermath of Rio, should continue to evolve as a key political and policy forum to promote sustainable development principles and practices worldwide.

With respect to international financial institutions, the ministers agreed that the World Bank should place sustainable development at the top of its list of priorities and that it should operate on a much more open and transparent basis. Plans for projects funded by the World Bank should demonstrate how the principles of sustainable development will be promoted and how local participation will be a basic part of the process.

The ministers also called on the International Monetary Fund to take environmental considerations into account in its structural adjustment programs. They also called for continued work from the new global environmental facility, the GEF, on providing funding for global environment priorities and noted the important role that private capital flows will play into the future. They also indicated their intention to work with the new World Trade Organization to make sure the environment is a fundamental part of its work. In this regard, let me signal the initiatives recently taken by UNCTAD and UNEP in focusing on the environment and the economy.

The important outcomes of the Hamilton meeting of environment ministers are being provided to the preliminary process for the Halifax summit. I am certain that any consideration of financial institutions that might take place in the context of the

Halifax summit will be well informed by the views of the Hamilton meeting, which will flow into the Halifax summit.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Madam Speaker, during a previous question period, when addressing comments regarding Bill C-88 to the Minister of Industry, I suggested that Bill C-88 contained provisions which go far beyond the agreement on interprovincial trade, which gives each party recourse to retaliatory measures.

Bill C-88 appropriates powers to the federal government which were never discussed during the negotiations leading up to the signing of the agreement on interprovincial trade last summer and is also indicative of, we feel strongly, the federal Liberal government's extremely strong will to centralize trade relations with its partners. The current trend in international trade is to give regions more political autonomy and to establish economic unions, not to create big federations with rigid centralizing constitutions, like the Canadian federation, which is given an inordinate amount of power to take retaliatory measures.

The primary goal of the bill is to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade, not to permit the federal government to implant itself as the supreme power on interprovincial trade. Do not forget that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of liberalizing trade in this way, which, at any rate, is the framework within which all modern states must develop. Therefore, we do agree with the agreement in principle.

The way we understand the provisions of this agreement is that, if the federal government is the slighted party in a trade deal covered by the agreement, it has the means to take retaliatory measures. By the way, so can any other party to this agreement. However, that is not what is written in Bill C-88.

Why not? Because clause 9 of the bill goes over and above the intent of the agreement. This is quite straightforward. Clause 9 reads as follows: "For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order-but the other parties may not-"

The bill refers to orders, which cannot be taken lightly. None of the other parties have this authority. Orders are used by totalitarian governments to subdue the other parties. It says in this bill that the Liberal government wants to govern by order under this agreement on interprovincial trade. Are we looking at a dictatorship? That is the question.

In this context, according to the wording of Clause 9, when one of the parties is found to be at fault pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the federal government-and it alone, among all the parties-whether or not it is a party to the dispute, assumes the right to impose retaliatory measures on all the provinces, without exception.

In this bill, the federal government demonstrates its determination to act as judge and jury in the area of interprovincial trade, to introduce its exclusive authority to act by order in council and to extend the application of any federal law to the provinces-

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, the questions raised by some members on Bill C-88 last week stem from an inability or an unwillingness to understand the plain meaning of the text of the bill.

The Minister of Industry was quite clear in responding to questions in the House on May 5. Perhaps repetition at this time will help the hon. member.

Only in rare cases would the federal government be a complainant in the dispute under the agreement on internal trade. If a dispute were resolved in favour of the federal government and if the province involved refused to comply with the impartial panel findings, then the federal government could withdraw benefits of equivalent effect. Such retaliation would have to be in the same sector as the original violation or in another sector covered by the agreement. Retaliation could not involve transfer payments or social programs because those things are not covered by the agreement. Anyone who takes the time to read the head notes to section 9 of Bill C-88 and article 1710 of the agreement on internal trade can verify the accuracy of what I have just outlined.

Remarks by Quebec premier Parizeau and Quebec industry minister Paillé on May 9 and May 10 suggest they had not bothered to do so before speaking on the issue. The repeated expressions of concern in this question by BQ and PQ representatives suggest they are unable or unwilling to understand plain and clear language.

Bill C-88 deals only with what the federal government must do to live up to its obligations under the internal trade agreement and nothing else.

At the April 12 meeting of the committee of ministers on internal trade, the Minister of Industry advised his provincial colleagues of the steps the government intended to take and that legislation would shortly be brought before Parliament.

Premier Parizeau has unequivocally supported the agreement and stressed the importance of free trade within Canada. He reaffirmed on May 9:

"The change in government in Quebec City has changed nothing. We believe in free trade".

I am sure all Canadians look forward to seeing what those governments that claim to support internal free trade actually do in concrete terms.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, in late April gas stations across Canada raised prices as much as 10 cents a litre. It was the sixth price increase of gas in 11 months.

These increases excluding tax increases represent a 20 per cent increase in the price of gas to consumers. What is even more startling is that oil companies have seen a 40 per cent increase in their revenues once taxes are factored out in the same period.

There has been no reasonable justification by the oil companies for these repeated increases. Each year since 1991 the average daily price of crude has declined. Crude prices today are virtually the same as they were a year ago with the 11 months in between seeing lower prices.

The profits of the major oil companies including Imperial Oil, Shell and Petro-Canada have increased each year over the past three years. In 1994 Imperial Oil profits went up 29 per cent; Shell went up 43 per cent and Petro-Canada went up 62 per cent.

When gas prices have risen they have risen uniformly from company to company in each region within hours of each other. Consumers are outraged and believe strongly that they are again the victims of price gouging at the pumps and price fixing by the oil companies.

This latest series of price increases is nothing more than a cash grab by the major oil companies that monopolize the industry.

In a recent court case in Ottawa a gasoline retailer, Mr. Gas, admitted communications between gasoline retailers are common in the industry when setting prices. What this means is if smaller chains set prices, certainly the majors do.

This latest increase in gas prices represents an extreme polarization of power and wealth into one sector, multinational oil companies. This increase is also extremely bad timing for farmers who are seeding their crops.

The increase is injuring Canada's economic recovery and must be addressed. Every two-cent increase costs Canadian $750 million a year. These recent increases of six cents will take over $2 billion out of the Canadian economy in one year.

The federal government must intervene in arbitrarily rolling back gas prices until a full energy price review can take place to ensure these increases are fair and justified.

In my question to the Minister of Industry on April 28 and on May 3, the minister commented: "When the prices are the same, it is consistent with both competition and price fixing. Therefore how do you know which it is?" I suggest that if one does not know the difference that in itself demonstrates the need to conduct an investigation.

The House of Commons is elected to ensure Canadians are not victims of the marketplace and to ensure the interests of Canada are protected. A gas price review would send a clear message to the oil companies and to Canadians that in a key economic sector such as energy fairness must prevail and significant price increases must be justified.

The setting of energy prices is no different than the regulation of communication services. When Rogers cable or Bell Canada want to increase prices, the CRTC reviews their request to ensure they are fair and justified. Having the oil industry justify its increases is no different. Gas prices are viewed by the public as being set unfairly and unjustifiably and must be reviewed and regulated.

The government has the power to question industry on its pricing practices and to create new laws that would demand gas price increases be made only after justification.

Why do the Liberals refuse to act in the best interest of Canadians? The federal Liberal Party receives substantial donations from the oil companies. Husky Oil donated $14,000; Amoco, $27,000; Imperial Oil, $47,000. Is this the reason the government will not conduct an investigation into gas pricing? Is the Liberal Party concerned it will offend its top party donors? He who pays the piper calls the tune. The government-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, the time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden on his question concerning the uniformity of gasoline price increases across Canada.

As the matter involving an Ottawa gasoline retailer is presently before the court, it would not be appropriate to comment further on that case.

No federal government agency has the authority to regulate gasoline prices. It is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In 1994 the Minister of Industry asked the director of investigation and research at the Bureau of Competition Policy to review the provisions of the Competition Act. His report stated the Competition Act is adequate to address concerns about anti-competitive behaviour and that amendments were not required at this time. The report is public and I encourage concerned members to read it.

At the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre we are presently studying the implications of introducing whistle blower legislation to protect industry insiders who provide information about anti-competitive behaviour in the petroleum industry. The act empowers the director to investigate allegations that prices have been set as a result of anti-competitive behaviour. Where evidence exists of a criminal offence the case is referred to the attorney general for prosecution.

It is important to realize this is criminal law and offences must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the petroleum products sector uniform price increases may be the result of normal market forces; the visibility of posted prices and the homogeneity of gasoline tend to result in identical prices in a given market. It is very easy to immediately respond to a competitor's price movements up or down.

Gasoline prices should be set by competitive market disciplines. When there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour the Competition Act authorities will take appropriate action. People with information about anti-competitive acts should bring the information to the attention of the director.