Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise following my Bloc colleague whose comments I always take seriously.

The bill talks about anti-profiteering during times of emergency or disaster. I come from a part of the country that is no stranger to disaster or to emergencies. The Atlantic region or any region that relies on a resource based economy knows the meaning of disaster.

Coal has historically been a major source of employment and a major industry in the part of the country I come from. Where the fishery and steel mills have been major sources of employment and industry, we are all too familiar with emergencies and disasters. I need only mention some of the great historical disasters that have occurred in my province and in the Atlantic region. The Swissair disaster is the most recent, and disaster goes as far back as the Springhill mine disaster where hundreds of miners suffered a dangerous fate. They worked with dangerous consequences to free miners who were trapped underground. I can talk about the Ocean Ranger , the terrible loss of life that occurred off Newfoundland in the cold and stormy waters of the Atlantic Ocean. I can talk about many disasters and many emergencies coming from my part of the country.

What this has done for us is taught us the value of co-operation. It has taught us the value of working together as communities in times of stress and also in times of plenty. Coming from that historical background we know that while good times may be here today, they may well be gone tomorrow. Out of that has developed a culture that understands the need of neighbour to assist neighbour, of community to work with community, of sharing with those who do not have at the present time, and ensuring that there are social programs and community programs in place to assist when those emergencies and disasters occur. It is not just my region of the country that has this history, it is all of Canada. One of the great things we can be proud is our ability and willingness to share with our fellow Canadians whenever disaster strikes. That again is part of our history.

In the 1930s during the Great Depression when parts of western Canada became a dust bowl it was from Atlantic Canada that goods and food were collected and sent across the rail lines, some of which no longer exist, to the western provinces to assist them.

I mention the Halifax explosion as one of the great emergency disasters that occurred in the Atlantic region. When that happened many parcels and medical needs were sent from the western provinces to the Atlantic region.

The most recent examples are the floods in Manitoba and the Saguenay region in Quebec where many Canadians from all parts of the country worked together to assist fellow Canadians in ensuring they did not suffer from those disasters, or suffered minimally. We have to thank the armed forced, Canadians from all parts of the country who work shoulder to shoulder with those who sometimes receive better pay and work in better conditions, given the recent report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Canadian forces have responded in times of emergency in a way that we can all be proud of.

Indeed it is out of that co-operative sense of working together that the New Democratic Party and its predecessor were born. It was out of the roots of the Great Depression when it was understood that purely market driven individual forces would not ensure the betterment of communities that there had to be a sense among communities of working together and sharing resources. It was out of that that the seeds of social democracy were born.

I am pleased to see the Reform Party understand that in times of emergency we have to come together and work together. I also understand it looks at the darker side of that, those motivated purely by greed or individual profit who would exploit those circumstances. I recognize that would be a dangerous thing and indeed a wrong thing.

I turn now to the bill. I found it a curious bill at initial reading. I recognize the comments from previous speakers who say this is proceeding into provincial jurisdiction or that it is sometimes against business. I read the bill in an entirely different way and perhaps I can give it a different interpretation.

I think we currently have emergencies. When I read the definition of a national or local emergency in the act that is declared to be such an emergency by a national or local emergency proclamation that has not expired or been revoked under this act, I can talk about the economic emergency that we currently have in my riding of Sydney—Victoria. I have raised in the House on many occasions and have spoken with the Minister of Natural Resources about the fact that we have a crown corporation that employs 1,600 people, the chairman of which has said that as of December 1 they may not be able to meet their payroll. This means that the miners who work underground may not be paid. The secretaries who work in the office may not be paid.

Consequently the merchants and shopkeepers in the communities who purchase their Christmas inventory, in preparation for the sales that may occur in the next month, may not sell their goods and will face their creditors. I suggest that under this bill we have an emergency. We could easily declare it as such.

I then go on to read that a local emergency means an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature—temporary for us but sometimes the mismanagement has been going on longer—whose direct effects are confined to one province and that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of the persons in that province. Clearly the lives, health and safety are threatened when we have an economic crisis.

I like the fact that the bill recognizes that persons who are victims of any emergency that seriously endangers their lives, health, safety or property should be able to purchase essential goods, services and resources during that emergency at reasonable prices. On should this bill be enacted, I could go back to my riding and say if you cannot make the bank payment or the mortgage payment, there is an act here that says you should not be deprived of your property during this crucial time.

I suspect the only way we could deal with that is to ensure there are government funds available in an economic crisis to assist those people who suffer from it. This could bring this whole debate to what this government has done with the unemployment insurance fund and how less than 40% of the people who pay into that fund are entitled to receive it. Should they find themselves in an economic crisis where their property is endangered they do not have access to an insurance policy they paid for.

I also look at a national emergency which means an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers the lives, health, safety or property of persons in Canada. Today we finished a whole debate on health care, the crisis in health care and the emergency in health care. People are finding their lives endangered because of an economic crisis.

The bill brought forward by the member from the Reform Party could be interpreted broadly. I welcome that interpretation, especially if we were to apply the terms economic emergency to the debate.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today to the bill put forward by the member for Surrey Central. I am sure the intent of the bill is fair. Times of crisis are not times for profiteering. During the ice storm of 1998 there were a great deal of stories that circulated that would make a lot of people cringe.

During the ice storm people were suffering. As I am sure members will recall, there were a great many people affected such as those in my riding of Compton—Stanstead. They had no electricity. They had no light. They had no heat. For many people, especially elderly people and families with young children, this situation was an emergency. These people needed help. In some cases people required food and water. In all cases people required heat. Strangely enough in this country we all cherish there were people who, rather than volunteering a helping hand to those in need, took advantage of the situation to turn a profit. Some of these stories are somewhat disgusting.

I will mention just a few so that members are aware of the situation I am speaking of. This was a time when people were suffering and yet incredibly these are the stories I have heard.

One person, knowing the food in people's freezers had gone bad because they had no electricity, sold hamburgers for $20 each. Another person brought big candles to people's houses offering light and heat, a neat little package for only $50. Other people sold blankets, flashlights and generators all for profit.

These acts during the ice storm are a demonstration of the worst of human nature, taking advantage of the weak and the disadvantaged. It is not something that happened only during the ice storm. During the floods in Manitoba and the Saguenay similar stories have been heard.

What do we do about this? The government, as usual, would like people to think that everything is okay, that there is no problem and that everybody is happy. By the way, it does have an extra $10 billion that it took from Canadians which it does not need, and if there is a problem during an emergency the government would rather not hear about it. The military did an incredible job during those emergencies. Maybe some of this money could be used to help the military have a better, everyday quality of life. Would we not call this a form of profiteering by our government? Quite simply, the government does not care.

The Reform approach is not ideal either. The bill was brought forward by the same member who wants stiffer laws to punish immigrant law breakers as opposed to regular law breakers. He has recently said he wants to scrap government multicultural programs. He wants Canada to consider sanctions against our friends in Israel. Coming from this member, looking at any bill that might become law one must be very careful.

As I said earlier profiteering during emergencies is indeed a disgusting practice, but there are ways to avoid this activity and to self-police such activity that need not be legislated from this place.

During an emergency the first thing that happens is people who are affected form a special bond, a special community. I was mayor of a community that had a plan like most communities should have. Three years ago we had a train wreck in the middle of the community of propane cars. It was very dangerous and volatile. We had to evacuate but it was all planned. We had volunteers ready and places for the people to go. It was people working together as volunteers. This is more in the direction we should be looking.

For the most part this community is created out of necessity and is there to help those in need. For the most part this community provides hamburgers, candles, blankets and generators to those in need.

It is important to acknowledge that the stories of people doing good in an emergency always far outweigh the stories of people taking advantage. Maybe it would be a good idea for communities to be more aware of the profiteering that has gone on in past emergencies so that when an emergency transpires the community is ready not only to provide help to those who need it but to put a stop to those people who want to profit.

Maybe one person or a group of people from the community will undertake to take note of profiteers. Maybe it can be made public by creating a list of those people. This might serve as a deterrent.

During the ice storm in Quebec this happened in a way. In terms of electrical services, for instance, where electrical entrances were broken down by the ice, certain contractors took advantage. Immediately as it was found out the Corporation of Master Electricians put out a notice in the papers naming those contractors. People remember after they have been taken advantage of. These are good deterrents.

Unlike the government that believes it has an answer but does not want to share it, and unlike the Reform Party that has all the answers so long as we agree, I do not have all the answers. I do know, however, that a problem like the one raised by the member for Surrey Central is best served if it is brought to the attention of local communities and not legislated from Ottawa.

On my part I will inform my community of Compton—Stanstead on the issues discussed today and ask my colleagues in the House to do the same. By being aware, our communities can help themselves. After all, this is Canada and I remain optimistic.

Although I recounted tales of profiteering earlier, there are always many happy stories which emerge from crises like these. There are stories of people helping people, of people giving their hamburgers, candles, blankets and generators and all they ask in return is that their community remain strong and healthy. That is the Canadian community I know and the Canadian community we will always have.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to say a few words in support of the bill of my colleague from Surrey Central. Bill C-442 is a simple private member's bill. It is common sense yet politics are being played.

I was involved in an extraordinary situation involving a snowstorm. We were marooned in the city of Winnipeg for three days. All the telephone wires were down. All the hydro wires were out. There was no contact with our family at home. The majority of people were awfully good. They did what they could. They helped shovel.

The one restaurant open within walking distance because nothing was moving charged double for everything it sold. That did not bother me as far as the dollars were concerned. However we suffered mental anxiety during those three days not knowing whether our family was safe or alive because it was -35° to -40° and there was no heat. That really bothered me.

The bill is like a warning light. It says that in the case of an emergency where essentials should be available there is no right to profiteer or to ask exorbitant prices.

Free enterprise works very well when commodities are available. The market price will determine what the price should be or the right price. The bill does not say that there cannot be increases in costs if suppliers have extra cost factors. However it would be a warning light for people of the consequences if they take advantage. I would call them gougers, not just profiteers.

I heard my colleagues on the Liberal side saying this was a provincial matter. Maybe it is provincial, but when there are natural disasters the federal government steps in. It has to step in. Why not have some warning lights?

There are stop lights for traffic approaching highways in any province or country. The traffic going up and down on the highways can be seen but there are also stop lights. When I look at the farming industry everybody knows that running pulleys or PTOs are dangerous, but every machine company is forced to put warning decals on them. Shields have to be in place. They are there for our own protection. They are there for common sense reasons. They are there to tell people to hold it, to stop, to look and to listen because there is a danger.

That is what the bill would do. It would give us some protection when we occasionally run into a disaster where people's lives or health could be at stake.

Why would we want to make this private member's bill political? If it comes to punishment of crimes or something that affects each one individually or differently, we can argue politically which is the right sentence or which sentence is probably too harsh or too lenient. But here we are talking of natural disasters that will affect probably everyone in this country. It will come at a time when we do not expect it. It will come when we will probably be short of the necessities of life to get us through the disaster.

Let us think back to the Red River flood of 1997. The House heard that chipboard and other products to fix up homes almost doubled in price. I wonder, why does the government really help people in these emergencies? Because when they know there is money available, these gougers will take advantage of it. If they knew that these people were not willing or able to pay for it, it would not happen. So what are we doing? Are we really putting ourselves into danger of promoting this type of an enterprise?

I want to commend my colleague from Surrey Central for looking at this in a common sense way and for pointing out that it should only affect the cost of goods in a reasonable manner. Everybody in this country who has lived for the last 30 or 40 years knows that we have increases in the cost of living. But we also know what is reasonable and what is exorbitant.

This bill would prevent people from encountering more problems in future disasters and I hope members opposite will realize that.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments made by the members who spoke. I sincerely thank all members who took the time to prepare their speeches to support this bill, because I know that those who support this bill must have taken the time to read it very thoroughly.

I also thank those who have taken the time to oppose this bill because they have actually spent some time on it. But I would urge them to look carefully at it. Then they will probably support it.

There were some pretty good ideas from those who opposed the bill. I am very flexible. I am flexible enough to accommodate some reasonably good ideas. Therefore, I urge members to allow this bill to go to committee where we can look at those good ideas to make this and even better bill.

I originally said that my intention was to make this a non-partisan bill. I did not bash Liberals at any time, which I could have done very easily. But one thing I would like to point out is that on the government side of the House the well is completely dry. As far as talking about benefits for Canadians or values for Canadians, the well is completely dry.

Unfortunately, members on the government side have no vision. Some of them have a blurred vision. They put on glasses, and the glasses they look through have the lens of political stripe. They only have one type of glasses.

Some members have another problem. They have something obstructing their vision. They have blurred vision. They have a cataract. The cataract is that they do not know what the problem is. Let me tell them what their problem is. They do not know that they do not know. That is the problem with them. There is an old saying that goes, he who knows not and knows not that he knows not can never learn. That is their problem.

On the other hand, they have a long hierarchy list that says how not to do the right thing, which they follow.

The hon. member from the government side said that discussions had taken place. After their discussion they will forget what their discussion was and then their discussion will start again. This process will continue until they reach a point where there is no action taken.

The minister set up a toll free number. Why did he set up a toll free number for victims to expose those who gouge prices during emergencies? He had a reason. He wanted to give them sugar coated medicine. He just wanted to console them.

There is another problem in relation to what I said earlier. I was misquoted two times by my Progressive Conservative colleague. He who knows not but knows that he knows not can learn. That is the problem with them. I do not want to go into the details. The hon. parliamentary secretary said there is little evidence of price gouging although he confessed there has been price gouging.

There are tons of media reports. I have 25 media reports that state there is a problem. The Better Business Bureau is supporting this bill. So many organizations are supporting it. Insurance companies will not insure businesses or individuals who will be affected by Y2K computer problems. Insurance companies refuse to cover them if there is damage resulting from a computer problem.

We on this side of the House do not want to interfere with competition, we do not want to interfere with the free market but we do want to fire a warning shot that prevention is better than cure. We know the value of the shade of a tree when the tree is not there.

The hon. members should have looked into the details of the bill and they should have supported this bill. I would like the unanimous consent of the House for the subject matter of this bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry so we can look into this and take some effective action for our constituents and for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 6.17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)