Debates of Dec. 6th, 1999

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 382

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 10, 2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 383

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 12, 2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 384

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 11, 2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 385

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 12, 2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

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

moved:

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 12, 2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 387

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 11, 2012 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 388

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2005”

Motion No. 389

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2005”

Motion No. 390

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2005”

Motion No. 391

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2005”

Motion No. 392

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2005”

Motion No. 393

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2005”

Motion No. 394

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2005”

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

moved:

Motion No. 395

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2005.”

Motion No. 396

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2005.”

Motion No. 397

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2005.”

Motion No. 398

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2005.”

Motion No. 399

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2005.”

Motion No. 400

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2006.”

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 402

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 403

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 404

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 405

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 406

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2006.”

Motion No. 407

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2006.”

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 408

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2006”

Motion No. 409

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2006”

Motion No. 410

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2006”

Motion No. 411

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2006”

Motion No. 412

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2007”

Motion No. 413

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2007”

Motion No. 414

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2007”

Motion No. 415

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2007”

Motion No. 416

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2007”

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 417

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2007”

Motion No. 418

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2007”

Motion No. 419

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2007”

Motion No. 420

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2007”

Motion No. 421

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2007”

Motion No. 422

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2007”

Motion No. 423

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2007”

Motion No. 424

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2008”

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 425

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 426

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 427

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 428

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 429

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 430

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 431

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2008.”

Motion No. 432

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2008.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 433

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2008”

Motion No. 434

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2008”

Motion No. 435

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2008”

Motion No. 436

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2009”

Motion No. 437

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2009”

Motion No. 438

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2009”

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 439

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2009.”

Motion No. 440

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2009.”

Motion No. 441

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2009.”

Motion No. 442

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2009.”

Motion No. 443

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2009.”

Motion No. 444

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2009.”

Motion No. 445

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2009.”

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 446

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2009”

Motion No. 447

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2010”

Motion No. 448

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2010”

Motion No. 449

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2010”

Motion No. 450

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2010”

Motion No. 451

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 452

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2010.”

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 453

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 454

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 455

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 456

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 457

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 458

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2010.”

Motion No. 459

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2011.”

Motion No. 460

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2011.”

Motion No. 461

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on April 1, 2011.”

Motion No. 462

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on May 1, 2011.”

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 463

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on June 1, 2011”

Motion No. 464

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on July 1, 2011”

Motion No. 465

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on August 1, 2011”

Motion No. 466

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on September 1, 2011”

Motion No. 467

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2011”

Motion No. 468

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2011”

Motion No. 469

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2011”

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10, Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-2, The Nisga'a Final Agreement and related Appendices , as Schedule 1.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10, Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-3, The Nisga'a Nation Taxation Agreement , as Schedule 2.

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

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

Madam Speaker, just over a month ago I raised a question in the House about the competition problems in the gasoline industry. I raised it in the context of Statistics Canada saying that energy prices and gasoline prices were “the major driver of inflation” in Canada. The inflation rate had just hit 2.6% at that time. This is significant because the Bank of Canada has an inflation target of between 1% and 3% and when inflation threatens to go higher than 3%, the bank raises the ceiling on its overnight rate and all the banks follow suit and before we know it, interest rates everywhere are going up.

The Bank of Canada mainly looks at increases in the so-called core inflation rate which is the CPI for everything but food and energy. Nevertheless the reason analysts were starting to be concerned last month is because once energy prices go up for a period of time, they start to affect the cost of other goods and services in our economy. Then the core inflation rate goes up, the bank gets worried, it hikes interest rates and we all end up paying higher prices and mortgage rates as well as the higher gas prices and energy costs.

If anything goes up, such as gasoline, another thing goes up is that oil company profits go up. The same week I asked my question, oil refining companies like Suncor and Imperial were posting record profits and the crude price had not even jumped as high as it got a month later.

I asked by question very deliberately about competition problems in the gasoline industry, an issue clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government and the Minister of Industry.

The minister chose not to hear the question that way for his own reasons. The fact remains that he has done nothing about monopoly pricing in the gasoline retailing industry and now high gas prices are threatening to hike inflation and interest rates which will affect the entire economy.

The minister has done nothing, but others have tried to do something. For example, I led a group of six individuals who asked the Competition Bureau to investigate why prices had gone up after competition was reduced in gasoline retailing in my province of Saskatchewan. I received the bureau's report just last week. It said “sure there is less competition now”. It said “sure that can lead to higher prices”. The bureau just did not see that the prices have gone up.

But they did go up. Everyone in Saskatchewan knows they went up. I put out a press release in September 1998, over a year ago, after my office was swamped with phone calls about a four cent a litre gas price increase at the pumps. However, this four cent price hike did not show up in the Competition Bureau's database of prices that it showed me when it tabled its report. So it had to find that there were no competition problems. I am not convinced nor are my constituents.

If Canadians believe there are no problems in gas pricing and that gas prices are lower in Saskatchewan than in seven other jurisdictions, then they can vote Liberal, as I am sure they will, as they did in the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar byelection where 15% voted Liberal, an amazing increase from the last election.

In any event, the next CPI numbers are due out on December 17. Gas prices remain high and the Minister of Industry remains uninterested in doing anything about them. He is more anxious about hockey than he is in protecting consumers from gas prices. So what else can be done?

Clearly, it is time for a different approach. I am convinced more than ever that we need an energy price review commission to hold oil companies accountable to justify their price increases in this country and to take a more active role in bringing the oil companies to account.

That is why I am moving now to update and table my private member's bill calling for an energy price review commission, which I hope can accomplish those very objectives in the near future.

In the meantime, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary will actually speak to the question I posed last month or whether he will repeat the industry's mantra that there is no problem, it is all in our imagination, just relax and trust the oil companies, and if Canadians believe gas prices are lower than they have ever been, they should vote Liberal, don't worry, be happy.

What is the answer from the parliamentary secretary?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, the question today is just as confusing as it was last week, simply because the hon. member goes from pricing to competition.

Let me point out that the Competition Act contains all the necessary tools to investigate and prosecute offences in the gasoline industry. I can assure the hon. member that where allegations are made to the bureau that companies or individuals have crossed the line of appropriate business behaviour by fixing prices or engaging in anti-competitive conduct, the Competition Bureau will act appropriately.

When the bureau finds evidence supporting allegations made it will actively pursue these matters through the competition enforcement of the Competition Act. For example, criminal charges were laid in September of this year against a refiner and two retailers of gasoline for price maintenance.

Where the bureau's investigation finds that the allegations are not sustained or do not support the conclusion drawn by the complainant, the bureau will discontinue its investigation. It is important to realize that when an investigation is discontinued due to lack of evidence, it does not mean that the act is deficient or requires amendment. It means that there is no sufficient evidence of anti-competitive activity.

I will also point out to the hon. member that the authority to regulate retail gasoline prices falls within the purview of the provincial government not the federal government. Therefore, the hon. member's suggestion to have the federal government establish an energy price review commission that would have as its mandate to review and regulate gasoline prices, could not be undertaken by the federal government.

If the hon. member, my good friend, wants to achieve this, he should take this case to his colleagues in the Government of Saskatchewan. The hon. member should realize that price regulation usually results in increased costs, higher prices and distorts the normal operations of the markets. Reliance on market forces and not regulations is in the best interest of Canadians.

With respect to hockey, I think Saskatchewan needs a hockey team too.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)