House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gas.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that the New Democratic Party will be supporting the motion when it is put later today in terms of what could be one small effort to deal with what has become a major issue, indeed a crisis in much of the country.
There is a lot of mystery, mythology and confusion surrounding this issue. For example, I was trying to think the other day, when the Canadian Alliance holds its fundraiser in Toronto in a few days, and it is charging $25,000 a table—
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
No, it is $25,000 a table. I just cannot imagine it.
When I raised this with some of my Canadian Alliance friends in Kamloops, they said “Mr. Riis, you are wrong. The Canadian Alliance would never have a fundraiser where the price is $25,000 for a little table”.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Are they not the grassroots party?
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
That is what they said, that they are the grassroots party.
I said “Listen, I will check”. I came back and checked with some of my friends here and was told that it was $25,000 a table. I had to wonder who on earth had $25,000 to go to that lunch to help out the Canadian Alliance. Well I noticed the other day that the hottest stocks on the market these days are the oil and gas stocks. They are rocking and rolling in the oil patch. This is looking very good.
I then began to wonder about the profits of the big oil companies. I will give a few examples. Imperial Oil's profits from last June to this June only went up 120%, Shell's profits went up 155%, PanCanadian's profits went up 271%, Petro-Canada's profits actually went up 314%, Canadian Occidental's profits went up 429%, Canadian Natural Resources' profits went up 518%, Alberta Energy's profits went up 616%, and Husky Energy's profits went up 2000%.
The oil companies are doing extremely well. I guess that is why the oil and gas stocks on the exchange these days are just booming. That is where people are putting their money these days to make some good income. I guess the first mystery as to who will be able to afford the $25,000 tables has now been solved. I suspect a lot of the oil company reps will be there but we will have a look at that when we find out who is attending.
There is also another mystery. I think all of us know that just before a holiday weekend, such as Christmas, Thanksgiving or May 24, the prices go up all over the country. The price will go up 10 cents a litre overnight because they know that people are travelling and they have no choice but to buy gas. There is a little spike of super profit before every holiday weekend. The oil companies, when asked, say that is just the way the market is. Well, fair enough, that is the way the market is for them.
There are other mysteries. On one of the corners in Kamloops there are four gas stations. When we checked last week, the price was 71.9 cents at every single gas station. Where is the competition? When we go into a 7-11 to get milk, it is always priced differently from one store to another. Chocolate bars are different. Everything is different, but when it comes to gas it is always the same. That is a mystery of the marketplace that we hear of all the time.
As a matter of fact, among those four gas stations, three are self-serve and one is full serve. In other words, people are hired at the full serve station to clean our windows, check our oil and tires and yet it has the same price as the stations that have no people serving us, just a little machine. This is a mystery.
The biggest mystery is that we are having a debate today that was initiated by Canadian Alliance members. I am trying to think, as my friend from Palliser said, when they have asked questions in the House of Commons about gas prices. I think he said that out of the 1,400 questions asked recently there were virtually none asked by the Canadian Alliance members. All of a sudden there is a reborn gas prices type of person who has seen the light and knows that gas prices are of concern to Canadians. However, to be fair, at least we are having this discussion today.
Forty-two per cent of the price of gas at the pumps is a result of taxation. We agree that the 1.5 cents a litre surtax put on to combat the deficit ought to be taken off. We have also said that now that the deficit is under control there are all sorts of things we should be doing. What about health care, education and all sorts of useful programs that have been cut over the last number of years?
The other issue I have is double taxation. I think anyone in the country who is honest and fair with themselves, as the Liberal task force actually was, would say that double taxation, taxes on taxes, is kind of nutty, inappropriate and just not right. I think it was the Liberal task force that said it is a dumb thing to do.
Later today we will find out if the Liberals will actually follow their own advice and do what Liberals tell them to do.
What are some of the other solutions? Let us face it, this is an interesting initiative put forward by the Canadian Alliance, but will it really solve the energy crisis in our country? The answer is, no, much more is required.
My colleague already mentioned Bill C-384, an energy price commission, and said that we regulate all sorts of things. Canada is the second largest country in the world geographically where the price of fuels is factored into the cost of every single good and commodity in our country, everything from pantyhose to grain. One would think that if there was ever a country in the world that would be concerned that whatever the increases were that they would be reasonable, it would be Canada.
My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is suggesting that we put together an energy price commission as they do in P.E.I. It works reasonably well in P.E.I. It could even be doing more. If we regulate stamps and all sorts of other things, why would we not regulate the one commodity that touches the cost of living of every single person? It just makes nothing but sense. That is one good idea we will put on the table for consideration.
Another good idea is the one suggested by my friend from Elk Island, which is the fact that oil companies pay world price for oil. That is only partly true. Who does the drilling? Let us talk about Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil explores for oil, drills for oil, transports oil, refines oil, trucks oil, wholesales oil and retails oil. In other words, vertical integration. It has the whole thing sewed up. When we talk about the world price that the OPEC nations are influencing, Imperial Oil does the whole thing, from finding it, digging it out and pumping it into our tanks.
Another thing we could do is what some of the states do in the United States, which is to break up that retail sector so that we would actually have real independent retailers and the oil companies would actually have some competition in the marketplace.
Right now I think it is fair to say that we have four big oil companies virtually controlling the entire market. Is it collusion? Is it price-fixing? Is it a cartel operating? Is it a monopoly or an oligopoly? It probably is but it is hard to prove, as my friend from Pickering knows. However, we all know that is what takes place, a sort of informal form of price-fixing, which is why we need a regulator. We need to break up the oil companies so that the retail sector is an independent sector with some real competition in the marketplace as we see even in that bastion of capitalism, the United States of America.
More important, if we are looking at the future, all of us will have to acknowledge that fossil fuel is not and cannot be the future because one day it will simply cost too much to develop, it will be too remote, too difficult and too environmentally unsound.
My friend mentioned Kyoto and what we have to do about that. We have to start putting more of an effort into the development of alternate forms of energy. Alberta is doing that now and is leading the way in wind technology. It is looking at geothermal technology and the big cell development like Ballard's fuel cells and so on. Canada is actually leading the way in terms of developing those technologies.
We could be doing all sorts of things but we seem to be fixated on the oil companies, who, I hate to say, will probably be buying most of the seats at the Canadian Alliance fundraiser at $25,000 a table, where they may have undue influence in terms of public policy development.
We have to acknowledge that we have to develop alternative forms of energy at a much greater rate than we are doing today.
There are some other alternatives on the table. This is a very small step toward a resolution but the New Democratic Party will be supporting this initiative when it comes up for a vote later today.
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON
Madam Speaker, I am greatly encouraged by the comments made by my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
I want to point out to the hon. member, who has looked at the the Liberal caucus committee report on gasoline pricing, that he should not fall into the trap of the Alliance and only read the first recommendation. He should also read the next recommendation which is contingent on the first occurring. I will read it for him:
The committee further recommends that if the GST is removed from other taxes, the federal government should undertake measures to ensure the resulting savings are passed on to consumers, and not merely absorbed by the oil industry.
Since there has been sudden newfound wisdom by some in the House on this very question, I ask the hon. member a question. Considering what ARCO did in terms of its activities over the past year by driving the price of retail below the cost of even taxation let alone wholesale, and the resulting damage of higher prices in British Columbia, would he not see wisdom that it can also be found on page 34 of this report with respect to the concerns that the British Columbia government has already brought forth in its inquiry and more important, ensure that he does not vote in favour of this motion?
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Madam Speaker, I will agree with half of the point my hon. friend from Pickering makes. That is, I will follow the suggestion of the present leader of the Canadian Alliance. When he was treasurer of Alberta he was concerned about the same thing, that having a small tax reduction without any controls on it would likely result in the oil companies making even greater profits. They would take advantage of the confusion in the marketplace and do that.
Also, if my recollection is clear, Premier Harris was also warning us of this possibility, that removing a point or two of taxation simply means that the oil companies would probably make even more profits than they are today. That is not the point of this.
The point on page 34 is well taken, that simply to take this initiative and result in greater oil company profits is obviously not what is intended. To be fair, I do not think that is what is intended by the motion before us. It is a concern that we would have to find some way to monitor it.
I do not think it would warrant voting against the motion simply because the follow-up is yet to be determined or arranged or some policy put into place to ensure the benefit is passed along to the Canadian consumer.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, it is often difficult to sit here and have one's position twisted and made to appear very different than it is. I was listening to the NDP members talk about how many questions we have asked in the House of Commons. They did not do their math right. Somebody in their research department really could not count. I would ask them to go back and maybe withdraw the numbers they have there.
They try to indicate that we have not raised this issue in the House of Commons previously, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the member for Palliser, who said that we have not done anything in this regard, and the member who just spoke have not done their research. I personally have been raising this issue for more than three years. I have talked about it in speeches. In agriculture I have called upon the federal government to reduce the tax burden on fuel. I have said that this is an unfair burden that cannot be passed along. We have talked about the price of fuel for a long time. For them to indicate otherwise is totally false. I think the public ought to know that.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Madam Speaker, my friend from the Canadian Alliance indicates that somehow we were attempting to distort the situation. To be fair, he has done exactly that.
The point made by my friend from Palliser and reiterated by me was that when we looked at the record for question period, the number of questions asked by the Canadian Alliance over the last number of months, there were no questions we could identify which related to oil prices or gasoline prices. We stand to be corrected. My challenge would be to correct that, but that is what our research indicated.
I looked at it. My friend looked at it. Our researchers looked at it. During question period, which is the time when we focus the concern of a political party as opposed to speeches generally and so on, there did not seem to be any record of that.
I stand corrected, but looking at the results, of the hundreds and hundreds of questions posed by the Canadian Alliance in question period, to our knowledge not a single one was calling for the government to take action on gasoline prices.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member asked that I correct that and I would like to correct it. I personally have included it in the questions. It may not have that title in question period and also, that is not the only time.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
The hon. member has gone into debate.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, I intend to share my speaking time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
The debate today is not really about tax policy; it is about the response of the government to a growing crisis that is facing many Canadians and which is going without response right now. In fact, this crisis could affect the very lives of men and women across our country. It is not something to be casually put aside.
On Monday my colleagues and I took the initiative to raise this issue. We are pleased that there has been a follow through by the party formerly known as Reform. It is our intention to support the motion when it comes forward to a vote.
My colleagues and I had the opportunity through the last several weeks to meet with representatives of trucking associations, among others. Last night we met with the Greater Ottawa Trucking Association. I want to express my appreciation to that association for its decision not to resort to any kind of public protest. That is the appropriate way to deal with these issues at this time and is in stark contrast to some of the threats that were raised by the new gunslinger who hides out in the basement of the House of Commons.
There are two realities we have to face in this debate. The first is that Canadian citizens are facing fuel price increases which many of them simply cannot afford to pay and which are a very real risk to the health and to the lives of Canadians who are older or who are on low incomes. That is one reality. The second reality is that we have a federal government today that has billions of dollars of surplus money which is earning money from this crisis through the taxes that it collects. It refuses to take any leadership on behalf of the citizens of Canada.
Let us deal with the first reality. Let us deal with the question of the Canadians who are at risk right now. We need only go anywhere in the country and look at the gas prices at the pumps. They are rising regularly. More seriously, look at the person who is a trucker in an industry upon which the country counts. We see increases in diesel prices at the pumps from Corner Brook to Halifax to Yarmouth to Saint John to Quebec to Montreal to London to Red Deer to Vancouver to Whitehorse to every community in the country. The trucking industry is being driven steadily toward bankruptcy by these increases.
The Canadian Trucking Alliance has said that fuel prices rose about 40% over the summer. In Ontario alone the average price of diesel fuel this year is 75% above what it was a year ago.
I had the opportunity on Saturday to meet Paul Easson of Easson's Transport of Berwick, Nova Scotia and a former president of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association. He confirmed that increase causes as much difficulty for truckers in Atlantic Canada as it does anywhere else in the country. The reality is clear. No business can operate with increases like that as its biggest single expense. That is the crisis the Canadian trucking industry is facing today.
The cruelest impact of these changes falls upon senior citizens, children and people on low incomes. The Consumers' Association of Canada has said “Low income families and the elderly could face winter without heating and car fuel as our oil prices skyrocket”.
Steve McIntosh, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Oil Heat Association said “We have already in Canada exceeded the price hikes that were experienced during the gulf war”.
The National Pensioners' and Senior Citizens' Federation said yesterday “Many pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes properly”. Obviously, living in the cold has very serious health implications. Senior citizens are being put at risk by the government's indifference to this issue.
The ones hardest hit by the far higher fuel oil and gasoline prices are older and low-income Canadians. They are getting ready for a long hard winter. Given their fixed incomes, these are the people least able to absorb sudden dramatic price jumps.
According to Statistics Canada figures for 1998, there were an estimated 752,000 low-income families here in Canada, that is households with an income below the poverty line for a family of their size in their community.
Households headed by seniors have not seen any increase in their net incomes.
The government must take steps to assist these people. Canada's northern climate requires people to heat their homes. On the average, heating and hot water costs are going to be $1,450. This is $950 more than last year.
The federal government must show some leadership and not leave people to struggle on their own.
General tax cuts do not help people who do not pay income tax. Yet these people pay the GST. With respect to home heating fuels, the most direct way to help them is to take the GST off home heating fuels.
The second reality has been the surprising but consistent refusal of the federal government to lead on this issue. It is an old story. The Liberals' habit is to duck tough issues. They ducked on free trade. They ducked on the Marshall decision. They ducked on the question of health care until the provinces forced them into an agreement. They ducked on the question of refugees. Their answer on the issue of refugees was to wait for the weather to change.
We cannot have a government that leads by waiting in this country. The Liberals' first excuse was that we have to wait for the world. The Minister of Finance said “Canada cannot act until Belgium does. Canada cannot act until Luxembourg does. Canada is waiting for Gabon”. That is entirely inconsistent with the traditions of this country. We are not some other country. We are a geographic giant. We are a strong economy. We are a winter country. We are a country with a huge surplus. We are a country with an obligation to our citizens who are facing a crisis right now.
I make the point that on other major issues that involved international co-operation Canada did not wait. We did not wait on acid rain. We did not wait on free trade. It is possible for this country to show leadership both to move the country forward and to help individuals who are struck now and are caught now in deep and serious personal difficulties.
The government's excuse is that we have to wait for the provinces. That is not leadership in a country like Canada. What the Government of Canada should be doing is causing the provinces to act. Give them reason to act. If the government will not give them reason, at least give them a telephone call.
Yesterday in question period the Minister of Finance had not even begun the consultations that might lead to a concerted action on taxes by the provinces and territories. This country has a health accord only because the provinces forced the Government of Canada to act. There is a clear duty of this parliament to force the government to act on this issue and there will be an opportunity in the vote on today's motion.
I want to refer briefly to the final excuse, that it is all the energy companies' fault. If the Liberals are concerned that the benefits of a tax cut would not be passed on, let them deal with that question. Let them act on this issue but do not hide behind it.
The present Prime Minister, in an earlier capacity as long ago as 1978 said to the Windsor Star , one of the bastions of the Liberal Party “We will be in touch with the oil companies and tell them we want the money passed on”. He was prepared to do that in 1976. What has happened to his resolve now?
Why is the Prime Minister hiding out behind the energy companies instead of calling them in, using all of the power of the office of the Prime Minister and saying that lives are at risk in Canada because of these high prices and it would not be acceptable for tax cuts not to be passed on to consumers? Why is he not using the moral suasion that sits in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada to get some action? Canadians are at risk. Truckers risk bankruptcy. Senior citizens and people on low incomes risk having a winter that will not only be cold, but could be fatal. This is the place from which action must come. Now is the time for action. Voting for this motion is a way in which the Parliament of Canada can force the Government of Canada to serve the people of Canada.
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Right hon. Leader of the Conservative Party speaks from his heart on a question which this side of the House has for many times decided that this was to be an important issue. It is only today with higher prices that the very things we were warned of in this document, which was very well written by my colleagues, have now come to bear fruition.
I do not doubt the party's concern. Yesterday, in most of the papers in their provinces another dimension of concentration in their neck of the woods is about to unfold with respect to the disruption of supply. The right hon. member will also know about my recent letter with respect to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act.
Given the New Brunswick select committee's background and knowledge about what happens when taxes are reduced in the best intention of helping Canadian people, can the right hon. member tell me, given the motion that I read this morning about helping those with lower incomes with an immediate rebate, if this is not something he would agree with and by implication vote against the odious resolution motion by the Alliance Party? Which is it?
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, we have before the House a motion that would have the effect of causing the government to act. It is not a wish by a private member. I regret that the government's treatment of its private members has been by and large to ignore their initiatives.
Parliament has an opportunity to act. The member asked me if I would make a choice. Yes, I would make a choice. My choice today would be to vote for this motion so there is increasing pressure upon the Government of Canada to stop ignoring the truckers, stop ignoring the poor and stop ignoring people who need help right now. The only obstacle to that help sits in the front benches of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is the issue. That is the choice of the opposition of the House.
Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Right hon. Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party talked about the need for the government to take action and that it should not wait. When the Progressive Conservatives were in power they did not wait. They invented the tax on diesel fuel and increased it twice to its current rate of 4 cents a litre. In addition, with regard to the tax on gasoline, it increased the tax on gasoline six times.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party if he supports the comments of the premier of Ontario who said that if the government lowered its 14.7% flat tax on fuel the oil companies would just raise their prices in kind. Mr. Palladini, the development minister of Ontario, said that whenever the government has cut fuel taxes it has not been reflected at the pumps and that international supply and demand and huge profits in the oil industry were definitely at the root of this problem.
Does he support those statements by Tories in Ontario?
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, this normally would not be a history lesson except the hon. member obviously needs one.
When I became prime minister in 1979 and was introducing a budget, the deficit that we had inherited from previous Liberal governments was larger than the entire budget of the Government of Canada in 1967.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
This is not revisionist history. These are absolute facts verifiable by anyone who is interested in looking them up. The point is that those were actions that were taken to bring down cumulative deficits. We are talking about now.
The hon. member asked whether or not it would be possible to get agreement from the premiers given the fact that one of them has expressed reservations about proceeding. Of course it is. Are we going to give the premier of Ontario a veto over the fiscal policy of the Government of Canada because the premier of Ontario does not want to do something? Is the Minister of Finance going to run away and say he cannot do anything because he is not the Minister of Finance anymore? Is he going to say that he will just sit there and have his strings pulled by various provinces?
That might be Liberal leadership but that is not the way to get this country acting on issues that are very serious to the people of this country.
Will I hide behind the provinces? No, I will not. Will I hide behind the view that oil companies might not pass on the benefits of tax reductions? No, I will not hide behind that. What I would do is call in the oil companies and make sure that the tax benefits were passed on. That is what leadership is about. That is what the Prime Minister should be doing.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Before we resume debate, an explanation is in order for members who have been rising to ask questions.
The Chair, using its prerogative, determined to recognize questions and comments from the other side of the debate, recognizing in full that there were members on the same side of the isle who had the same opinion on the subject at hand.
We will resume debate as there is no time for questions and comments.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so that we are clear, I can understand that when we are having exchanges during the question and comment period, we are trying to find out and clarify positions of different parties. I think it is important that when someone speaks from one particular party that they do not also ask questions of their own member, at least not at first. The prerogative should be for others to have an opportunity.
It seems to me that on occasion it is important for parties on all sides of the House to flesh out ideas, concepts. It gives us the chance to find out what the positions are. It is not just an opposition-government thing at all.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Let us give it a break. I raised the issue as an explanation. It does not change the fact that I still use the prerogative to go from the different side of the debate.
If there were more time for questions and comments, there is no doubt that more people would have a chance, even those on the same side of the issue.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg the indulgence of the House to seek unanimous consent for an additional five minutes of questions and comments for the right hon. former prime minister so that each party can ask one question.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend questions and comments by five minutes?