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.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has asked for unanimous consent to move the amendment previously put forward in his name. Is that agreed?
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am positive I heard members of the Alliance say no. What are they afraid of?
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
I am very pleased that we have the opportunity today to debate, and eventually to express ourselves formally in a vote, on a matter of concern to many: the price of gasoline, which has reached a record high.
This is a crisis that has gone on for several months, and the federal government has still done nothing, hoping that time would be on its side and the crisis would eventually just evaporate. The only action the federal government has taken so far, moreover, in connection with fuel prices, has been to commission a study from the Conference Board, the findings of which will be known early next year.
We know very well that when they want to do nothing, this is the best approach. They commission a study with findings to come out a long way into the future. Until such time, the answer can be given “We are looking into the matter”.
I am going to read the text of the motion so that there will be a clear understanding of what we are discussing. It reads as follows:
That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary deficit elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998 recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on gasoline pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.
I would like to say immediately that we in the Bloc Quebecois will support this motion. We will vote in favour of it. It will give consumers a bit of a break. However, we would like more than that. I will indicate the action we want taken, but at least this is a step in the right direction. This is why we will support the motion.
We would have liked the government to suspend the excise tax of ten cents a litre entirely because of the exceptional nature of the current crisis.
The proposal on the table will permanently reduce the cost of gasoline by three or four cents, according to the cost of gasoline per barrel. This is one of its strong points. We would like the cost to be reduced immediately by ten cents a litre to make it substantial and to enable consumers to say the next morning “Listen, we are paying ten cents less”.
I know that the Liberals will hide behind another approach saying “We are not sure the consumers will really benefit” and the like. If that is so, when they say they are not going to lower the tax by two or three cents because the consumer will not benefit, they are admitting that healthy competition does not exist in the industry. If there were healthy competition, it would be advantageous for one of the competitors to lower his price right away in order to get part of the market. If that player and all the players do not do it collectively, if there is no collusion in that industry, there are at least serious flaws from in terms of competition.
We are saying that this is perhaps a possibility and we are convinced that there are flaws in terms of competition. This is why we want a more substantial reduction than 3 cents per litre. But the motion is all about a permanent measure. The motion of the Canadian Alliance Party reads “including”. That does not exclude other measures. We are still in favour of suspending the excise tax until the price of the barrel of oil gets back to a much more acceptable level, and until the price of gasoline gets back to a more affordable level.
Why are we talking about a temporary reduction? It is of course because there are all sorts of issues related to this question, including environmental issues and, also, our taxation level compared to levels elsewhere. We are not ignoring that, but we want to send a clear message to consumers that we will help them, that it is not true that all the tax reductions granted to them in the last budgets will all be absorbed by the increase in energy prices.
Gasoline is one thing. What is less obvious but even more dramatic is the situation of all those who use fuel to heat their homes. Last winter, heating bills doubled. This winter, things will not get any better. It is often low or middle income people who use such heating systems and they are hit hard. To have to pay twice as much in heating costs in January and February when one is already on a very tight budget is a real nightmare. It is definitely not easy. There should also be special measures to help these people out so that the present crisis does not hit them too hard.
We on this side have four proposals. Obviously, we want a temporary suspension of the 10 cent a litre excise tax immediately. That is very important.
Second, we want to talk about the industry's practices. I will elaborate on this—I will come back to it and develop it further—to show that there should be special measures to improve competitive practices in this industry.
We also want to see investment in alternative energies. We should not find ourselves with every successive crisis—this is not the first time there has been a fuel crisis, and at some point we will have to learn—back in the same situation.
We are very dependent on petroleum products. There are areas in which alternatives are emerging. But the power of the petroleum industry, which has no interest in seeing alternatives developed, makes funding research difficult in these sectors. Without public funding to develop alternative energies, the obstacles to their becoming a reality and benefiting consumers are obviously considerable.
I would like to come back to competition. The federal government is responsible for this issue. There is competition legislation. It is in the government's court. The government does not have to wait for Tom, Dick or Harry, the provinces, its neighbour or the international community. It has responsibility for the competition laws.
I have here a report produced in 1998 by a committee of the Liberal Party that looked at the gasoline issue. We are not talking prehistory.
This report pointed out repeatedly that there were many shortcomings in the competitive practices of this industry. It even said at one point that the Canadian market is a bonanza for petroleum producers. A very well done study also showed that our average gas price before taxes is 4 or 5 cents higher than in comparable markets in the United States.
Why is it that we always pay more here for our petroleum products, yet the federal government does nothing but sit on its hands? Competition issues were indeed looked at a little, but no measures with any clout have ever been forthcoming to remedy what is going on.
How, for example, can it be possible for three companies, which are refiners, distributors and retailers all at the same time, to control 75% of wholesale sales? The market is dominated by only a few players, who control the situation. They have a huge ability to influence prices. Successful operation is not easy when the station across the street buys its gas from the same supplier.
To take an example, and I do not want to name anyone in particular, we have an independent right across the street from an Esso, and they both buy from the same refinery. It is understandable that it is not easy to do business when you have the people who sell you your gas operating right across the street.
The Liberal's recommendations contained some very interesting points. For example, might it not be worthwhile to separate refining and retail sales, so that one company could not do both?
There is nothing socialistic about this. It is already in place in several of the American states. It is designed to ensure competition at both levels: refinery and sales. The best way to do so is to not allow companies to be so vertically integrated and to control virtually the entire market, including sales to their competitors, that such a situation can result.
This fascinates me. I have studied economics and if I go back to school, I will study the oil companies. Why is the price always the same at the retailers? Why is the price always the same at Esso, Ultramar and Petro Canada? Why does one of the businesses not take a little initiative and edge out the others by one or two cents for a few months as the result of discovering better technology or coming up with a better marketing strategy? Why does no company ever stand out from the others?
This is a mystery to me. Why, in a competitive market, does no company ever take the lead, other than temporarily? Why does no company make the necessary adjustments and finally lower its price? This indicates clearly that there is no healthy competition in the industry.
It is a good thing to lower taxes, but it is a temporary and exceptional measure. We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that there are problems in this industry.
I know that some members on the other side of the House agree with this. I am looking forward to seeing how they will vote when the time comes. I know that on the other side of the House, if they stick by their recommendations, there will have to be amendments so that a few players will no longer have such sway over the Canadian petroleum market. This is an element of competition the government can work on.
I wish we would act quickly, and not wait for the Conference Board study, but to have a very clear debate or have the minister refer the whole matter immediately to committee in order to consider the appropriateness of separating the activities of retailing and refining.
This does not mean that refiners could no longer retail their products, but they could have, for example, a limited percentage of shares.
If Imperial Oil wants to retail its products, it could perhaps hold a certain percentage of shares, up to a limit of, say, 15%, 20% or 25%. This is already done in other areas. It is done in the banking sector. It is done elsewhere to avoid having some people control the market. It could also be done in the gasoline industry.
A refiner marketer could be allowed to have a limited interest. It could also be prohibited from getting into the retail business. Other players would then take over, thus creating greater competition.
I want to be clear. We are not saying that people who own or manage a gas station in their community are not doing their best to be competitive. However, given the price they pay refiners for gasoline, they have little leeway. Very often, they are told what price to sell their gasoline; they get a call, saying “Starting this morning, this is what the price will be”. This is how it works.
These people are not very vocal, because they are in business. But when we talk to people who used to be in business but no longer are, we realize that some very dubious practices exist in some cases. These practices do not comply with the spirit of the Competition Act, which seeks to protect consumers.
Some interesting possibilities were raised by the Liberals themselves—again, and I am not afraid to say so—in a good report that was released. The problem is not the quality of the report, but the will to implement it. A lot of good work has gone into it.
A large part of the study took place in Ontario. Not much time was spent in Quebec. It would have been nice if they had spent some time in Quebec, but the situation is very similar. The dynamics are the same. Now, the government's knee-jerk reaction is to say that this is an international issue.
We are not interested in demagoguery. We know that the price of a barrel of oil dropped to $10 or $12 and has just soared to $35 or $37, or thereabouts, in recent days. We are all aware of this. We know that this accounts for much of the price hike.
But I would like someone to explain something to me. Normally, when you have a business and the price of whatever you sell keeps going up—as we have seen with gasoline—consumers try to cut back a bit, and the business is forced to lower its profits to protect its share of the market. This is not the right context in which to go after greater profits. How is it then that, at the same time as such a serious crisis, with consumers ultra-sensitive to prices, we see the oil companies making record profits? This is very disturbing.
I realize that some companies are involved in direct activities, meaning that they make more money if the price per barrel goes up, but I would like to know where this money comes from. What were the retail profits compared to the preceding quarter or the last one or two years?
These are comprehensive and very complex financial statements. It is not possible to determine how they made this money. Is it just the increase in a barrel of oil? Is it more than that? Are we not still paying a few cents a litre too many at the pump?
I support the Canadian Alliance motion, with one exception: it completely ignores the competition angle. I agree that there should be temporary tax relief, but sight should not be lost of the fact that there are ongoing problems in the industry.
The Canadian Alliance's proposal is to permanently lower prices, in a competitive market, by about three cents a litre. Comparing the American market, healthy competition could have the same effect, and permanently. A permanent combination of the two measures in a good competitive market could bring prices down by 7 or 8 cents a litre.
This raises some questions. Do we want to stimulate sales of a product we know has an environmental impact? This raises another issue relating to what I was saying earlier: we must invest in alternative energies, because our dependency on petroleum products must be reduced.
The omission, or what we would have liked to have seen from the Canadian Alliance as far as competition is concerned, is quite understandable. We know where the oil patch is located. It does not take much scrutiny of a map of Canada to realize that Alberta does not have much to complain about as far as the price of a barrel of oil is concerned. This is understandable, for it means money in the pockets of their fellow citizens. Human nature being what it is, we would probably have the same reflex, but a broader perspective is needed.
Some Liberals, but I will not name names, will have to stand and be counted when this motion is put to a vote. People cannot say they are going to vote it down because it is insufficient. We have to start somewhere, and this is a step in the right direction.
One great advantage of lowering taxes will be the very strong pressure that doing so will exert on the government to improve the situation and perhaps recover this money.
We wanted to give it a stronger and temporary character because the government would perhaps say “I suspended my ten cent excise tax. It brings in nearly $400 billion a month. Perhaps if I were to make competition stronger it would be better to set profits at four or five cents a litre and for us to then take four or five cents in excise tax”. That might be a good thing. It would be to the government's advantage in economic and financial terms if it considered this issue with a little greater urgency.
In European countries, there has been much unrest. We must not think the same thing will not happen here too. The price per barrel of oil is very high despite the recent decision by the OPEC countries. There is talk of a threatened traffic tie-up by the Ontario association of truckers tomorrow. The economy is relatively strong. The truckers were busy working this summer.
In the fall, the economy always slows down a bit. When they have a little more time available and they let off a little steam and they try to make their truck payment and so on, some people will, when they are not carrying merchandise, make themselves heard.
There are others too. I am thinking, for example, about farmers over the summer. This is not the best time for demonstrations. The government should not be surprised, though, if the situation gets worse. One simply has to talk to people to realize that the public is greatly concerned by the price of gasoline. People are asking the government to take action at two levels: by lowering the tax and by making the oil industry accountable.
Why is it—there are a lot of unanswered questions but I raise them nevertheless—that last spring we had days where—the figures here are only indicative of the situation, but the differences reflect the facts—gasoline sold at 65.9 cents in the morning, at 72.9 cents in the afternoon, and then at 68.9 cents the next morning? During that time, the price of the barrel of oil remained stable. Why is it that there were such strong fluctuations over such short periods? Why is it that, at a time when market conditions were stable, the price of gasoline sometimes fluctuated by as much as 10% in a single day?
Oil companies must be made accountable. I would like to see them come before us to explain in detail the profits they make at the retail level. They can tell us anything they want, because we cannot check the facts. That is the problem. We should pass a better Competition Act and set up a more effective competition bureau with a special mandate.
We also asked for such a mandate for the competition bureau, with regard to the oil industry. We should dangle a sword of Damocles over the head of the oil industry, we should make it feel some pressure and we should constantly monitor it to keep it in the straight and narrow. It takes exceptional measures to follow up on a regular basis, to examine the financial statements of oil companies, to make them accountable, to not always be the ones bearing the burden of proof but to make them accountable sometimes. I think such measures would help improve the situation.
In conclusion, because my time is running out, we will support this motion which, I hope, will be agreed to. It would be better to suspend collection of the full excise tax, and we continue to ask for such a measure. But the motion of the Canadian Alliance does not exclude that and we will support it.
We want the government to wake up and to assume its responsibilities. There are competition problems within the industry. There comes a time when the government must stop burying its head in the sand and must stop telling itself that all the decisions are made elsewhere, that the international situation is to be blamed or that it is the provinces' fault. The federal government has responsibilities and it has the financial means and the legal authority. Let us see it use them.
Judi Longfield Liberal Whitby—Ajax, ON
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite. He certainly made some points with which I would agree. We need to make certain that we keep the oil companies more accountable.
However, I am a little perplexed. The member opposite insisted that we remove the federal excise tax totally but he failed to mention that in Quebec the excise tax on gasoline is 15.2%, the second highest of all provinces, and on diesel it is four times the federal excise tax. Additionally, there is a 7.5% sales tax in Quebec even on fuel oil.
The hon. member is demanding that the federal government reduce its excise tax but I did not hear any commitment that he would lobby his provincial government to do the same and reduce its much higher taxes and, as I pointed out, four times higher on diesel fuel.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It will give me an opportunity to raise a point I did not cover in my speech.
It is true that the provincial governments, and I am going to talk about Quebec, with which I am more familiar, tax gasoline, but they have responsibility for the roads. I would point out that, when we add up the revenues from the two taxes mentioned, compared to what the Department of Transport contributes, it works out to about the same.
Ottawa is collecting close to $5 billion a year in excise tax alone. How much is Ottawa putting back into roads? Very little. Not even 20% of gasoline taxes is reinvested in transportation or in the environment, and I am talking about the entire Department of Transport budget.
We must keep things in perspective. Nor is it necessary to be a math wizard to see that the provincial coffers are not in the same shape as those of the federal government. Here, only four months into the year, there is a $11.2 billion surplus, whereas a surplus of $1.5 billion or $2 billion would be exceptional for the government of Quebec.
Yes, there are provincial taxes on gasoline. If the hon. member is interested in more information, she should know that there are regional rebates. The 15 cents a litre she is referring to is not the figure everywhere; it is 15.2 cents, but in certain regions with less tax it can be as low as 10.9 cents. It is not 15 everywhere. Of course, if a person were to take the maximum and use it as a comparison, that does yield the figures we have just been given.
This does not mean that one day the provinces will not join in a movement, but it is not true to say that Ottawa is going to use the fact that the provinces do not initiate the offensive as an excuse not to do so itself. Ottawa should set the tone. If the provinces want to improve the process later, all the better. I am not excluding that possibility.
First of all, the federal government has the capacity to take action, and the responsibility to do so, particularly since I would very much like to see reference in this debate to the profit the government makes from gas taxes, from its shares in Petro Canada, from its partnership as well in the Hibernia drilling rig. The federal government rakes in a lot from all this but very little gets reinvested in transportation infrastructures, the road system or the environment.
There is material for a very worthwhile debate on this matter and I am ready any time to make a comparison with what Ottawa is doing.
Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for making several points on the issue but I want him to expand on the revenue that the federal government is receiving from this.
It is my understanding that the federal government does collect some $5 billion in revenue from taxation and returns a paltry $200 million back to the provincial government in transfers for road and highway improvements.
Does the member not agree that the gas pump is actually being used as a cash cow for the finance minister and that consumers are being milked by a callous government with this overtaxation?
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what my colleague has said. The tax on gas is a cash cow for the government. It is extremely profitable, and the government reinvests little of it.
It is all very well to boast from time to time because there is an infrastructure program, even if the infrastructure megaprograms represent an investment of $2 billion over three years, which represents about $700 million a year for all of Canada. Every year, the government collects $5 billion in taxes, excluding revenues from the GST. With the excise tax, it is nearly $5 billion a year.
The total budget of the Department of Transport, including the rail, air, land and other sectors, amounts to no more than $1 billion. The same is true of the Department of the Environment. In social terms, the government could say that gasoline taxes fund the highways network and are reinvested in the environment, because there are alternatives to gasoline, which affects the environment.
I would have no problem with closely examining the issue of dedicated taxes and having the excise tax go to funding them. The federal government would have to deal with the following problem: either it reinvests more in highways and the environment or it reduces its taxes, because they are not justified and it should not be taking this amount of taxes.
I totally agree with that and hope that the entire debate on the present matter will lead us to look at what is actually happening in the federal government, at how it profits hugely from the current situation and the high taxation, which is quite indecent, given how little of it is reinvested. The comments by the Alliance member in this regard are absolutely right.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I observe that Quebec is the only province where the provincial tax on fuel exceeds the federal tax. All other provinces have a provincial tax which is less than the federal tax.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
I am not looking at diesel. I am looking at gasoline, which is what we are talking about.
Would the member comment on the role the gasoline tax plays in the province of Quebec vis-à-vis the provincial tax?
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figures with me, but I can assure the hon. member that it is not true that Quebec is the only place where the provincial tax is not lower than the excise tax. There are other provinces where that is also the case.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
The hon. member mentioned New Brunswick. I believe there are other maritime provinces where the situation is similar.
That being said, as regards the fuel tax in Quebec, which is 15.2 cents per litre, there is a tax rebate in several regions and that rebate varies roughly between 10.5 and 15.2 cents per litre. So, in some cases, that tax is much closer to the level of the excise tax, while in other cases it is higher.
After this technical explanation I should add that, in my opinion, the justification is better when we consider what the government reinvested in the road network. In Quebec, the amounts collected in gas taxes and the amounts reinvested in the transportation budget are similar. The percentage is much closer than it is at the federal level. I believe that over 80% is reinvested.
So, this is much closer to the principle of a dedicated tax. In Quebec, if we add the environment, we are almost there. I do not know the situation for every province, but I know that this is the case for Quebec.
This is why I think it is justified to have gasoline taxes. It is normal to apply the user pay principle. It is normal that the users of the road network make a greater financial contribution. This does not mean that other members of the public should not contribute, because everyone uses transportation infrastructures in some way. But it is only normal that users should pay more.
Except that right now we have reached the limits of what is tolerable. Some help is needed on a number of fronts for consumers of gasoline and diesel fuel, for truckers and for those who are or will be using heating oil for their energy needs, especially this winter, because it is going to cost them quite a bit. Action is needed on all fronts.
This is where I feel the Canadian Alliance motion has something of a flaw, and it concerns the GST rebate for truckers. Fuel may be seen by many as input; they have tax refunds. For them, therefore, lowering the GST would not mean much of a change in their situation. That is why we are focusing more on the excise tax, because this can also help truckers, particularly the independents, facing tough situations.
I will therefore conclude by saying that we are going to support the motion. Other things can be done as well to improve the situation and take things even further. Let us not lose sight of the fact that what we have here is a Canadian industry with a competition problem and that that is what we must tackle, not just in 2001, after the Conference Board has pronounced, but sooner than that. We can do it and we do not need to look very far; if we look across the border, a number of American states have laws that could quite easily be adapted to our situation here.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in this important but I would suggest relatively simplistic debate today. The motion before us talks about a portion of the oil profits.
Canadians have a difficult time digesting the oil situation, the cost of gasoline at the pumps and the cost of home heating fuel. They know that taxes form a small component in this regard. However if we were to ask Canadians their concerns with regard to the reality of the prices, we would be told that they are twofold. Well ahead of taxes is the oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The second concern would be the high, obscene profits enjoyed by Canadian oil companies about which we will talk a bit later.
Those numbers in any public domain polling are far higher than the component of gasoline but they are not mentioned. Gasoline profits are not mentioned in the resolution before us this morning. In fact the reform alliance party never mentions this topic, obviously because it does not want to offend its friends in the oil patch in Alberta when the newly crowned leader of the party is looking to sell tables at $25,000 a pop or when he is meeting or has met with the Conseil du patronat and he identifies himself with the business community. I am splitting my time with the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
I was looking back this morning in preparation for this speech and I noted that there were 75 sitting days between February and June in the House of Commons. On any given day the reform alliance had an opportunity to ask about 19 questions. If my math is correct, and it may be suspect, that is about 1,425 opportunities.
How many questions were there on gasoline pricing? None, nada, zero, nothing, except to repeat the lines of the big oil companies. If we are not prepared to talk about oil profits and we are not prepared to talk about OPEC, we are not really dealing with the heart of the matter. I think Canadians understand that especially when they see that gas company profits for the last quarter have jumped by an average of $558 million or a percentage increase year over year for the second quarter of 2000 of over 500%.
Someone who has talked a lot about this topic in the House of Commons this year is my colleague, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. He has been indefatigable on the subject of fuel costs since arriving in the House some seven years ago. In fact 10 times in the past year he has had specific questions for the Minister of Natural Resources and other ministers on the subject of gasoline pricing.
He has warned the House that oil companies have driven down their inventories on home heating fuel by some 39% since last year and that the result inevitably will be sharply higher heating bills this fall. He has asked the Minister of Natural Resources to organize or arrange a summit with the oil companies and to put a plan into place. There is no hint of that in the motion before us today.
The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has private member's Bill C-488 calling for an energy prices commission, something that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asking about earlier in this debate. It is an energy summit to make the oil companies accountable for their actions. Because energy is the underpinning of our economy it is vital in a geographically dispersed country such as ours.
Energy price shocks have triggered rounds of inflation before that have ultimately put many Canadians out of work and have driven up the cost of living for everyone. Surely, if we accept the regulation of freight rates, drug pricing, stamps and cable TV, it is not out of line to consider regulating the price of a key commodity and economic input like energy that is used by virtually every Canadian family.
The member's private member's bill seeks to avoid unreasonable increases. On that topic, it was instructive for me, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned earlier in the debate, that Prince Edward Island is one province that has some form of an energy review commission.
When I was there earlier this year I noticed that not only were prices lower in P.E.I. than they seemed to be in other parts of the country but what was even more interesting was that the spread between premium and regular gasoline was about 4 cents a litre as opposed to the 9 cents or 10 cents a litre that the rest of us pay. When I asked an official at Petro-Canada about it some time ago he just dismissed it and said “That is our profit margin and we are not going to touch it”.
For those of us who are old enough to remember when it was sold in gallons rather than litres, the price spread was not anything like a 40 or 50 cents a gallon difference between premium and regular fuel.
Something else is noteworthy and could be done. When the energy price shock first hit after the Arab-Israeli war in the early seventies many Canadian provinces, perhaps all of them, implemented a program whereby there was no price increase. If the cost of a barrel of oil went up, they determined that there was a 60 day supply in the line and that no price increase could therefore take place at the pumps prior to 60 days. It seems to me that would be useful and worth exploring by the government.
As an aside, I am sure I would have the support of the hon. member from Labrador opposite who I recall was most upset last year about a tanker on its way up to Labrador in September filled with home heating fuel. The price was jumped while the tanker was in transit. Even though they had paid one price, they were to reap a windfall profit from the good folks in Labrador when it got to port.
Bill C-488 would reduce the risk of collusion by involving the Competition Act. We feel that the government has refused to take appropriate action and obviously the reform alliance has moved this motion on pricing—
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I decided to count them and after three times I would rise on a point of order. The hon. member has now misnamed our party three times. It is the Canadian Alliance. The Speaker has previously ruled that is the name to be used in the House. I would ask you to call him on it.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. member for Elk Island has made the point.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing here on the environment, something else that is very important to this party. We need to see something in energy on supporting expansion and use of public transit. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned on countless occasions, we need to retrofit buildings to meet higher standards of energy efficiency and we need a green screen. We need to encourage green industries and technologies, but we do not get very much, if anything, from the government opposite.
Something potentially very interesting is happening on this front in the province of Saskatchewan. One company is looking at building an ethanol plant in the prairie provinces that would use straw and other biomass which could produce up to nine billion litres of gasoline. This holds some hope for the future but it is not clear to me what, if anything, the government is doing to assist that process.
We seem to be stumbling toward Kyoto without our ducks being lined up, without knowing what it is that we will actually achieve on that front.
We want to promote fair fuel prices through an energy price commission and approve fuel price increases in the future in a transparent way. We want to reduce gridlock. We want greenhouse gases to be controlled, none of which is happening because of the higher prices that Canadians are paying at the moment.
In conclusion, with the deficit eliminated finally there is certainly no rationale to keep the surtax on. As far as it goes the motion is supportable by us, but we do so with the recognition and realization that it could have been so much better by way of a resolution to the House which would have included an energy price commission, a green screen and a rational way to absorb price hikes in the future.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech and I appreciate his thoughtful presentation. He talked a couple of times about a bad thing, the high prices that the oil companies are charging, whereas in fact roughly 50% of the value of the product is charged in taxes. Taxes are a very large component of the price we pay at the pumps.
With respect to the profits the companies are making, it seems as if the prices have gone up primarily due to the change in the world supply as manipulated by the people in the near east. When the world supply goes down the price seems to go up. That seems to be one of the rules of economics.
Is the member proposing that we have a two price system, that we sell domestically a product that is comparable to what we are willing to pay and with exports we go with the world price? Would he then extend that to farm product prices so that Canadian farmers would have one price for their product if it was sold domestically and another price on the international market? I would like the member to expand on that.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that he said the taxes were approximately 50% of the total price at the pumps.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Oh, of the product. The former leader of the Reform Party, when he was speaking earlier, said that it accounted for 40%, give or take 10%.
The answer to the question on the two price system is, no, simply because under the North American Free Trade Agreement, as the member should know, it would be specifically prohibited to have a two price system for oil, natural gas or any farm commodity.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Palliser for his presentation and his environmental concerns of fuel and taxes.
We all saw what happened in England when there was a truckers' blockage. We saw shortages in the stores. We saw hospitals open for emergencies only and selective surgery shut down.
We know that petroleum from the North Sea will be completely gone by the year 2020. With that in mind, knowing that time is catching up to us, can he recommend to Canada what we should be doing in terms of going beyond petroleum? Like the commercial, BP now says that we are beyond petroleum. If we could reduce taxes on petroleum that would be great, but the long term picture is what our grandchildren will do without petroleum products.
Can he elaborate a bit more on what Canada and governments should be doing to see that our children have renewable, sustainable energy for their products as well?
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important question since the world supply of fossil fuel is finite. There are varying debates as to how many years it will last but we simply have to get on top of this issue in terms of new products like ethanol and other products. There has to be more use of battery operated vehicles. Perhaps we need to encourage that direction by looking at additional costs for the price of the fancy, gas guzzling SUVs, which some people prefer to purchase, that clog the highways and do nothing for the greenhouse gas emissions that Canadians are facing.
There is a range of answers that are available but what we need is a government that has the will to do the job.
