House of Commons Hansard #124 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was petro-canada.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 3.
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is the House ready for the question?
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
All those opposed will please say nay.
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The recorded division on Motion No. 16 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
All those opposed will please say nay.
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The recorded division on Motion No. 49 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
At the request of the deputy government whip the vote stands deferred until the end of government orders on Monday.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture ActGovernment Orders
Bourassa Québec
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberalfor the Minister of Natural Resources
moved that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture ActGovernment Orders
Timiskaming—Cochrane Ontario
Liberal
Ben Serré LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on second reading of Bill C-39, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
I am pleased to be bringing this piece of legislation before the House at this time. Canada's economy is booming, due in no small part to the strong performance of Canada's resource industries. Today the energy, mining, forestry, geomatics and related industries account for 11% of Canada's gross domestic product. They directly employ 780,000 Canadians and account for 22% of new capital investment in the country. The sector had $97 billion in exports in 1998 and is the economic lifeblood of more than 600 communities across the country.
Canadian resource companies are showing that not only can they succeed in the knowledge based economy, but they are a dynamic and vital element of the new economy. Canadian resource companies are investing $35 billion per year in new capital, and average productivity growth is three times higher in the resources sector than in the rest of the economy. The policies implemented by the government are helping to ensure that Canada's resource industries remain competitive and continue to underpin our economic prosperity.
I am proud of the government's record on natural resources, but I am also convinced that we can never take a prosperous resource sector for granted. We must strive for continuous improvement. As we enter the new millennium, I believe Canada must become and remain the world's smartest natural resources steward, developer, user and exporter—the most high tech, the most environmentally friendly, the most socially responsible, the most productive and competitive—leading the world as a living model of sustainable development.
Consistent with this vision, it is important that Canadian resource companies have the ability to make strategic decisions and better position themselves in the domestic and global marketplace. With that in mind, I am proposing legislative amendments that will allow two of our major performers in the natural resources sector, Cameco Corporation and Petro-Canada, to continue their record of economic growth and environmental stewardship.
Hon. members are familiar with these companies. Canada is the world's largest producer and exporter of uranium, and Cameco is the dominant Canadian company, accounting for about 25% of both global uranium production and the western world's uranium conversion services capacity.
At one time both companies were crown corporations, fully owned by taxpayers. As hon. members are aware, this is no longer the case. The Government of Canada sold all its shares in Cameco by 1995. Although the government currently holds 18% of Petro-Canada's shares, it does not influence the management of the company.
At the time of privatization certain ownership restrictions were placed on both companies, but the energy sector is a dynamic sector and the market has evolved significantly over the past decade. While these restrictions were implemented for good reason, some have outlived their usefulness and are now preventing these companies from taking advantage of new business opportunities.
Officials of Cameco and Petro-Canada have repeatedly asked for changes in these ownership restrictions, which they view as unfair, since they do not apply to other companies in their respective industries. After careful review our government has determined that these arguments have merit.
Through Bill C-39 we are taking action to give Petro-Canada and Cameco greater freedom to grow and compete in the global market on a more level playing field with their competitors, while ensuring decisions will still be made in Canada.
The goal of Bill C-39 is to remove unnecessary restrictions that are limiting the ability of these companies to attract new investment capital and forge new strategic alliances, good alliances. Specifically the legislation proposes to modify existing restrictions on the ownership of shares and the disposal of assets in the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act. We are also proposing to amend the share ownership provisions of the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act, which governs Cameco.
In the case of Petro-Canada, Bill C-39 will increase the limit on the individual ownership of shares from 10% to 20%. We are proposing to eliminate the 25% limit on the quantity of shares that can be collectively owned by non-residents of Canada. In other words, there will be no foreign ownership restrictions for Petro-Canada.
In the case of Cameco, Bill C-39 will ease but not completely eliminate the current foreign ownership restrictions. The limit on individual non-resident share ownership will be increased by 10%, to a maximum of 15%. The ownership limit for an individual Canadian shareholder will remain at 25%. Under Bill C-39, the cap on total non-resident ownership of Cameco will move to 25% of the company's shares from the current 20%.
I assure hon. members that these proposed changes are intended strictly to give Cameco and Petro-Canada increased agility and better global positioning. Bill C-39 will not affect Canadian control of these companies.
As I have said, the restrictions on foreign ownership of Cameco will be loosened, although not totally done away with. The legislation will continue to require Cameco's head office to be located in Saskatchewan and for the majority of its directors to be Canadian residents. This will ensure that Cameco remains under Canadian control.
It is true that Bill C-39 will result in the elimination of restrictions on foreign participation in the case of Petro-Canada. A number of factors, however, will ensure that this major national will remain Canadian.
First of all, the 20% limit on individual ownership of voting shares in Petro-Canada will prevent a takeover by a major multinational. Then, as in the case of Cameco, the legislation will require the headquarters of Petro-Canada to be located in Canada—in Calgary, in this case—and the majority of its directors to be Canadian residents.
Finally Petro-Canada has more or less reoriented its activities to concentrate on off-shore resources in the Atlantic region and on the oil sands, both of which are essentially Canadian resources.
Bill C-39 will amend the provisions of the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act that govern the disposal of Petro-Canada assets. Specifically, the provision preventing Petro-Canada from disposing, particularly by sale or transfer, of all or substantially all of its commercial or production assets will be replaced by a similar one which makes no distinction between the two types of assets. Petro-Canada will thus benefit from more latitude in administering its portfolio of assets, while not being allowed to wind up its activities through a pure and simple liquidation of its assets.
The proposed amendments are not an indication of a major change in the government energy policy. In fact, they confirm that we want to let the market forces play within reasonable and responsible limits. This is merely housekeeping legislation bringing minor changes to property rules for Cameco Corporation and Petro-Canada.
I can assure my colleagues that the proposed amendments will have no impact on the prices of refined petroleum products. The recent hikes in gasoline and diesel prices in Canada are a direct result of the price of crude oil worldwide, which has increased three times since 1998. The price of crude oil is established according to supply and demand on the global market and has nothing to do with property rules established in the Canadian energy industry.
I also want to inform the hon. members that Bill C-39 will not change anything to the commitment Canada made toward non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or nuclear security. Also, it will permit Cameco to consolidate its position as a world leader in the mining and conversion of uranium.
Both companies support Bill C-39. Canadian as well as foreign investors will applaud this initiative, which should improve the long term outlook for shareholders as well as protect the Canadian status of Petro-Canada and Cameco.
This is clearly legislation which encourages good management of public affairs, and that is why I would ask all members to join me in voting to have it referred to a committee.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-39. We in the Canadian Alliance support the objective of the bill and will be supporting it when it comes time to vote on second reading.
I am certainly not about to let the government off the hook on the issues in the bill simply because the issue that the bill addresses should have been addressed a long time ago. In some respects the government still does not go as far as it should in allowing the flexibility of the two companies to compete in a global economic environment. Only a Liberal in a Liberal government could stand in the House and say he or she is proud of the Liberal record when it comes to energy management.
The two acts originally placed restrictions on individual and foreign ownership when Petro-Canada and Cameco were first privatized. In my view the restrictions placed on these two companies were too restrictive, more restrictive than necessary. The government some time ago should have made the move that is being made today.
The intent of the bill is to increase the companies' access to domestic and foreign capital and enable greater flexibility in using share exchanges and asset pooling to make acquisitions and strategic alliances. Of course, if the government would do something about our pathetic Canadian dollar, we would not need this legislation even to the degree that still remains to protect these Canadian companies from international takeover. However that is another issue and a topic for debate on another day.
Having said that, I cannot help but wonder if the bill is to finally pave the way for the government to sell off its remaining 18% ownership, or 49.4 million shares of Petro-Canada. Certainly that is what appears to be going on here. Far be it from me to be suspect of the government's motives, but I suspect that is the intent of the bill.
The bill does a number of things to make room for the sale of Petro-Canada. It raises the limit on individual ownership of shares from 10% to 20%. The 25% limit on shares that can be owned collectively by non-residents is removed. It also provides the company with greater flexibility to manage its assets portfolio while maintaining a check against the company winding up its activities through an outright sale of all of its assets. What does all that mean?
Petro-Canada was created in 1975 as one of the mechanisms of the national energy program. The feelings of western Canada and those of us who represent ridings in that region are well documented when it comes to the national energy program. We never did buy the Liberal line that the national energy program was a vehicle for nationalist dreams and a ticket to energy self-sufficiency.
At the time Canadians were told that we had less than 20 years worth of recoverable oil reserves and that a high gasoline tax burden was justifiable to guarantee our future energy needs. When we look at where the oil industry in Canada currently stands, obviously our skepticism was appropriate. Twenty-five years later we know that those empty threats were little more than Liberal hogwash and a simple money grab and a flagrant breach of the principles of confederation by the federal government, a Liberal federal government.
We now have proven oil reserves that will supply Canada's energy needs well into the future. In fact, there is almost 400 years of recoverable reserves at current usage levels in the tar sands of northern Alberta alone. The Liberal government might have thought that it had fooled Canadians but we knew it was the federal government poking its rather large and unwelcome nose into the oil and gas industry, an intrusion that was totally unasked for, unappreciated and unnecessary.
Although the national energy program was eventually dismantled, Petro-Canada lived on, fed by taxpayer dollars without taxpayer approval. I might say that even today in this Liberal government so many years later, the concept of a made in Canada energy policy still exists. We heard reference to it just the other day on the debate on the reduction of gasoline taxes in Canada.
At one time perhaps it was of primary interest only in western Canada. I would urge Canadians on the Atlantic coast and in Canada's Arctic today to be just as wary of that kind of discussion.
The Liberals' presentation of the principle of a made in Canada energy policy perhaps had some validity when we look at the total context of Canada and its energy needs, but the folly and downfall of the program was that it was based simply on the resources of one or two provinces and took some $60 billion out of the economy of those provinces and gave nothing back in return.
In my opinion that is not the way to run a country. If we are going to depend on one part of the country for our resources and if we are going to take those resources in the interests of the whole country, then it behooves us to give back to the particular province or region something in return to equalize the contributions of the province or region. Certainly that did not happen.
Anger was a result of that program. The injustice of the program has resulted now in a commitment in the North American Free Trade Agreement which does not allow Canada in any sense to set its own energy policy independent of the North American market. I think it could have been handled much better and in the interest of the entire country, not just a small part of it.
It was not until after a federal election and the Liberals were defeated and the Tory government came to power that the national energy program was abandoned. Of course by that time it did not matter anymore because oil prices had collapsed and the idea of western Canada selling its oil resources below international prices was not an issue. It did not matter. Finally the concept of a made in Canada energy policy was abandoned.
Petro-Canada lived on after the national energy program and continues to live on today. It continues to remind us of just how foolish and inept the government was in setting up the program. Petro-Canada ended up as an oil company much like any other oil company in Canada, except that the taxpayers still own 18% of the company and are the single largest holder of stock in the company. No one but the government could own more than 10% of the company.
In 1994 I questioned why the government would not sell off its national oil company while the industry was strong and recoup some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that were used to create Petro-Canada in the first place. Even in 1994 I asked the government why it would not do something significant and use the revenue from the sale of Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt burden. That debt burden was in part because of the creation of Petro-Canada and the money that the government took from taxpayers to buy Petrofina and create Petro-Canada.
In 1995 the Liberal budget promised to totally privatize Petro-Canada, and we can see today how reliable Liberal budget promises are. Certainly this is no different than in many other areas. Indeed it is something we should consider over the coming weeks.
The fact remains that Petro-Canada cost Canadians over $5 billion to create. Petro-Canada has never provided any benefit to Canadians that could not have been provided by the private sector. When it was finally privatized, Petro-Canada started making a profit and competed effectively. Until the company was privatized, it continued to be a drain on the taxpayers' purse and never did make a profit until it was privatized, even with the restrictions that have continued to be placed on the company.
Governments, since Petro-Canada was established, have never had the courage to admit to Canadians that they will only be able to recover less than $2 billion of the original cost of $5 billion for the creation of Petro-Canada. If this bill is indeed the first step in the process of the government to sell off its remaining shares of Petro-Canada, my first response would be it is about time.
I am curious though about the timing of the bill. On Bay Street investors have driven up Petro-Canada's share prices in anticipation of a move by Ottawa to sell its shares. Today Petro-Canada shares are selling at $32.75 each. That is over a 46% gain just this year and there is potential for the price to go even higher. Bill C-39 will remove foreign ownership restrictions, allowing for an expanded market and certainly the potential of increased share prices.
Should the government sell its shares? It could optimistically find itself receiving $1.6 billion. That is $3.4 billion less than what Canadians originally paid for Petro-Canada, a business transaction anyone could identify as being a disaster, let alone standing and saying they were proud of their record. How could anyone be proud of a record like that?
However, the government could find itself in possession of $1.6 billion. What I would like to know is what it is going to do with the money? Since it was originally taxpayers' dollars that paid for Petro-Canada, I believe that the funds should be returned to the taxpayers in a direct fashion, rather than being dumped into the general revenue fund that the Liberal cronies can dip into whenever they feel inclined, whether it is for vote buying schemes in some parts of the country or for huge new national social programs that it commits to then later backs away from and leaves the provinces stuck with them. No, I would like to see the money going to debt reduction, again to reduce the debt that the creation of Petro-Canada had a role in making in the first place.
Perhaps it could be put into transportation improvements or maybe we could really be revolutionary and put the money toward lowering gas taxes. Lowering gas taxes, what an original idea. However, we must remember that these Liberals just two days ago voted against such a notion so I do not suppose they would be interested in returning taxpayer dollars directly to the taxpayers. No, in fact, that is far to clear-cut, simple, direct and responsible for this government to recognize.
Bill C-39 does a number of things that we support. Referring to Petro-Canada, it moves toward opening up ownership of the company to both national and international interests, while still ensuring that the majority of the company is still Canadian. The legislation clearly states that resident Canadians must still make up the majority of the board of directors. It also stipulates that the head office of the company must remain in Calgary. That is a curious feature of a number of bills which privatized crown corporations. I have always wonder why that was necessary.
It would only make sense for the head office of Petro-Canada to remain in Calgary because that is the centre of their operation. As the House may recall, when CN was privatized the head office had to remain in a certain particular city. When Air Canada was privatized the head office also had to stay in a particular city. I have trouble understanding what the motivation for that is, except it has to be politically motivated. I tend to be a bit cynical after awhile.
The Canadian Alliance supports the removal of restrictions upon Canadian businesses to allow for both domestic and foreign investing. We expect to see that Petro-Canada, once it is no longer manipulated by government, will continue to show profits and growth.
Of course, Bill C-39 does not only address issues surrounding Petro-Canada, although that is where my primary interest is, as members might have noticed. It also addresses relating to the sale of shares in Cameco, Canada's biggest uranium producer. Canada's Kyoto commitments have increased the need for Canada to find green energy and certainly nuclear energy is one of the options that is being considered. Our Prime Minister speaks of it often.
I do not wish to get into the debate at this point on the merits or lack thereof of nuclear energy, but the fact remains that uranium is a resource that should nuclear energy be a factor in the world's efforts to reduce CO2 levels will become a very important resource.
The bill raises foreign and individual ownership limits for Cameco. Individual non-resident ownership will increase from 5% to 15% and the limit on the total amount of non-resident ownership of shares will increase from 20% to 25%. I am pleased to see that the legislation still is mindful of the possible consequences of high levels of foreign ownership of uranium resources. In fact, the lower limits on Cameco shares reflect across the board government restrictions on foreign activity in uranium mining. While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian businesses having all the opportunities to succeed, we must also be conscious of the need to keep such potentially volatile resources within Canadian control.
In effect, the bill allows for greater flexibility in the selling of shares in Canadian companies and I can certainly support that effort. It allows those companies the freedom to raise capital and to prosper and grow to the maximum that their ability and their resource will allow.
As I have already stated, if this legislation leads to the government finally selling off its remaining shares of Petro-Canada, it would be legislation that is long overdue.
I guess we will just have to wait and see if the sale of Petro-Canada becomes another pre-election goodie, and if so, exactly how much the Liberals think Canadians have forgotten regarding the original purpose of Petro-Canada and the amount of taxpayers' dollars that went into establishing the company which were never and will never be recovered from the sale.
As I said, essentially we will be supporting the bill. It is a step in the right direction. It is the right thing to do. It is better late than never. We will be voting in favour of the bill as it moves through the House of Commons.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, with rather mixed emotions, I rise to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
These days, we hear the words “snap election” or “early election” on everybody's lips. In the meantime, the job of the MPs is to speak to certain bills, which in some cases are contrary to the interests of Quebec, such as the young offenders bill or bills I consider of relative importance, such as the one before us today.
In short, this enactment relates to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Eldorado Nuclear Limited—now Cameco Corporation—and Petro-Canada.
It provides that the articles of Cameco Corporation will have to contain a 15% individual non-resident share ownership limit for voting shares as well as a cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights of 25%.
It provides that the articles of Petro-Canada will have to be amended to allow for a 20% individual share ownership limit instead of 10%, while the aggregate non-resident share ownership limit of 25% will be eliminated.
In addition, the prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and downstream assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of its assets, without distinguishing between the upstream and downstream sectors of activity.
However, before examining the reason for the bill, let me give you a brief overview of these two corporations, which I had to do to get to know them better.
First Cameco. Cameco was born in 1988 out of an amalgamation of two crown corporations, namely, Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear Limited.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited had been in existence for 61 years. It was the oldest uranium producer in the world. It was a world class business and a reliable supplier with many customers, both in Canada and abroad. The Eldorado company was Canada's only integrated producer, which means that it could transform uranium into products used not only in Canadian reactors in order to satisfy Canadian energy needs, but also exported in order to satisfy the energy needs of other countries. Modern and efficient plants were operated by Eldorado, and it owned in whole or in part the uranium mines where the ore was extracted at competitive costs.
The other partner, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, was one of the biggest uranium suppliers in the world. Already, in 1986, it accounted for 7% of the total production in the Western world. As the company had been intensifying its exploration activities for a number of years, it owned some of the world's most important commercial reserves.
Since 1988, Cameco has made several buyouts and has extended its activities in several other countries. The company deals in uranium, gold and oil. It is worth mentioning that, in 1999, the company signed an agreement for the purchase of natural uranium extracted from highly enriched uranium coming from Russia's dismantled nuclear armament. I will come back to this later.
Cameco Corporation, headquartered in Saskatoon, is thus the world's biggest uranium producer. Its customers are hydro-electric companies in 13 countries around the world. The uranium products they buy supply nuclear energy plants.
The Canadian nuclear industry sales figure is $4.5 billion and it maintains 30,000 highly skilled jobs in 150 Canadian companies. The Canadian government brings in annually more than $700 million in taxes and sale taxes.
The new Cameco company has one thousand employees and its total assets are worth over $1.6 billion. The public holds 90% of its shares, and Saskatchewan government holds 10%. The company's 57 million shares are traded on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges. Unfortunately, I cannot at this time say what the percentage of non-resident shareholders is. This is the kind of information the minister will be able to give us when he appears before the standing committee.
Let us now turn to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was established in 1975 by the federal government as a result of the high oil prices and the uncertain supply we faced at the time. The company's initial mandate was a response to public policy needs in the energy sector. Canada had to establish a presence in the industry, stimulate exploration in frontier areas and find new oil resources in Canada.
The world changed a lot over the next decade. Ten years later, the oil crisis was over, and it was claimed that successful exploration and conservation measures had had a tremendous impact both on supply and demand.
In 1984, Canada elected a Conservative government with a totally different view of government's involvement in the business world. This new philosophy, which meant the official end of Petro-Canada's public policy mandate, was the first of many steps toward privatization.
This new approach put an end to government funding of Petro-Canada. However, as a crown corporation, Petro-Canada could not go to the market to finance its operations. In the mid 1980s, net receipts dropped even further as oil prices came down.
During this time, Petro-Canada had to turn itself into a profitable venture; it was very difficult. Petro-Canada had a huge debt because of its original public policy mandate and, in the absence of new capital, it had to borrow more to fund its growth. Access to the stock market became essential.
Finally, in 1990, the government announced its intention to privatize Petro-Canada and the first shares were sold on the open market in July 1991, at $13 each. The markets were quick to pass judgment on Petro-Canada's financial health. During the first year, the value of the shares gradually dropped to $8. In 1991, Petro-Canada suffered a huge loss of $603 million, primarily because of the devaluation of some assets. Petro-Canada needed more than a change, it needed a miracle. It had to fundamentally review its business and the way it was managed.
It significantly reduced the number of properties in which it had a direct interest. It reduced its annual operating costs by $300 million. It went from a staff of close to 11,000 to only about 5,000 employees.
September 1995 was a turning point in Petro-Canada's history. Indeed, this is when the government disposed of most of the 70% of outstanding shares that it still held, keeping only a 20% interest. At the time, this was the largest issue of shares in Canada's history.
On December 31, 1999, out of the 222.4 million public shares of Petro-Canada, 181.6 million common shares were held by Canadian residents, while 40.8 million multiple voting shares were held by non-residents.
This completes my historical overview. Let us now briefly go back to Cameco.
In his press release announcing the proposed legislative amendments, the minister put it this way, no doubt to reassure the public.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Government of Canada's policy on foreign ownership in the uranium mining sector and do not diminish Canada's ability to meet its commitments with respect to nuclear non-proliferation.
Given the attitude we saw with respect to the transportation of MOX, the warm and fuzzy words of the member for Wascana are hardly reassuring. I wonder about the appropriateness of such an action. Is it really necessary to go after more foreign capital to mine uranium?
It should also be pointed out that the Ontario communities of Clarington, Hope Township and Port Hope will have to manage more than one million cubic metres of low level waste produced by former crown corporation Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. at the Port Hope refinery from the 1930s on.
This waste was first dumped in various sites in the city of Port Hope, then moved to the Welcome storage site in Hope Township, and finally to the Port Granby site in the Municipality of Clarington. The Welcome and Port Granby storage facilities are authorized by the Atomic Energy Control Board and belong to Cameco, which runs them itself.
Even though the waste is managed safely in its present location, the current situation will not be acceptable in the longer term according to the Atomic Energy Control Board, the Government of Canada and the local communities. Why, while we want to attract more foreign capital, are we limiting foreign control? Is it to protect ourselves or to protect them against potential liability with respect to the environment?
I hope the minister will give appropriate answers to our questions in committee. However, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the head office of Cameco is located in the minister's province, Saskatchewan.
Now, let us go back to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada, whose head office is located in Alberta, was previously a crown corporation. Today, the federal government owns about one-fifth of the corporation's shares. As sovereignist Quebecers, we consider that this corporation is already owned, to a certain extent, by foreigners. The fact that the maximum percentage of shares that an individual is allowed to own is raised from 10% to 20% does not necessarily change the problem of competition on the fuel market.
What is surprising is that this bill is being introduced at the very moment when the Conference Board is studying that market. Would it not have been more appropriate to wait for the completion of the Conference Board study before introducing such changes to the share structure of Petro-Canada?
Also surprising is the fact that Petro-Canada contributed a little over $5,000 to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada in 1999. I suppose that when the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada asks for changes to the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, close attention is paid to what he has to say. All roads lead to the campaign fund of our friends across the way.
As for the report of the Conference Board, I want to remind the House that the parliamentary committee examined Petro-Canada and the fuel industry in 1998. In one of its recommendations, the committee warned us against a possible merger of Petro-Canada and another oil company.
This is another fine example of the Prime Minister ignoring the work of his own members. Despite all the work that was done, he is trying to hide the fuel issue in this report from the Conference Board.
The federal government not only collects fuel taxes, it grabs part of the huge profits being registered by the oil companies this year. Petro-Canada's profits increased by $195 million during the second quarter of the year 2000. That is a 304.7% increase. To increase its tax revenues, the government will stop at nothing. During the next campaign, the Liberal Party election cry could very well be “We want nothing but your good, and your goods.”
Increasing the foreign ownership limit from 10% to 20% will not allow an individual to take control of Petro-Canada. However, 20% of the shares of a company can give someone a lot of power. We, in the Bloc, think that competition is one of the major problems of this industry.
Also, the 25% cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights would also be abolished under this bill.
Petro-Canada could very well end up under foreign control. The minister should explain why this should be.
The federal government identified a dangerous level of concentration in the industry, but it decided against doing anything until the problem reached crisis proportions since the winter of 2000.
The Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for some time that the federal government make sure there is more competition in the Canadian oil industry. For example, three refiners-marketers control 75% of the wholesale trade in Canada, which is reason enough to wonder if there is any real competition in this industry. The Competition Act should be amended to guarantee competitive prices for consumers. The House committee that has been poring over this legislation for a year has clearly indicated that the Competition Bureau had a very hard time enforcing the law.
Two things should be done in that regard. First, there should be changes made to the onus of proof with respect to anticompetitive behaviour, and, second, the Competition Bureau should be given the authority to initiate investigations.
Another problem with the federal government in the gas issue is that only 17% of federal taxes on fuel are invested in the transportation infrastructure. The federal government then feels it has to set up infrastructure programs in order to gain more visibility. Compare this with the Quebec government, which is investing 71.7% of fuel taxes revenues in infrastructure.
To sum up, I fail to see how this bill is relevant. We are not against it nor do we support it, but the minister will have to answer some questions. The problem I see here is why introduce this bill now? Is it because a foreign investor anxious to invest in Petro-Canada needs an increase in the foreign ownership limit to take over the company?
I suppose the Minister of Natural Resources will be able to explain to us in committee why this bill is being introduced now and why the government is not dealing with the issue of competition in the gasoline market.
In conclusion, I will quote an excerpt from the 1999 annual report of the National Energy Board:
Petroleum export revenues increased to an estimated $14.9 billion in 1999, somewhat below the peak of $17.9 billion in 1997. Spending on petroleum imports was about $9 billion, leaving Canada with a trade surplus in petroleum of $5.8 billion, up from $4.4 billion in 1998.
It is strange that a country that has a trade surplus in petroleum cannot exert any pressure on the gasoline market. It is also strange that it would consider allowing foreign control.
There are some fundamental questions which must be put to the minister. Therefore, I am looking forward to seeing him at a future meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.