Debates of Feb. 21st, 2001

Fuel Price Posting Act

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning that the seconder of my motion was the hon. member for Fredericton, and he was sitting beside me. If there is an error, this is not my problem. I was asked about this earlier.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I must inform the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik that, when the motion was read, the hon. member for Fredericton was not sitting beside him. So I asked earlier if there was unanimous consent for the hon. member for Scarborough Centre not to be the seconder any more. There was no unanimous consent. So I think the problem is solved. The hon. member's colleague is still the seconder of the motion.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-220.

The bill would require fuel or gasoline retailers to indicate the selling price of fuel without including the price of the taxes that would be applied. I commend the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik for his efforts in this regard.

It is no wonder that no one on the Liberal side is even standing to second the bill of their own party member. That is how they encourage private members' business. We of course want all private members' bills to be votable, but there is no one to even second this one.

The member's efforts would inform Canadians about the true price of fuel as opposed to the price we are paying, which includes taxes. The bill defines fuel as gasoline types of fuels used by internal combustion engines and diesel fuel and propane gas. The bill makes it clear that we are not talking about home heating oil or aircraft fuel. We are talking about the fuel we use in our automobiles.

I do not have too many problems with the bill. The bill is of course limited in scope, as well as limited in seconders, because it applies only to consumers buying gas for their cars. It seems to me that with the sharp spike in the price of home heating oil and gas, which has hit us so hard and is not included in the bill, the House should be consumed with that issue and that issue alone.

Canadians are suffering this winter in our cold climate. It is a particularly cold winter this year. There has been a 70% hike in natural gas prices which the Liberals did not foresee and did not prevent. They did nothing about it except to send out cheques of a couple of hundred dollars, and then too, to people who probably do not pay the heating bills, for example, students, prisoners or even deceased Canadians.

We know that Canadians are paying over a couple of thousand dollars compared to the couple of hundred dollars that the cheques are for. The government completely missed the target of sending the cheques to those most in need of assistance with their heating bills this winter.

The Liberal finance minister has no sympathy for Canadian seniors or persons on fixed incomes who have so little money that they are choosing among getting their prescriptions filled, what they can afford to buy to eat, or heat.

I might add that it is also the Liberal government's fault that our heating fuel costs are higher than those in the U.S.A. This government keeps our taxes high and our dollar weak. We are being hurt twice. It is a double whammy.

Let us talk about gas prices, which is what the bill talks about. We started to see the price hikes about a year ago. It is the amount of tax placed on gas that has driven the price upward. We get really upset when gasoline prices jump by 10 cents or 20 cents per litre and we hate it when it happens overnight. We hate it most when it happens on a Friday just before a long weekend. We all feel that we are hostages to gasoline prices while we also rely heavily on our automobiles for all kinds of work.

The Canadian Alliance's chief natural resources critic, the hon. member for Athabasca, in Alberta, is of course very knowledgeable on the subject of gasoline prices. He has been working in this area for a long time. My colleagues and I have great respect for his understanding of this field in particular. He has been recommending transparency in the price of gasoline and has been advocating this on behalf of consumers. He explains that the price we pay at the gas pumps includes a tremendous amount of tax. That is why, when the price of gas or oil on the world market is hiked, we feel it, because not only is the price of the gas hiked but the taxes also get higher with respect to that increase.

This exacerbates the increase in the wholesale price. If it were not for the taxes piled on top of the price of the gas, Canadians would not be so radically affected by the price hikes in the world price of oil.

Canadians want to be able to clearly see the gouge made in their pocketbooks by taxes on gas. It is not the oil companies that are the villains here. It is the taxes. If Canadians could see the large amount of taxes applied to the price of gas it would heighten awareness in Canada of the importance of tax cuts. Taxpayers could properly direct their frustration and anger at the governments applying these taxes, particularly the federal government.

Everyone knows that the Canadian Alliance stands for tax cuts. About 9 cents per litre of gas is federal tax. On top of that we have a provincial excise tax. On top of that we have a provincial sales tax. On top of that we have the GST. We have a tax on a tax on a tax and on a tax. This is very unfair.

I have some facts and figures from the B.C. edition of FuelFacts for February 13, 2001, which is the latest edition. FuelFacts monitors the price of gas. Clearly we can see from the chart that gas is 29.5 cents per litre. When all the taxes are piled on top of that 29.5 cents, the price of the same gas is 74 cents per litre. That is a shame. Only 16 cents of this 74 cent per litre price goes to the refiner and the marketer of the gasoline.

Some people might say that is how the government raises revenue to pay for the things we need such as health care, highways, schools, prisons, free flags, golf courses, hotels for the Prime Minister's riding and so on. However, my province of British Columbia gets only 5% of the amount of federal taxes we pay on gas. This amount is returned to us to pay for transportation infrastructure.

In 1997 the federal Liberals raked in about $360 million in fuel taxes from British Columbia. This figure has risen. It is now about $700 million a year. The federal government returns only 5% to British Columbia and B.C. is the only province in the whole country that does not have any four lane highways. We cannot even buy enough street lamps with the 5% that the Liberals return to us for transportation and infrastructure development.

Where do all of our tax dollars and tax revenues raised by gasoline taxes go? They are not helping us in B.C. to pay for our highways, our airports, the RCMP, border protection, the coast guard or emergency preparedness, et cetera. Our money is being kept in Ottawa or is being spent by Ottawa. Maybe it is being spent on some of the boondoggles or maybe in the Prime Minister's riding for fountains. Who knows where the money goes? There are many factors in this other than high taxes. Sometimes it is surprising to see how the geography works.

Prices are affected exponentially with the increase in the price at the original level. Sometimes a 5 cent increase becomes a 10 cent or 15 cent increase at the consumer level because of the taxes.

In regard to gas stations, I want to mention that the government should be investigating how, on any morning, afternoon or evening, gasoline prices can suddenly increase, sometimes within seconds or minutes. However, when the price of fuel goes down, it takes two or three days for the gas station prices to go down. What are we supposed to conclude when that happens? Is it collusion, price fixing or an oligopoly? What happens to the stock or inventory of the retailers?

We do not want to interfere with their private businesses. We want supply and demand, or competition, to control the market, but at the same time we need to balance that with the public interest. We do not want the public to be victimized or exploited by the federal government's taxes and then by businesses and so on.

In conclusion, the bill would make it clear exactly how much money per litre of gas is being taken by the government out of the pockets of Canadians. However, isolating the amount of taxes from the actual cost may not be the real solution for giving any tax relief to Canadians.

In the end, maybe we do not need to legislate. Maybe the retailers would volunteer.

However, the hon. member's bill is a very thoughtful idea and I tend to support it.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow the rules of the House of Commons, I would like to change the name of the seconder of my bill. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the name of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre replaced by the name of the hon. member for York West, who is here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has finally found somebody to second his bill. It took a while.

In the same vein, and before getting to the substance of the issue, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik accused the opposition parties of not agreeing, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to make his bill a votable item.

For the sake of transparency, I request unanimous consent, and offer our total co-operation, to make this bill a votable item. Therefore, before getting to my speech, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a votable item.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to make this bill a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are crystal clear. Members on the government side refused to make this bill a votable item. So now everybody knows who wants to make it votable and who does not.

Let us put this debate into perspective. What is the situation on the fuel market? Over the last year or year and a half, there has been an exceptional increase of prices causing hardship to consumers. It creates inflation. Truck drivers, farmers, consumers and people using heating oil are affected. This crisis is ongoing and is costly for consumers.

At the same time, we have an industry making record profits and governments raking in huge amounts of taxes, especially the federal government, which collects taxes not only on fuel but also on oil companies' profits.

Let me add that the federal government will collect more than $5 billion thanks to the excise tax and will only reinvest 6% in the highway system. This is an incredible cash cow for the government; the high prices of gasoline, petroleum products and petroleum-based products is not a problem for the government since they generate additional revenues. However, for consumers, they represent a real loss of their purchasing power, and consumers are really feeling it.

Therefore, the issue is an important one. How did the government address the problem? It did two things. First, last spring it asked the Conference Board to review the situation. We have not yet seen the study; we will have it tomorrow.

I am announcing, and it is a scoop,that members will learn that, according to the conference board, the oil industry is doing fine. According to the versions of the report that are in circulation at this time, and of which we have a copy, we can see that it contains no criticism of the oil industry. Members should not expect great miracles tomorrow or they will be disappointed. In fact, this is not surprising since oil companies happen to be members of the conference board.

The second thing the government did was just before the election. What did it do? It decided to free up $1.4 billion so it could send $125 or $250 cheques to individuals or families to help them deal with the high cost of energy products, or so it said. One has to look at how the government did that. It decided to send a cheque to all those who receive a GST tax credit.

However, some people do not have an oil heating system, they have electric heating. Some do not necessarily use a car, they use public transit, and so on. This measure was strictly meant to help members opposite during the election campaign because I am sure people badgered them on this issue.

Members just had to say, “Look, we will mail you a cheque in January, we will help you”. We are talking about a $125 cheque for someone who has an oil heating system and who has seen his heating bills doubled. For some families, the increase can be as much as $1,000 with a long winter that started early in December and that seems to be dragging on longer than last year. That makes for incredibly high costs. These timid measures were not aimed at the people who really needed help.

Let us go back to the bill now before the House. What is the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik suggesting to solve the problem? It is a bill that says: “Here is our solution. We are going to ask the oil companies to post the prices before tax”.

I listened carefully to the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to try to understand how his logic works. The price I am interested in is the price I have to pay. Even if the price before tax is posted, when I go fill up, I am still going to have to pay the same price if nothing is done to change the business practices in the industry and the fuel tax policy. The total price is going to be the same. Consumers want to know the price they are going to pay, not the price that will be posted. I do not see what good it would do to post a lower price.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

I thank my colleague. I am glad to see I have so much support from the Liberals, although it is kind of strange.

What is important is the real price we have to pay, and that is a different debate in itself. Should we always post the price with tax? Consumers know full well that they are going to have to pay the GST, the PST and the excise tax. They might not always know the exact amount of tax they are going to pay, but they know the goods they are buying are taxed. The excise tax comes to 10 cents a litre and the provincial tax varies in Quebec between 10 and 15.5 cents depending on the region.

Taxes are high, but we already know that. Consumers are more interested in finding out what improvements can be made to the business practices in the oil industry. How can we improve the situation in the short, medium and long term?

In the short term, we could give consumers a break by reducing or suspending the excise tax for a while. We are being realistic and we know that oil products are under the control of countries which are big producers and which were therefore able to reduce the oil supply so that the price of a barrel of oil is very high. This is part of the explanation for the increase. We know that and we are being realistic.

However one thing still puzzles us. Why is it that, when the price of gasoline at the pump increases, it is suddenly increasing everywhere instantly? There could be three or four different stations at an intersection, and they all suddenly show the same new price. As far as prices are concerned, there is incredible harmony among people who should be fierce competitors.

I studied economics. I try to understand how this is possible without some form of collusion. Of course, this is very difficult to prove. But it is something to consider. Should we not change the Competition Act to make the burden of proof less demanding in cases of anticompetitive behaviour? Oil companies should be held accountable.

There is an area where we could do something. A very interesting study was made a few years ago by Liberal members. It suggested that the average price of gas in Canada was about 4 to 5 cents higher because there is not enough competition in the industry. Why was there no follow-up on this report, why is it gathering dust on the shelves? The government is just playing for time by referring the issue to the conference board in the hope that the problem will just go away. It will not.

Every time the oil companies publish their quarterly results, we realize that record profits are piling up. Their production activities have much to do in that regard but I am convinced they do not lose much in retail marketing. Logically, the oil companies should have a hard time in retailing when prices go up, but they do not, because they control the process from refining to retail marketing.

We go even further than that by looking at what is being done in six American states. They have decided that companies will not be allowed to be refiner, distributor and retail marketer all at once. I will very candidly admit that this was first brought to my attention by a working paper prepared by Liberal members describing this situation. They wrote that in the United States, some states have a legislation called a divorce act, to keep companies from being involved both in retail marketing and in refining. We have checked and there are six of them.

This is an interesting notion which prevents too great a concentration within the industry. I believe it is a way to improve competition in the industry, and we should look into it.

Also, we should not lose track of another element, namely the long term. We must invest massively in the research and development of alternative energies. The way we use gasoline today has consequences for the environment. It is in our best interest to invest massively in the development of alternative energies.

The oil industry has no interest in doing so because it stands to profit from the current situation. Governments will therefore have to be major players in supporting and developing alternative energies.

Before I conclude, I would like to get back to the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. I know he goes around the regions pretending to care about gas prices. It was his choice to have this motion debated today.

There is another motion in his name, requesting that the government considerably lower its taxes on gas. He could have chosen that one because it is not his motion that was drawn, but his name. He is the one who decided which motion would be debated. He chose this one even though he had another one asking for lower taxes, which could have been votable. He cannot say whatever he likes. If he really wants lower taxes, he should say so and act accordingly and introduce real motions.

In conclusion I will say that this bill does not deal with the problem. Posting the price, before or after taxes, does not matter. What matters is the price we pay. We must look for real solutions to the real problems consumers are facing, and that is what we are doing.

We will have the opportunity to get back to this in the next few days when the Conference Board's study is made public. We will put forward our solutions once again.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few words on the motion by the Liberal member from across the way.

I certainly agree with him that we should have more explicit pricing of energy costs and should have the taxes listed. The intent of the bill is probably quite honourable.

I will throw out a couple of other ideas that we might want to consider.

When I look at oil companies today I see them making tremendous profits, higher profits than they have made in many years. I think the time has come for the federal parliament to look at the idea of a surtax on those excessive profits and of using the surtax to reinvest in renewable energy resources. We should start looking for alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as wind and solar energy and other renewables that are clean. I think we could do that if we had more money to invest in those technologies.

I want to lay before the House today a couple of statistics that show we have room to put an excess profit tax or special surtax on the price of energy.

I have some numbers from Statistics Canada on the profitability of the energy sector: the oil, gas and coal industries. If one looks back at 1999, the after tax net profit was $3.1 billion. In the third quarter of 2000 it more than doubled to $7.1 billion. In other words, there is an awful lot of money, an awful lot of cash, in that industry.

The Alberta government does not seem to be putting much of a tax on the oil and gas companies in that province. A study was recently conducted by a university group in Alberta, the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute, in November of this year. It said that the Klein government had basically been giving away Alberta's oil wells.

Taxes now in Alberta are a lot lower on oil companies than they were during the days of Conservative Premier Peter Lougheed. Taxes are a lot lower in Alberta than in two other very oil rich jurisdictions in the world, Norway and Alaska.

The institute did the study before the increase in energy prices and before the huge spike in profits of the gas and oil companies. The study was done between 1992 and 1997. Between those years, if the Alberta government had taxed the oil companies as much as Peter Lougheed and the Conservatives did a number of years ago, it would have collected an extra $3.78 billion. The Alberta government would have collected $3.78 billion in extra money if it had had the same taxing regime, the same royalty regime, as Peter Lougheed, the Conservative premier of Alberta back in the 1970s.

If we compare a more modern regime in the world in terms of taxes to Alberta, let us use Alaska. Alaska is part of the United States. It is not exactly a socialistic country in terms of taxation regimes. Between 1992 and 1997, if taxes in Alberta had been the same as taxes in Alaska, there would have been an extra $2 billion for the people of Alberta in terms of revenue from the oil industry.

The tax regime is even higher in Norway. If Alberta taxes had been the same as the taxes in Norway, there would have been an extra $5.7 billion per year. I should make it clear that I am talking per year. If the same regime as the one in Alaska had been applied in Alberta it would have an extra $2 billion per year. If the same taxation regime as Peter Lougheed's it would have an extra $3.78 billion per year.

There is tremendous room for a tax increase on the oil industry in Canada. These numbers are from 1992 to 1997. Since then prices and profits have skyrocketed. The time has come for the federal government to act by putting a surtax on the excessive profits of oil companies and using those profits to invest in renewable resources.

Some oil companies in Alberta will scream and holler, but we have the jurisdiction as the federal parliament to impose a surtax. It has been done to banks and to other companies in the past. Let us take the leadership and do it in terms of oil companies and make sure the excess money is used for the ordinary people of Canada.

My old friend from Souris—Moose Mountain lives in oil country. I am sure he will agree that the profits are excessive and much too high. I am sure he will agree that the great Conservative leader Peter Lougheed taxed them at a fair rate back in the seventies and that the same thing should be done today. If Ralph Klein will not do it then we will do it in the Parliament of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians, for more money in renewable resources.

I say that as a westerner and I know there will be some people who will say that it is none of Ottawa's business to impose an excess profit tax on the oil companies. We can do it to banks; we can do it to other companies; but we must stay off big oil. That belongs to Alberta. That oil belongs in part to all people in the country as well as the excess profit they are gouging from consumers.

They are gouging the consumers when they go to the gas pumps. Some of that excess profit should be used to invest in renewable energy. They are gouging consumers in Regina, Macoun, Estevan, Weyburn, Montreal, Vancouver and even in Bengough. In Newfoundland it is about 80 cents a litre for gasoline. Big oil is bloated with humongous profits.

Let us put a special surcharge, an excess profit surcharge on these big oil companies and make sure that money is used on behalf of Canadians. I believe that is what should be done.

I am sure that all these right wingers in the Reform Party and my friend from Souris—Moose Mountain will get up and agree with that. As a matter of fact, if we did that we could lessen the tax burden from Ottawa on ordinary citizens, have a fair taxation system and collect the money on the basis of the ability to pay. I believe that is what should be done.

If we do that, I am sure about 95% of the Canadian people would agree that we are going in the right direction. Even my good friends in the Reform Party that come from the oil patch, the alliance reform or reform alliance party, would grudgingly agree that is not a bad idea whatsoever.

The last point I would like to make is that my good friend John Solomon, a member of parliament from 1993 to 2000, used to recommend an energy review commission to review energy prices and make sure consumers are not gouged. It is an idea we should look at once again.

I say to my Liberal friends that the Liberal premier of Newfoundland was on television at 5 o'clock this afternoon talking about how the Newfoundland government will control the price of gasoline in the province of Newfoundland. It will be tied to the world price. If the world price goes up, the price in Newfoundland will go up; if the world price goes down, the price in Newfoundland will go down.

Prince Edward Island does a similar thing. It is a little different in terms of how the price is set there. It is a little more arbitrary in Prince Edward Island, but at least it is the same principle and the same idea.

Maybe, as a federal parliament, we should be directing our government to try to co-ordinate efforts across the board, to have some regulations in terms of oil and gas prices.

These are just a couple of ideas. As I said, John Solomon often used to speak in the House of Commons about the need for an energy commission and doing what is now being done in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Perhaps the federal government should lead in that direction.

In my last minute I once again recommend an excess profit tax and surtax on big oil. Let us have big oil pay its fair share. Ordinary citizens pay their fair share; in fact they pay too much in terms of taxes. How about big oil paying its fair share and using that money, the extra hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in renewable energy? Each and every one of us and the environment would be much better off. I am sure those words are supported enthusiastically by my friend from the alliance reform party from Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill C-220, an act respecting the posting of fuel prices by retailers.

I commend my hon. colleague for the introduction of the legislation. It will help in terms of achieving greater levels of transparency in the pricing and in terms of allowing consumers to know the price they are paying at the pumps for fuel that actually goes to the retailer and ultimately to the petroleum company.

That being the case, the real culprit in fuel pricing in Canada is not necessarily the producer but, as is more often the case, the federal government in terms of the gas taxes that are collected and are not returned to the provinces for investment in our highways and our infrastructure.

The excise tax on gasoline in Canada and the U.S. is quite similar, despite the fact that gas retailers and refineries in Canada operate in a less efficient market than the U.S. The federal government is clearly the real culprit in terms of the taxes levied on petroleum.

From 1998 to 1999 the federal government collected $4.7 billion in gas taxes and only returned 4.1%, or a paltry $194 million, in provincial transfers for highways. Thirty-six per cent to 45% of the price consumers pay at the pumps actually goes directly to federal and provincial taxes.

The 1998 Liberal caucus task force, with, I believe, 47 Liberal backbenchers, recommended reducing the federal excise tax on gasoline from 10 cents to 8.5 cents. After studying the issue their request was turned down by the Minister of Finance. Ironically, what the Liberal caucus task force was looking for was the elimination of the 1995 deficit reduction surtax that was introduced by the Minister of Finance at that time to ostensibly reduce the deficit.

The deficit is gone. Why is the gas tax, that unnecessary 1.5 cents per litre gas tax, still there? It was introduced to get rid of the deficit. The deficit has gone. The tax is still there despite the fact that 47 Liberal backbenchers recommended its elimination. It is one of the times that I actually agree with my colleagues opposite that the gas tax should be gone.

We have called for a national highways infrastructure program. There are great disparities between the provinces in terms of their ability to afford to upgrade their highways as opposed to some of the other provinces.

In Nova Scotia we are facing significant financial constraints and infrastructure deficits at this time. Highway 101 in my riding is a death trap. There have been over 50 deaths in recent years on that highway. It has the highest level of traffic in the province and is one of the most dangerous highways in the country. We are looking for, and the federal government has said there will be, a federal-provincial cost sharing or twinning on that program.

The difficulty is that the province is not in the fiscal position to participate on a 50:50 basis from day one. We are looking for a front end loading program where the federal government would in fact pay the lion's share of the cost upfront but, over a five year period, the province would pick up a greater part of the contribution. This would make a lot more sense, particularly given the fact that this is a life and death issue and should be viewed as such.

This type of initiative would, in a reasonable way, facilitate the commencement of that project in the short term. It would save lives and lead to greater levels of economic development in that fast growing area of the province, the Annapolis Valley. It makes a great deal of sense.

I will comment now on a different area of the petroleum issue. The premier of Nova Scotia has been campaigning vigorously on this issue, on behalf of all Nova Scotians, regardless of partisan politics. I direct my comments to the member for Halifax West, who I am sure at this point supports the premier's initiative.

The campaign for fairness, which Premier John Hamm has initiated, is a very important debate in which we need to be engaged. The federal government is currently taking the lion's share of offshore petroleum revenues from Nova Scotia. We are not receiving the benefits. Nova Scotia needs those revenues in order to bootstrap itself into the 21st century and afford the education and transportation infrastructures needed to compete in a hypercompetitive global economy. At the same time, it needs those revenues to reduce its fiscal burdens, particularly its tax burdens, which inhibit growth and prosperity in this very difficult time.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members who spoke tonight, be they members of the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democratic Party. Most of them submitted good ideas.

I would like to make a remark before my last comment. The hon. member for Témiscamingue is trying to mislead the House of Commons and the consumers of Abitibi—Témiscamingue by saying: “The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik goes around in his riding boasting of what he says in parliament, but in the meantime, he tabled a motion saying the opposite”.

We will put some clarity in the rules of the House of Commons. According to last week's draw, I got to present a bill, not a motion. When I received a call from the private members' business office, I was in Abitibi, in the beautiful city of Val-d'Or, 400 kilometres away from Ottawa. That call informed my office that I had won the draw and that my bill was chosen, not a motion.

I do have many motions dealing with the demands made by the people of the large riding of Abitibi, which covers 802 000 square kilometres and has a population of 100 000, including 68 mayors as well as Inuit and Cree chiefs.

The hon. member for Témiscamingue is trying to mislead the House by saying that it was a motion and that I could choose. That is not true. He lied.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I cannot accept that comment, absolutely not. I ask the member to withdraw his words.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw what I said, namely that he lied.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will admit that the member did table a motion dating back to Monday only, so he could not have won the draw for that motion. In fact, it would have been impossible for him to table the motion I was talking about.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The member's comment is really a point of debate. I cannot accept it as a point of order.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in any event, we will move to another topic because that one is headed nowhere.

There are 14,000 outlets in Canada. Perhaps half of them are private service stations. They do what they want, depending on the price of gas.

Regardless of the report that will be tabled tomorrow and the comments in it, which matters to the public and to the consumer, is that the oil industry, with the millions, the billions it is making, stand up. It should bear in mind the public's level of frustration and adopt more transparent pricing practices, including showing the gross price and giving the breakdown for refinery, processing, whole sale and retail prices and taxes.

I think that everyone's interests would be better served if the industry made a greater effort to explain how prices are set and made this information available to consumers. That is what is important.

There has been some good discussion this evening touching on the American, BQ, NDP and PC points of view. What is important is that the oil companies are going to have to stand up and tell consumers what it costs. They are hiding behind the taxes. It is true that the taxes should be reduced.

I would like both levels of government, federal and provincial, to reduce the taxes. We are all in agreement with that. What is important is that the oil companies stand up. They are making billions of dollars in profits on the backs of consumers. It is time they came clean.

I could say some unpleasant things, but I will not. I enjoyed this evening's debate. We all had a very interesting time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 6.30 p.m., the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now passed. The motion not being designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

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

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on the late show. I had the opportunity of posing a question for the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago with respect to the Prime Minister's visit to the United States and his discussions with the President Bush.

The Prime Minister was to talk about the unfair subsidization of agricultural products that the United States has been so famous for. The Prime Minister in his answer was very forthcoming. He said that he was going to discuss that particular issue with the president and that he would try to convince him to remove those subsidies wherever possible so that we could compete on a fair and level playing field.

As part of my question, I also suggested that if he did not receive the answer from the president that he was looking for, that there would not be any more subsidies, would he then increase the support payments to Canadian farmers so that they can compete. That part of the question was never answered and was left hanging, a moot answer from the Prime Minister.

I would like to have an answer because it is extremely important. For example, right now the United States is putting $48.2 billion back into its agriculture and its producers. Canada right now, and it has increased, is supporting its agricultural producers by $3.1 billion. There is a terrible discrepancy with the amount of unfair subsidization, not only in the United States but in Europe.

This is my question for the parliamentary secretary tonight. Since the Prime Minister did not get any of those assurances from the president, since there are still unfair subsidies being put forward by the United States and the European Union, since our producers are still not able to compete on a level playing field, why will the Prime Minister of the country not support agriculture? As a matter of fact, it is getting to the point that the Americans are putting more and more dollars into its producers.

Just recently, the parliamentary secretary and I had an opportunity to meet the house agricultural committee chairman, Larry Combest, while we were in Washington. Mr. Combest said:

America's farmers and ranchers will be looking to us to not only assist them in coping with the challenges that they are facing, but also to make some meaningful improvements to the farm safety net in order to bring some stability to their livelihoods. I think that the report we are reviewing today presents us with good opportunity to begin an earnest effort in this Committee to build consensus on how best to address all the challenges facing agriculture today, and to craft better farm policy for the future.

I wish we had that individual here on that side of the House so that those same views could be shared with our producers and our agricultural farmers of the country.

I want the parliamentary secretary to be able to stand today and tell us that in fact we are going to compete with the Americans on a subsidy basis. The Prime Minister got the wrong answers when he was down there. I would like to hear the right answers from the parliamentary secretary.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud of the fact that we have one of the best food safety systems in the world. However, that does not mean that we can be complacent. Recently food inspection systems around the world have had to respond to a troubling development, the growing threat of BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease.

Canada has taken several measures to prevent the spread or the induction of the disease. So far, those measures have been successful but there is no such thing as zero risk. That is why Canada asked its trading partners to provide information that would help to assess their BSE status. They responded, except for Brazil.

In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the FAO, report indicated there is significant potential that BSE may have already moved beyond Europe. Further information came to light that Brazil may have imported cattle from the European Union countries that are not free of BSE.

As a result, Canada suspended imports of beef products from that country. We took an extra step. We went the extra mile to help resolve this issue. With our NAFTA partners, the U.S. and Mexico, we sent a team of officials to Brazil to fully assess the Brazilian regulatory system for the risk of BSE.

The team has gathered considerable data. Building on this information, our animal health authorities are taking all the steps required to complete their assessment expeditiously.

Just as Canada's objective in the decision to suspend imports from Brazil was entirely related to maintaining the safety of our food supply and the health of Canadians, our final decision will be based solely upon achieving these objectives. Canadians expect no less.