Debates of Oct. 19th, 2005

Telecommunications Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. First, I want to thank her for her work. I sat with her on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We did not have much of an opportunity to meet and get to know each other, since I am now on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. However, I was able to see that she does a great job and she is very familiar with the CRTC and this whole environment.

My question is: How will the CRTC be able to ensure that the register is kept properly during the first year? Can we get such an assurance? And does the hon. member think that costs will skyrocket over the next few years, as they did with the infamous gun registry, going from $2 million to $20 million to $200 million and now to $1.8 billion? But, above all, how can the CRTC, with which the hon. member is very familiar, ensure that this registry will be kept properly during its development?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions and his kind words regarding our time together on the heritage committee.

I hope I can give a little bit more information and my thoughts on the CRTC's role in managing and taking responsibility for the do not call registry. I noted one of the things that would be asked of the CRTC is to undertake a wide range of discussions. The CRTC could ask for input as to the best way to set up the do not call registry and have consultations with various interest groups. The CRTC is well-equipped and well-experienced in taking input from various interest groups and organizations.

It has also had years of experience in trying to set up a mechanism that has to be accountable down the road. If the CRTC were to be asked to develop an operational plan, in addition to a business plan, outlining key measures against which it would be willing for itself to be measured, that would enable Parliament or the committee to undertake its review.

The CRTC has certainly had experience in developing a mechanism to deal with, for example, complaints. It does receive a lot of complaints, not only about various telecommunications companies and cable companies but it does have a lot of experience in measuring the level of complaint and at what point it demonstrates inefficiency or a process that is not working. Consequently, I would say that the CRTC does have that experience.

The business plan is an important part if we just allow the CRTC to go ahead. We may be told by the government that it will cost $2 million, like the gun registry, and three years later we find out it is $2 billion. That is not acceptable. We must ensure that we put in a mechanism in case there is an overage or whatever. It is sensible, good business planning. It is good handling and good responsible use of public money. If there is an unexpected overage, the CRTC should come before the committee, as a representative of Parliament, to explain the overage before it goes on and on.

Points of Order

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the Table that perhaps I could make a very brief point of order with respect to private member's Bill C-364, which is coming up shortly. That way we will not take time from the private members' business period.

I am rising on a point of order as to whether or not Bill C-364 requires a royal recommendation. I will be suggesting two reasons why Bill C-364 should require a royal recommendation.

First, it clearly contemplates a new and distinct charge. Clause 3 states that the Minister of Finance “shall pay” all legal expenses incurred by importers. Such payments would be made out of the consolidated revenue fund, which is the definition of appropriation under section 2 of the Financial Administration Act. Furthermore, this appropriation would be for an entirely new purpose, which is not already legislatively authorized. The Speaker ruled on May 9 that:

—a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.

Second, clause 4 of the bill provides that “the Minister shall provide a loan guarantee” to exporters or associations in respect of a deposit, surety or bond that they must post to a foreign state. This guarantee creates another liability on the public revenue that is clearly a new and distinct charge for a new legislative purpose. It is the equivalent of a loan and if there is a default on the part of the exporter for whose benefit the guarantee was provided, it would definitely amount to the spending of public money.

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor, Deputy Speaker Francis, at page 9052 of the April 7, 1981 Hansard stated:

It is obvious that one of our most basic and fundamental procedures is that only a minister of the Crown may originate legislation which proposes a charge upon the revenue and this can be done only when accompanied by a recommendation from the governor general.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I urge you and hope that you will rule that Bill C-364 does in fact require a royal recommendation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government does these kinds of interventions at the last moment when a member of Parliament has obviously invested a considerable amount of time and energy into this exercise.

However, I would first like to point out, on the merits of what has been stated, that what the parliamentary secretary has been calling a loan directly from the government coffers is not a loan. That is the terminology that is used, but it is actually the government backing a cash deposit receivable. This is not taking money from the general revenue account of government. This is simply stating that this receivable will indeed be a receivable. This is done all the time.

There is no reason why trade harassment cannot be one more category. This would not even require a statutory change beyond the impetus of this in order to effect that change. The minister could do it simply by deciding to do it. The same argument largely applies to the other point on the legal costs, which is that the government is already making these kinds of decisions. It has already allocated $20 million in this area.

This creates a scenario where it would be triggered as opposed to leaving it up to the vagaries of the politics of the day for the government. It is very demonstrative of a disingenuous argument to suggest that this would require a royal recommendation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Island North and the parliamentary secretary for their interventions and for the background on the private member's bill in question. I do believe we are going to enter into the first hour of debate, so there is time to make a decision on this, if a decision is necessary. I am sure the Speaker will review that.

I appreciate the interventions of hon. members. We will come back to the House with a decision, if necessary, in due course.

It being 5:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Trade Compensation Act

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

moved that Bill C-364, An Act to provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and to Canadian exporters who incur financial losses as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments which are signatories to trade agreements involving Canadian products, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I got the government's attention on this particular matter. It is about time it spent some attention on softwood lumber and other issues of trade disputes.

I am from a small city in northern Alberta, a city I am privileged to represent which, believe it or not, has over 98% of Canada's oil. It is a major contributor to the tax base of Canada. Unfortunately, our roads are falling apart. People in my riding, my friends and my family, cannot even afford to rent or own houses in the riding. Our hospital is going to operate with a $13 million deficit this year to provide quality health services to workers from every province in Canada. Indeed our national highway that leads into my community is referred to by those brave enough to travel on it as the national highway of death.

The citizens in my riding are actually responsible for more than $3 billion of money that goes to the federal government and we receive a pittance back from the Liberal government for the safety, health and comfort of our citizens. I would suggest in travelling this country that our infrastructure in that area and our quality of life is as bad, if not worse, than anywhere in the rest of Canada. This is not fair and the Liberal government should be ashamed of leaving our infrastructure in that shape.

What is even more unfair is the response the Liberal government has had to trade disputes with other nations. As we have seen again, it is trying to stop something that would actually help industry in this country and promote jobs. That is why today I am very proud to sponsor my private member's Bill C-364, the trade compensation act, which will hopefully not only support Canadian exporters, but will also put an end to Liberal incompetence and Canadian economic fears that take place in our marketplace.

I am simply a small-town Alberta Conservative and like my Conservative colleagues who are beside and around me today, I am anxious to stand and fight for softwood producers from Quebec, cattle exporters from Manitoba and all Canadian workers, industry and exporters, which have been so often ignored by the Liberal government.

Canada is a trading nation. We are a nation of traders and have been for centuries. Our success is dependent on trade and the success of our trade agreements with other nations. Days, months and even years are spent negotiating trade agreements with other nations and finalizing these agreements. Millions of Canadian tax dollars are spent on doing this, but what is the use of all this work by the people doing it and all this investment of tax dollars if nothing is done by the government to enforce the terms of those trade agreements? What happens when those agreements are not worth the paper they are written on? What kind of investment is that if the Liberal government does not enforce the terms of those agreements? How can we ask Canadians involved with international trade to have any confidence in the government if the government will not stand up for trade?

The gross lack of support is felt at every level of our economy throughout Canada from the producer to the manufacturer, to the mom and pop shops, to the retail stores, to every sector of our communities. No one is exempt from the negative effect of having our international trade agreements not adhered to.

We are a trading nation. The question is, does the Liberal government have any credibility domestically to protect Canadian industry? Obviously by looking at our trade record over the last 10 years and the government's performance, the answer to that is no. We do not have any credibility and no belief in the government's protecting our industry.

The dire need for the trade compensation act, this particular bill, was obviously necessary in April and the government could have brought up any objection it had at that time, but it did not. It waited until the 12th hour, as usual, to come up with any objection. Now we are in an emergency situation. Our industries are collapsing and something must be done.

On August 10 an extraordinary challenge committee, convened under NAFTA at the request of the United States, formally and unanimously rejected the U.S. challenge of an earlier NAFTA decision which ruled for Canada, giving Canada the final victory in the softwood lumber dispute. Almost immediately the United States government said that it did not intend to comply with this ruling. This was a final unappealable NAFTA decision.

What is the government's response when industry asks for even a little help to even out the playing field? I have a letter from the Minister of International Trade to Tembec Inc., a Montreal based company, and I quote from paragraph 2:

We have reviewed your request for recognition of the duty cash deposits as receivables. The government is of the view that, in order for such sums to be considered receivables, they must involve a contractual obligation by one party to pay another party.

Maybe the minister should read the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is an agreement. The panel was clear. The decision was clear. The money is owed and it is owed to Canadian industries.

Clearly, enforcement of the terms and conditions of NAFTA must be argued persuasively, vigorously and consistently at every level. This is where the purpose of this bill, the trade compensation act, comes into play. The government, obviously in this case especially, must be forced to take aggressive action to defend and protect our industries.

I would submit today that the Canadian government has a clear duty, I would even submit it has a fiduciary duty, to take every step available in law to protect our export industries and our trade. We should never again see the trade harassment that we have seen over the last years in our cattle industry, in our wheat industry, and of course in our softwood lumber industry.

NAFTA provides specifically for trade disputes to be resolved within a maximum of 315 days from start to finish, less than a year. Had the Canadian government pursued the softwood trade dispute vigorously, we would now have it settled and Canadians would have back in their pockets the $5 billion that is currently being held by the U.S. The government has not been doing enough. In fact, I would suggest the Liberal government has been doing nothing.

Let me give an example of how this lack of caring and lack of action from the Liberal government affects an average softwood producer in Canada. The province of Quebec is the second largest exporter of softwood lumber. For every $1 million of wood sold, the exporters have not received up to $270,000. Twenty-seven per cent of their sales are held by the United States, collected in illegal tariffs. What has the government done? Nothing.

While this money sits in a bank account in the U.S., companies in all parts of Canada are going out of business. Workers, the very backbone of the Canadian economy, are out of work and whole towns are suffering unnecessarily. Shame. Workers in Quebec, British Columbia, the Maritimes and Alberta are losing jobs and money. Businesses are closing their doors because of high legal bills, and up to 27% of all their sales to the United States are being kept and are not coming back to Canada to create more jobs to support the families of those workers.

Legal bills to date, believe it or not, are $350 million and are escalating by $100 million a year. These are paid for by Canadian companies. The U.S. is currently holding $5 billion paid for by Canadian companies. This is all because the Liberal government refuses to act to protect Canadians and their families. This is where the money ultimately goes, back to the families.

I believe that Bill C-364 would provide needed support for such industries as softwood lumber, agriculture, textiles, and yes, even oil and gas. Most important, Bill C-364 would also send a powerful signal to the United States and any other government that is going to impose unjust restrictions on our trade. It would send a clear message that Canada is finally getting serious about supporting our industry when it is subjected to unwarranted and repeated attacks on legitimate trade pursuant to international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This is not just a fight about softwood lumber. It is a fight to protect chapter 19 of NAFTA and the NAFTA itself. The burden of this fight up to now has not been borne by the government. It has been borne by the softwood producers across Canada. It is shameful. Make no mistake about it, if we do nothing and we continue to allow foreign countries to ignore their own laws such as in this case and to ignore NAFTA, then chapter 19 and the NAFTA will be lost forever.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is the single best trade agreement ever signed in the world. Every advantage is Canada's and Canada's workers, but that is only if this agreement is respected and obeyed in law and in spirit by the United States, Canada and Mexico. Why would it be obeyed if the government does nothing to enforce the terms of this agreement?

The bill would do two things. First, if the federal government is not prepared to fight for Canadian industry and enforce the terms of an international agreement that it previously negotiated and, quite frankly, should support, then the federal government would have to reimburse industry for any reasonable legal expenses incurred by that industry or business in litigating an unjust trade restriction by a foreign power. Second, the government would provide loan guarantees to industries that were being unjustly taxed by foreign countries in the amount of the tariff held by that foreign power.

It is real money that is held somewhere else. This is simply a guarantee on those loans.Take for example the Quebec corporation that I used previously. Since the United States is holding $270,000 of that $1 million in sales, this company under this bill could borrow money against that accounts receivable. It could continue its operations, pay its employees and perhaps expand its operations in some places which have been so hurt over the last 10 years in softwood.

In the case of the softwood dispute with the United States, $5 billion immediately would come back into the Canadian economy. That is where it should have been in the first place if the federal government were doing its job.

Currently, there are companies in Quebec, not 1,000 miles from where I stand today, that may or may not be in business in six months and may or may not be able to continue to employ Canadians and keep towns alive. If the government and the Prime Minister continue to dither and do nothing, this is exactly what will happen. Here is the government's chance to support the bill, to support the trade compensation act.

Who supports the bill? My fax has not stopped. I have a letter supporting the principles of Bill C-364 signed by the BC Lumber Trade Council, the Ontario Forest Industry Association, the Alberta Forest Products Association, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Free Trade Lumber Council and the Quebec Forest Industry Council.

I have a letters from the office of the mayor from the township of Chapeau, Ontario, from Northern Wood of Thunder Bay, Ontario, from Tembec of Bolton, Ontario, from La Crete Sawmills Ltd. of Alberta, from Marathon Pulp Inc. of Ontario, from the city of Thunder Bay, from Downie Timber Ltd. of British Columbia, from I.S. Wight & Sons, a trucking company of British Columbia and even from employees of wood companies, all supporting my bill.

What does the government do? It tries to throw it out before it even has a chance to get on its feet. The Liberal pattern of doing nothing has been more than 10 years in the making and it has now come to a head.

We are no longer seeing a fight to regain free access for Canadian lumber to the U.S. market. Rather it is whether the Canadian government will allow the U.S. government to renege on commitments it made during the free trade negotiations more than 20 years ago.

I am told, and I have no doubt about it after reading the NAFTA agreement, that without the provisions of chapter 19 Canada would not have signed the NAFTA agreement, and the government does nothing to enforce those terms. It is shameful.

The Prime Minister, during his U.S. visit, was clear enough in his speech to the Economic Club two weeks ago, but he clearly failed to sway President Bush during their brief telephone conversation last Friday. That is no surprise. It is too little, too late.

This should be the campaign slogan for the Liberal Party during the next election: too little, too late. It is standard practice.

We all know actions speak louder than words. Bill C-364, which today the government tried to quash before it started, proves to Canadians, from Quebec to British Columbia, that the Conservative Party cares and that we are prepared to put taxpayer money where our mouth is. We are prepared to fight for Canadian exporters to keep Canadian jobs in Canada.

The bill is not a subsidy. It likely will not cost the taxpayers any money at all, either in the short term or the long term. It is even likely that the government would break even. This is Parliament's responsibility. We here in the House have a responsibility to see that no matter what government is in power it will represent Canadians and Canadian industries and will provide industry with real support, not a fast phone call, not cheap talk and not political grandstanding five years after it was necessary.

The Government of Canada has a clear duty, in fact, a fiduciary duty to step in and provide loan guarantees for these companies and repay the legal fees that they had a responsibility to incur in the first place.

It is time to show the world that Canadian parliamentarians, we in the House, will stand up for Canadian industry. We will fight to protect Canadian sovereignty, which in the end Canadian sovereignty is what is ultimately at stake if our government continues to dither and continues to live by the motto “Too little, too late”.

Please support Bill C-364, the Canadian Trade Compensation Act, and help Canadian industry help Canadian workers

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I will not be long, Mr. Speaker. I know that my colleague from Joliette will explain the Bloc's position on the subject. However, it is obvious that I will personally support the bill with all my energy.

The Tembec company was born in my riding. Right now, it has about $340 million blocked at the border. Tembec could invest that money to become more profitable, to expand and to make sure that its operations in different parts of Canada can continue to thrive and to grow.

As recently as last week, I received calls concerning the private member's bill introduced by my colleague for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. I think that that bill is very important. No matter what the Speaker's ruling on the validity of that bill is, I will say that at least the bill has forced the government to introduce procedures.

What we ask for are loan guarantees to allow the companies to survive the crisis. If the government does not understand that, I do not know how we can convince it to do something. Do we need to bring all the lumber companies to the Hill with all their employees? I do not know.

Here is my question for the hon. member. I think that his bill is very interesting. How can we convince the government that, contrary to what it argues, the bill does not require the expenditure of public funds since the money is already blocked at the border?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this case we will have an hour of debate. Then we will need to have some pressure from outside this humble House. We will need to have some people lobby the particular members who object to the bill.

It was the government's obligation to do this in the first place. The government should be proposing this bill. It should not come from the opposition. It should come from our friends over there. It should have come from it and it should have come five years ago. It is too little, too late, and that is why the Liberal government, the Government of Canada, has to change.

I am familiar with the gentleman's treatment company that has $340 million held by the U.S. It is a clear supporter of the bill. As he said, that money coming back into the Canadian economy would only do well for Canada and Canadians in all parts of the country.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this debate is before the House tonight. I hope it will continue. I believe Bill C-364 is an important bill that should be sent to committee to be discussed further and in greater detail.

This is an industry and these are communities that have been hit particularly hard by the inaction of the Liberal government to deal with the problems of NAFTA and the problems that the Americans have set up for us in that arrangement.

It is important that we go forward with this and have a thorough debate. It probably needs some safeguards, but in principle it is an important discussion to have.

Would the member support a broader discussion about legal aid in Canada, since we are talking about legal aid to corporations? Would he support the idea that the federal government should be supporting individual Canadians who often have to forgo a legal remedy because they cannot afford to have their matters solved in court or cannot afford representation in court?

For instance, should a woman living on a low income not have legal aid support when she has to go to court to discuss a divorce or a custody arrangement? Should people living in poverty not have access to that same kind of support that is so important for this industry?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, I did leave the avenue for trade disputes to be covered by individuals, organizations, associations or corporations. In this case, if the government would be prepared to let the bill go forward and not try to quash it, we would be able to provide help to those individuals who are involved in disputes. This involves any individual business, no matter what size. It is not for a multibillion corporation only. It is for every level of industry that trades internationally.

I can only speak to the Alberta scene itself. As a litigator for 11 years in northern Alberta, I can assure the member that legal aid is provided to all those people who have under a certain income and for whatever reason. I am not certain what the situation is where the gentleman comes from, but I can assure him that we have a very good legal aid system and that access to legal services are provided.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets)]

Mr. Speaker, the trade compensation act proposes that the federal government provides compensation to Canadian industry associations or Canadian exporters who incur financial losses as a result of unjustifiable trade restrictive measures taken by foreign states which are signatories to trade agreements with our country.

Bill C-364 has two specific components. First, it would require the federal government to pay legal expenses incurred by Canadian industry associations or exporters in instances where a foreign state restricts Canadian exports in a manner that is found to contravene any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement between Canada and a government or state. It appears that the determination of whether a trade action is justified or not would be made by a tribunal established under the relevant bilateral or multilateral trade agreement.

The second component of the bill proposes that the government provides loan guarantees to cover deposits, sureties or bonds that may be required of Canadian exporters by the foreign state. Specifically, the bill stipulates that:

If the government of a foreign state requires that a Canadian exporter or a Canadian industry association deposit an amount of money with that government or post a surety or bond pending the final determination of a matter by the tribunal...the Minister [of Finance] shall provide a loan guarantee to the exporter or association in respect of that deposit, surety or bond.

When the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca tabled the bill he stated:

This bill is directed primarily toward those exporters who deal with foreign powers, specifically in this case toward farmers, on BSE, and toward softwood lumber.

Members of the House are quite aware that trade and all aspects of international commerce represent an important cornerstone of Canada's prosperity and economic success. With over $491 billion in exports of goods and services and over $437 billion in imports of goods and services in 2004, the role of international trade, and more precisely, unfettered trade, cannot be underestimated. This is precisely why the government is dedicated to further expansion of the defence of Canadian trade interests.

The government understands and appreciates the costs associated with the defence of trade disputes. Legal costs involved in trade disputes are often quite high. The length of disputes and the often numerous parties involved can explain why legal expenses can be significant.

That said, it has been the longstanding policy of the federal government not to accede to requests from Canadian industries for financial assistance to cover legal costs that they incur related to trade actions taken by trading partners. This policy reflects the extensive role of the federal government in matters of international trade. This role and expense incurred by the government must be understood. Like industry associations and Canadian exporters and like provincial governments with stakes in international trade disputes, the federal government also secures the service of legal counsel to assist in the defence of Canadian interests during trade disputes.

However the work of the government in this regard does not stop here, quite to the contrary.

The federal government devotes substantial financial and human resources to the defence and the representation of Canadian trade interests. This is particularly the case when a foreign state restricts or threatens to unjustifiably restrict trade.

There is no doubt that a unified Canadian position through collaborative work with all interested stakeholders represents the best tool in advancing Canadian interests at the international level. It is in recognition of this fact that the government has instituted over the years various consultative networks. These networks ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to work with the government in the defence of Canadian interests.

To begin, several federal departments are involved in international trade matters, including International Trade Canada, the Department of Finance, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Industry Canada, just to name a few. They work in a concerted effort to ensure that the agreed international trade rules are respected.

In addition, the federal government coordinates closely with other Canadian parties, including provincial governments, industry associations and companies, for one common objective, to represent vigorously and champion Canadian trade interests in the face of unjustified measures. It is through these various established consultative channels that we can explore all feasible avenues and assess all available options in the representation of Canadian interests in trade disputes.

These joint efforts have allowed the carrying out of focused advocacy campaigns aimed at fostering support for Canada's position in other countries. They have also contributed to informing and persuading key decision makers in other countries to adopt and promote a position that is favourable to our country.

It is in this context that the role of Canadian embassies and offices abroad are so essential. Our foreign representatives monitor and send reports to Ottawa on a daily basis. Any intelligence that could strengthen the future advocacy group is provided. They meet with decision makers at every level of government and establish contact with industry leaders, particularly those allied to Canadian interests, to promote Canadian objectives and to collaborate and pursue extending awareness and perspectives favourable to Canadian interests.

Furthermore, the government is firmly of the view that fair and enforceable international trade rules provide Canada's business community with the environment in which commerce can flourish.

I believe the hon. members of the House can all agree that these rules foster healthy trading relationships which in turn help the initiation of new disputes between partners.

The evolution of the trade rules over the past 50 years has not only contributed to Canada's prosperity but, just as important, these rules have helped to address trade irritants before they developed into disputes.

Nonetheless, we recognize the current rules governing international trade are not perfect. That is why our government dedicates considerable resources to ensuring that the integrity of international trade rules are upheld.

It is in this context that Canada is an active player in the current WTO Doha negotiations. Our objective in these negotiations is to advance new proposals with the purpose of clarifying and imposing existing trade rules and dispute settlements and procedures. Clearer and more transparent rules will not eliminate trade disputes but they will certainly help to avoid and to reduce their occurrence.

As a party to numerous international disputes, the federal government fully understands and appreciates the costs involved in such disputes. We remain committed to defending Canada's international trade rights. The government will continue to work in concert with domestic stakeholders to pursue targeted advocacy efforts in foreign markets when they are necessary for the defence and resolution of trade disputes.

Finally, Canada will continue to push in the context of the WTO negotiations for clearer and improved trade rules with a view to providing a more predictable environment for commerce to flourish so as to reduce, to the extent possible, trade disputes between countries.

However for the government to formalize the funding program to compensate legal costs incurred by private organizations would not be the most effective and efficient use of our resources.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca on introducing Bill C-364. In fact, the Bloc Québécois was working on a similar bill. In that sense, from the outset, I can tell him that we will be supporting his bill over the next few months.

Clearly, the hon. member introduced Bill C-364 with the current lumber crisis in mind. Nevertheless, we are perceptive, and we can see that trade disputes are on the rise, particularly with our neighbours to the south. So, while set in a context coloured by the current impasse in the softwood lumber dispute, the scope of this bill should extend to other areas.

Take the pork industry, for example, which is regularly the victim of trade harassment. We might also think of the steel industry, where they have run into problems regularly. There is the dairy sector, which has been constantly attacked by the U.S., New Zealand and Australia.

All this to say that, while it deals with a situation that we cannot ignore, namely the softwood lumber dispute, one of the great strengths of this bill is that it is not sector specific. It applies to any sector affected by unjustified trade actions. In that sense, it is perfectly in keeping with Canada's international trade obligations.

I think it is important to point out that this is a bill which concerns all export sectors, and not just one in particular. It is very clear that, if passed, as we hope it will, this bill could benefit the softwood lumber industry.

It also seems to me that it should be emphasized that Bill C-364 is not related to export. It does not deal with export assistance, but rather with assistance made necessary by unjustified duties levied by a foreign country. With respect to softwood lumber, the foreign country is the United States. But it could very well happen that the European Union or other jurisdictions might implement protectionist trade policies resulting in situations where the provisions contained in this legislation would apply.

It must also be pointed out that this is nothing but common sense. The government has, moreover, announced on several occasions that it was thinking along those lines. I clearly remember, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs was Minister of International Trade, he announced, jointly with the Minister of Industry of the day—Mr. Manley if I am not mistaken—phase one of an aid package for the communities affected by the softwood lumber crisis, and a second for the companies and associations engaged in the dispute.

There was phase one, the $356 million we are tired of hearing about constantly from the present Minister of International Trade. I would remind hon. members that the $356 million was not specifically for the softwood lumber industry itself but for the affected communities. Hon. members will also realize that this money was spent in 2003, and now here we are with 2005 nearly over and the Liberals keep throwing back at us that figure for a program that dates back nearly three years now.

What is more, of that $356 million, and this is admitted by the Minister of International Trade himself, in a document he has sent to me, an excerpt from an article he placed in June 25th's Le Soleil , he states that only $15 million was allocated to the softwood lumber associations. Yet they are trying to convince us that help has been given to the industry and to the companies that are struggling.

Then there was phase one of the help with legal fees. If I remember correctly, that amount was $14 million, and then another $20 million was announced last April. This is just peanuts compared to the $350 million to $400 million the associations and companies have had to spend to defend themselves against the Americans' claims.

The government knows very well that something has to be done about the legal fees, and what it has done is insufficient. It has just done a bit of window-dressing. The bill will quite simply force the government to assume its responsibilities, responsibilities it claims to want to assume, but in actual fact is not doing. The same thing goes for the loan guarantees as well.

In the debate that we had, the former Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, had suggested that the government would help businesses to get through this crisis. American authorities have illegally levied $5 billion in countervailing duties. Businesses have to pay these duties. It means reduced cash flow, fewer investments and fewer jobs.

And it is not over. President Bush's stubbornness, his refusal to follow through on the August 10 ruling of the extraordinary challenge committee, has forced softwood lumber businesses to go before American courts. We know that this procedure can take about two years. As the member mentioned earlier, we know full well that our businesses will have to pay $2 billion extra in countervailing duties to export their products to the United States, that is a total of $7 billion. It is important to understand the scope of this amount. Currently, duties stand at $5 billion.

Today, Carl Grenier, vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council, presented to the Toronto Economic Club the figures compiled by Price Waterhouse. These $5 billion collected in countervailing duties at the U.S. border currently represent three times the net revenues generated in the past three years by the 12 largest companies in the forestry sector.

In a few weeks, or a few months, some will be surprised that large companies will have gone bankrupt. I can already see the minister responsible for economic development or the industry minister telling us they will address the issue. Bill C-364 seeks to prevent these bankruptcies and avoid having a situation where the government would have to spend even more. This bill is not about spending. The hon. member was very clear on this. I want to repeat what was said. These are loan guarantees. There is absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. In this sense, the Liberal claim to the effect that the bill requires a royal recommendation appears totally ill-founded. We are not talking about contributions, but about loans that will be repaid when we manage to recover these $5 billion. It will be the same thing regarding other disputes that may affect us in the coming years.

I also want to go back to the first segment of the assistance provided to communities. We asked the government repeatedly when it would implement a loan guarantee program such as the one at Export Development Canada. We are not reinventing the wheel. We now know that the $5 billion in countervailing duties is money owed to Canadian and Quebec companies by U.S. authorities. The courts have issued all their rulings. We are now at the end of the legal process. As soon as the Americans decide to fulfill their international obligations under NAFTA, that money will be used to repay the loan guarantees.

Every time I ask him the question, the Minister of International Trade says that the government helped the industry by allocating $356 million. I will explain what this money was used for in Lanaudière—and I will drop a few of the investment projects because I am running out of time. This $356 million helped start up an ecological aquaponic farm that produces trout and lettuce. This does not have much to do with softwood lumber. A positive pressure vertical wind tunnel was built for individuals wanting to experience free fall. This is a far cry from softwood lumber. A commercial laundromat was set up, the productivity of a numbered company was improved and the possibility of developing a golf course was explored. It is true that there are trees around this golf course, but we usually try not to cut too many of them down in order to maintain the idyllic look of the course.

In light of this government's lack of responsibility, the hon. member did well to introduce Bill C-364, but it should not have come down to this. The government should have assumed its responsibilities in accordance with international rules. However, it does not want to. The opposition parties—I hope the NDP will also support this bill—will force this Liberal government to assume its responsibilities and help our businesses and industries that are suffering from commercial harassment. We must provide concrete help to our businesses and our softwood lumber industry. They are at the end of their rope and need help that complies with our international obligations.

I absolutely do not understand why the Liberals are being so stubborn in refusing a proposal that makes such good sense. They should have already implemented such a measure a number of years ago or at least a number of months ago.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise as well, as trade critic for the New Democratic Party, to speak in favour of this important private member's bill, Bill C-364.

Like the previous speakers, the member for Joliette and the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, I regret that this measure is necessary, but it is necessary because Parliament has to act where the government has not acted. That is the reality.

We need to support our softwood lumber industry. We know that the softwood lumber industry is bleeding $4 million a day in punitive tariffs. This affects my home province of British Columbia more than any other province in this country.

We are talking about lost jobs. We are talking about punitive tariffs of $4 million a day. Five billion dollars now is gone in punitive tariffs to Washington. Much of that money has disappeared entirely through the Byrd amendment. It has already been paid out. Millions of dollars have been paid out to American competitors through this unjust amendment, yet the government has done absolutely nothing.

We are talking about $5 billion in punitive tariffs. We also know that the legal costs are mounting rapidly. The softwood lumber industry has assumed over $350 million in associated legal costs around this same issue.

The House has to take action because the government has done nothing. The House has to take action because people are hurting in communities across the country. The softwood lumber industry is hurting. We have lost billions of dollars in punitive tariffs and hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and yet the government has refused to act.

I would like to put my remarks in context by talking a bit about the history of both the free trade agreement and NAFTA. I think it is important to talk about the origins of this agreement, going back to 1989 with the FTA and 1993 with NAFTA.

At that time, we sat down with the Americans to negotiate a dispute settlement mechanism that would make sense. The objective of the Canadian government in those negotiations was to have a dispute settlement mechanism that would be binding on the United States. In return, we saw the Americans looking, in those same negotiations, to have privileged access to our energy resources.

As members know, we have the largest energy reserves in the world. For the Americans to put that negotiating point forward is understandable. What is not understandable is that we gave that privileged access to our energy resources in return for a dispute settlement mechanism which for all intents and purposes has been ripped up by the Bush administration. Yet our government has done nothing.

At this time, it means that most of our resources, our natural gas and oil, are actually being shipped to the United States. The proportionality aspects of NAFTA mean that we are obliged to continue to send those energy resources to the United States even in the event of a national emergency and a national shortage.

It also means, as I know members are well aware and as the Globe and Mail profiled yesterday, that if we choose to send our energy resources to another market, we actually have to reduce Canadian supply in order to do that. The proportionality aspects of NAFTA demand that we continue to send the same proportion of energy resources to the United States that we have over a preceding 36 month period.

We are in a situation now where we have what the Canadian government negotiated. In this corner of the House, the New Democratic Party had raised concerns about the agreement and our giveaways, even at that time. Suffice it to say, we are now in the context where the dispute settlement mechanism is dead. It has been ripped up. The binding obligations that should have taken effect in August of 2005 have not. The softwood lumber industry is now left essentially an orphan because of the federal Liberal government not acting in this context.

I would like to touch on what the impacts have been on Canadian families. We often talk about softwood lumber. Certainly most recently we have talked about the impact on the industry, but it is important to note what we have seen since 1989 in 80% of Canadian families, or in other words, in four of the five quintiles. Normally when Statistics Canada profiles Canadian families, it divides them into quintiles, into 20% of the population: the lowest income 20%, the next to lowest 20%, the middle income 20%, the upper income 20% and then the highest income 20%.

Statistics Canada has produced a study recently, but since 1989, over the first 15 years of the FTA and NAFTA, in four of the five quintiles we have actually seen a decline in real income of Canadian families. We are not talking about prosperity. We are talking about the fact that the incomes of the lowest income Canadians have eroded in real terms since 1989 by up to 15%.

Those of us who go out into our communities and knock on doors—and I certainly do that in my communities of Burnaby and New Westminster as often as I can—have heard anecdotally about how families are hurting, how it is becoming more and more difficult to make ends meet and how the extra costs we are seeing are making it very difficult for families to get by. The surprising reality is that Canadians with the lowest incomes have seen a dramatic fall in income since 1989.

That is not all. Let us look at the next lowest and the middle income Canadians. Those families have also seen a dramatic drop in their real income. They are trying to get by on fewer financial resources than existed 15 years ago.

For the upper middle class, the fourth quintile, there has been absolutely no improvement in real income over a 15 year period. From 1989 there has been no improvement. Their incomes have stagnated. Costs have risen, as we know, while their real incomes have had absolutely no improvement.

Who has profited from the trade policy of the Liberal government? Upper income Canadians. The wealthy in Canada have seen their incomes rise by 12% to 15%.

It is important to note this.

The failed trade policy that we see is the result of a number of factors. Yes, there has been inaction by the Liberal government on these important trade files. We could mention the textile industry, but tonight we are talking about softwood.

Most Canadian families are struggling to get by with fewer financial resources than they had 15 years ago, yet we have the largest energy reserves in the world and we have an export surplus which we know is due to the fact that we have resources the rest of the world would love to have and would dearly love to trade with us.

Coming back to recent days, what happened? Two months ago the dispute settlement mechanism was ripped up. It took two months for the Prime Minister to make a phone call, which has been the only action undertaken in the 60 days since the ripping up of the dispute settlement mechanism, that binding obligation under NAFTA. That is indisputable. There is no question that there is an obligation. It is binding. It is clear.

Yet in two months we have seen a phone call and a lot of spin and speeches. My goodness, the industry minister was beside himself, saying the Liberals would take the Americans into the boards. We have seen the result. Not only have they not taken the Americans into the boards, they are not even on the ice. They are hiding in the dressing room.

When Canadian jobs are at risk, where communities across the country are suffering and where real family income has dropped, the Liberals have done nothing except make a phone call.

Very clearly, given the Liberals' complete and utter failure to deal with the issue of softwood lumber in any meaningful way, the New Democratic Party has been putting forth suggestions. We called for a recall of Parliament. We were told it would be considered, but it was not. After a lot of dithering, Parliament was not recalled even though this issue is crucial to the Canadian economy.

We have called for export levies on energy resources, given that we have the largest reserves in the world. There has been no response from the government.

We have also called for a halt to the NAFTA-plus negotiations. What a mixed message: we are saying on the one hand that NAFTA is not working, that there is a real problem here and that dispute settlement has been ripped up, and on the other hand, the Liberal government is sitting down every day and negotiating lower standards in areas like food safety and air safety.

The Liberals call it “harmonization”, but it is lower standards. It is saying to Canadians that our higher standards will now be lowered to what Washington tells us it wants to have through NAFTA-plus.

We need to take action and, fortunately, this private member's bill is a first step in the action this Parliament needs to take in the absence of any action from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill is an act to provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and the Canadian exporters who incur financial losses as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments.

In the instance most of us are talking about, we prefer to talk about softwood lumber because that is a current example. However, my friend from the Bloc from Joliette is quite correct, this applies to a lot of potential disputes, not just within our NAFTA arrangement but within other arrangements.

I have a fairly long involvement with the portion of the bill that deals with what is being called loan guarantees. I prefer to call it government backing of a receivable because that is what it is.

The government chose, with a Friday afternoon announcement, to back, through EDC, very poor risk receivables with some of the airlines that were purchasing Bombardier products. We now have three companies, which are insured for $3.7 billion by EDC, in chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. The maximum we are asking for here, on a go forward basis, because we cannot make this bill apply going backwards on the softwood dispute, is about $2.4 billion. That would be virtually a guaranteed receivable because we are not talking about money that is sitting with a poor risk. These are cash deposits sitting with the U.S. government. This is a whole different equation. We are looking at a two year window. It deals with the court enforcement of a final NAFTA decision.

The reason I have had quite a bit of background on this is that in 2002 the Free Trade Lumber Council made a proposal to the trade minister of the day and the trade minister of the day turned it down on the basis that there were too many things going on in NAFTA and it wanted to see how this would play out.

Last year the lumber council once again approached the current trade minister and was told that the government wanted to wait until it saw the final decision from the NAFTA panel on threat of injury before it did anything.

August 10 was the big day, the day of the long awaited decision on threat of injury, the long predicted big win for Canada and, guess what? In September the six trade associations from British Columbia to Alberta and Ontario to Quebec jointly made this request of the current trade minister and basically were told no. Have they been told no based on any rationale? No, they have not. Have they been given any indication of why the government is saying no? Only to the standpoint that this might be rather irksome to the U.S. Well, guess what? The reason the Canadian industry saw the need for this kind of program is that it knew the U.S. Department of Commerce would be unreasonable in the tariffs it arranged.

The U.S. has now passed an amendment called the Byrd amendment which distributes these moneys, ultimately to the U.S. complainants, the industry that launched these very complaints against the Canadian industry, in other words, its competitors in the U.S.

Canada's answer to the Byrd amendment, which is the only way it could fight the amendment, is contained in the bill. It is contained in the proposal accepted by my caucus in 2002, along with the Bloc and the NDP. We held a joint press conference announcing our support for such an endeavour. We are still there but the government has never been there and is still not there.

What is the government doing to send a message to the U.S. that we are serious about winning when we have actually won legally? We want our money back. I do not know a stronger way to deliver that message than to carry out this kind of measure. The result of this measure would be that the government would say to companies that they have a receivable and that they have suffered three and a half years worth of requirements to pay a total now of almost $5 billion into these accounts but they cannot call those receivables.

The cumulative weight of all of that is now bringing companies to their knees, which is exactly what the U.S. lumber coalition wants. However we cannot go for another two years because it will not serve our national interests. It is time for the government to step forward and to back our forest industry in the same way it has been prepared to back our aerospace and other industries. This would actually be a lot cheaper. This is the way to go.

However for the government to now argue that this is somehow an ill-considered proposal is contrary to all of the thought that has gone into this over the last three and a half or three and three-quarter years. The government has never actually given a technical reason why this should not proceed and, for every technical reason and for the national interest, it should proceed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, home to CFB Petawawa, I am pleased to take an active interest in the well-being of the women and men who serve their country as members of the Canadian armed forces.

It is with their concern in mind that I question the defence minister regarding the decision of the Prime Minister to compromise the independence of the office of the ombudsman for National Defence.

By appointing someone over the objection of the democratically constituted majority of the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the Prime Minister has demonstrated contempt of the democratic process and for the members who were elected by their constituents to serve the interests of all Canadians.

The record shows that as a member of the defence committee I have advocated for the position of the ombudsman to be independent. The ombudsman should be an officer of this House and report to Parliament, not to the Minister of National Defence. The ombudsman should be free to do his work and not be required to submit his reports to the very people he is investigating, in this case the Minister of National Defence, prior to those reports being publicly released.

In defending this practice, the new ombudsman stated to members of the defence committee that ministerial directives require him to follow this practice. It was precisely that type of response that resulted in the MPs rejecting his candidacy, and is causing concern for those Canadians who believe that military members deserve our support and respect.

That response certainly confirms the judgment expressed in the editorial of a major newspaper when it stated:

—it's reasonable to expect the generals, the previous ombudsman used to torment, would seek a more friendly, conciliatory and pliable replacement....As it stands, [the Defence Minister's] continued championing of Mr. Côté in the face of parliamentary opposition smacks of an attempt to co-opt and neuter the ombudsman's office.

It should be noted that my concern for the independence of the office of the military ombudsman was repeated by the first ombudsman, Mr. André Marin. In his parting message Mr. Marin stated:

The biggest deficit in achieving the principles of success, however, is the continuing lack of institutional independence for the Office.

As I have noted time and time again, institutionally, the office is vulnerable.

As the Ombudsman exercises delegated authority from a government Minister, the Office remains beholden to the Minister and therefore subject to pressure, should it be exerted.

Moreover, the Office is created by Ministerial directives that can be deleted with the stroke of a pen.

The absence of a legislative foundation has... undermined the authority of the Office.

It should be pointed out that the creation of the office of the military ombudsman was the only good thing to come out of the Liberal Party whitewash of the Somalia inquiry.

By June 1998, morale in the Canadian armed forces was at an all time low after suffering from massive budget cuts, overt political interference and the Somalia cover-up, which led to the disbanding of one of the proudest traditions in the military, the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

It is by design that the Prime Minister would choose the individual who was a legal government coordinator when the political decision was made to shut down the Somalia inquiry.

If anything demonstrates that it is business as usual between the decisions made by the old Chrétien gang of sponsorship scandal fame, in which the current Prime Minister was a senior member and participated in every decision, and decisions of today, it has to be the fact that the present Prime Minister continues to make appointments in the absence of the moral authority to do so.

For Canadians, this is another example that nothing has changed.

The Prime Minister was quick to provide lip service to the democratic deficit when he was looking for votes.

Canadians who were prepared to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt before the latest scandal involving the Prime Minister's good friend, David Dingwall, are now saying that they do not believe him any more.

What a sad disappointment the Prime Minister has been to all Canadians and to our international reputation.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman provides an important service to the Canadian Forces by investigating complaints and serving as a neutral third party on matters related to the department, the Canadian Forces and the welfare of all members and employees.

In May of this year the minister proposed the appointment of Mr. Yves Côté to replace the outgoing ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. The proposal was referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which rejected the minister's candidate. This decision of the committee was regrettable.

The government respects the work of the committee and carefully considered the decision. However it still found that Mr. Côté was the most qualified candidate of a dozen or so candidates who applied for the position, and he was appointed ombudsman in July.

I can assure the House that the process to select a new ombudsman for the Canadian Forces was open, competitive and fair. This selection was not a military decision, but a decision of government. At no time did any Canadian Forces members take part in the screening of applicants or in any interviews. In fact, the Minister of National Defence personally interviewed all top candidates for this position.

The minister is absolutely committed to having a strong and credible ombudsman for the men and women of the Canadian Forces. The government stands behind its decision to support Mr. Côté as ombudsman. He is very well qualified and has demonstrated a great deal of integrity in his more than 25 years as a public servant.

Furthermore, we need only look at his record to date as the ombudsman of the Canadian Forces to see Mr. Côté is the right person for the job. In less than three months Mr. Côté has shown that he is dedicated to helping the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

We understand that Mr. Côté has been active in continuing the work of his predecessor on important issues such as recruitment and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Côté also is making his own mark in the role of ombudsman. He is visiting Canadian Forces bases across the country meeting with members and listening to their concerns. We believe he also is looking into the possibility of making the services of the ombudsman more accessible to Canadian Forces members by opening more offices at more bases.

Let me now address another issue which the hon. member raised in her question in June. She mentioned that Mr. Côté acted as legal counsel for the Department of National Defence. It is true that Mr. Côté has worked with the department in the past. In fact, Mr. Côté was involved in the creation of the Office of the ombudsman. At the request of the minister of national defence of the time, Mr. Côté worked there to make this happen.

As a lawyer, he was operating under the instructions of the client at the time, and I am pleased to say that he helped to develop this very effective office and he certainly has been there for our soldiers. He has been there to ensure that they are represented well. Quite frankly, as the person who started it moving forward, he makes a great candidate and will do a fantastic job as the ombudsman.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr.Speaker, the Prime Minister is known as Mr. Dithers with all his broken promises and his demonstrated lack of respect for democracy.

Since I asked my question for the Prime Minister about his fear of selecting an independent watchdog for the military, the Prime Minister went ahead and made the appointment anyway, once again running roughshod over a parliamentary committee.

One of the highlights of Mr. Marin's career as the first military ombudsman was the role he played in obtaining compensation for soldiers who were used as test subjects for chemical agent testing during World War II. It took 60 years for the government to accept responsibility. Unfortunately, many of those veterans were deceased before any recognition was made. This must not be allowed to happen again.

I have requested that the new ombudsman, Mr. Côté, conduct a similar independent inquiry on behalf of those individuals who were exposed to various chemicals, the so-called rainbow herbicides, including agent orange, either as a member of the military or as an individual who was exposed to these chemicals. I suggested that his response to the victims of chemical testing done by the military should serve as a standard by which to judge his term in office.

Canada owes it to its veterans and their families to end the uncertainty from being diagnosed with mystery ailments that exposure to these chemicals may cause. A proper diagnosis would result in timely treatment.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of us to realize that Mr. Côté has through his whole career acted to support people and move things forward. He has the skills and ability to understand the needs and the demands that are required as an ombudsman and to work for our Canadian Forces and those in need of help.

I find it very short-sighted to suggest that it is not the minister's responsibility when all legislation gives the minister the responsibility of appointing the ombudsman for the military services. At the same time, I believe we need to have a person with the legal training, the background and the desire to work as well as the opportunity to have new development.

Mr. Côté, as I said just a moment ago, in the last three months has developed new lines, new help for our people and is reaching out to our forces ensure that they are well served.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the chamber to ask a question of the government related to a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on gas pricing, entitled “What’s behind high gas prices?” The study proves that Canada's oil and gas industry has reported record profits of over $16 billion in the last year alone, according to Nickel's Energy Group.

Michael Ervin, a leading industry insider and consultant himself, described the industry's recent profit margins as spectacular. This would not be so bad if it were not at the expense of Canadian consumers or if it were down to simple market forces as had been advocated by the industry. However it is not. There is clear evidence of price gouging by Canada's oil and gas industry, particularly during the period of the recent U.S. hurricanes.

The price of crude oil rose by $10 U.S. per barrel between June and September. If the industry had kept its other expenses constant, that should have led to an increase at the pump of just 7.9¢ per litre. Instead the average increase was 15¢, with some communities paying significantly more. Over Labour Day weekend the average increase was 40¢ on the June price alone. According to a report from the CCPA, the price of Canadian gas should never have gone above $1.

The gas industry was engaged in clear gouging, taking advantage of public fears over hurricanes Katrina and Rita. For every penny per litre the price of gas rises, the industry takes an additional $1.1 million per day. This means at the point of peak gouging, when the difference between a justified crude oil increase and pump price was as much as 45¢, the industry was raking in $50 million of excess profits every day.

This has happened at the same time as the government is providing $1.4 billion in contributions, grants and subsidies to the oil and gas industry and is also providing the industry with a corporate tax cut.

That has to end. Canadians deserve accountability and they want the government to account for that. It was clearly price gouging at the pumps at a time when people lost their homes. There is destruction across North America and it is not acceptable to have excessive profits at the expense of other people and industries which has cost this country in terms of economic development, stability for families and, more important, accountability on which the government has to deliver.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the rapid increase in gasoline prices in Canada is of concern to the Canadian government without question, and is a concern to everyone in the country. The increase since hurricane Katrina has mainly been driven by crude oil prices which have climbed more than 50% so far in 2005.

There are a number of factors driving the crude oil prices. Foremost among them is demand. The economies of developing nations around the world are growing and that growth requires energy.

The government is taking action. The success of our efforts is predicated on there being an open and fair market to bring these products to Canadians. In that regard the Competition Bureau has served us well. It has spent considerable resources analyzing the practices and participants in the oil and gas industry. Bureau officials have done five major studies of gas prices since 1990. Each of those studies told us that gas price spikes were not the result of a national conspiracy to limit competition with gasoline supply, or from abusive behaviour by dominant firms in the market.

The Competition Bureau has closely followed the activities of the oil and gas firms during the recent period of volatile price shifts and it will continue to do so. I have every confidence that the commissioner will take the appropriate action where evidence of anti-competitive behaviour is found.

Trust in the market is created when the rules are applied and they must be applied fairly and openly. Again, the bureau has served Canadians well over the years. Bureau investigations have resulted in 13 trials and eight convictions in price maintenance cases in the oil and gas industry.

The bureau has also investigated the competition problems that could arise from proposed oil and gas company mergers and has not hesitated to challenge potential transactions that could substantially lessen or prevent competition. Honest competitors in every industry need to be protected. We have to make sure that there is no collusion nor price fixing. They need to be protected against firms that might use their dominant position to enhance their position in the market.

As a government we have put forward changes to the Competition Act and have tried to ensure the act is strengthened. We will also make sure that we have proper and appropriate tools to respond to the changing business climate. We also know that we need to do everything we can to protect the consumer as well as we can from those spikes that happen, but it is not the government's responsibility to set the price. Canada mainly is a price taker, not a price setter.

One of the major problems we have had over the last several months is the very volatile prices, but all Canadians must be aware that those prices have been volatile in every country around the world. In the United States the price has jumped. In Europe the price has jumped. Still, Canadians have suffered, but we have put a program in place to make sure that low income Canadians receive a fair amount of price support this coming winter.

One of the steps the government has taken is to make sure that we have programs in place that will deal with those extremely difficult situations Canadians will have.

The Government of Canada has allocated $15 million over five years for the office. The office will rely on information such as federal and provincial data and will provide information to Canadians on how markets are operating. In other words, it will be made open and transparent, wo that on the Internet or through our bureau that we are setting up, Canadians will know what is causing the price volatility and how it is happening. There will be more transparency in the industry. Those are steps the Canadian government is taking.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for apologizing for the oil and gas industry. Again, it is just not acceptable. If people do not want to believe me as a New Democrat, then let us consider some of things Liberals have said about this issue. I would point to the comments of the member for Pickering—Scarborough East who said on CBC news, “a category five hurricane in the U.S. has given rise to a category five fleecing of the consumer at the pump”. He added that the refiners in Canada have seen fit to raise prices beyond what he called a catastrophic level.

That once again is consistent with the independent evidence that we heard at committee. Michael Ervin described the refining profits during Katrina as spectacular, spectacular off the backs of Canadians and consumers and other industries. It is not acceptable.

What the parliamentary secretary did not say is what the Liberals would do about situations like this in the future, or what they are willing to do right now to get some of that money back that has been fleeced from people.

I would conclude with another comment by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East. On CTV news in September he said, “The oil industry has to come clean....They're taking advantage of a desperate situation. I think that is terrible. It has to stop.”

It can only stop if the government has the political will. Stop giving the large corporate grants that those guys are getting, the $1.4 billion in grants from the government. There are also the corporate subsidies. At the same time, there is no accountability at the pumps for Canadians.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what one has to realize is that Canada is one of the countries that has the lowest charge on energy around the world. We certainly have far lower prices than Europe. Anyone who has travelled to Europe, Asia or other countries knows the price paid for gas is far higher than it is in Canada.

Certainly we are not a perfect organization, but we have done everything we can to make certain that low income Canadians get the financial assistance they require. The government has announced a direct financial assistance program for low income Canadians of up to $5,000 per household to defray the costs of higher energy costs.

There is no question when we look at the EnerGuide formula that we will watch the prices to the consumer and try to make sure the consumer is well aware of why those prices are fluctuating. Canada is not a country where we put price controls on separate industries and that is not the general step to take. I believe it is to inform the consumer, keep the prices as low as possible and keep the supply working well in this country.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House recently to ask a question concerning silicone gel breast implants. Unfortunately, the answer that I got did not satisfy me. I will thus try to get a better one today.

It has been brought to my attention that the medical devices special access program, intended for serious, dangerous or even deadly diseases, has been used excessively to allow surgeons to procure silicone gel breast implants. Thus, they can carry out breast augmentations, replacements following implant rupture, or breast reconstructions.

These silicone gel implants have not been approved by Health Canada. These are the third generation of silicone gel implants. We have experienced major problems with the other two generations. It has not been proven in any way that implants from this new generation are safe or harmless for women.

I am worried because Health Canada has taken a rather lax attitude with respect to the distribution of such breast implants. It is actually moving toward a culture of acceptable risk. Surgeons are being allowed to procure and use breast implants that have not even been approved. In the 1990s, their use was denounced, and it was demanded that production be stopped. Today, surgeons are nevertheless allowed, for very unconvincing reasons, to be supplied with breast implants filled with silicone gel whose long term effects are unknown.

Unfortunately, in previous years we saw that the long term effects could be disastrous. We have seen that approximately 70% of women who undergo breast augmentation using silicone gel implants experience serious problems, including implant rupture as well as capsular contracture. Women experience all sorts of very serious problems because of these implants.

There is one thing I am having more and more of a problem with, and I am realizing it today. The initial surgery is elective surgery and, as such, is paid for by the client. However, subsequent surgeries to remove a breast implant or treat a patient are at public expense. As we know, the health system is seriously overloaded at present and it cannot absorb additional costs. In addition, these companies do not produce comprehensive reports or studies on the safety of these implants.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me something. When the program was established in 1993, there were 17 requests granted every year at first. That was not very many, and it was mainly for the purpose of reconstruction. It continued until 1997. In 1997 and 1998, approval for the use of these implants was totally discontinued because, at the time, class action suits were likely to be won. Now, the number of requests sought and granted has grown to 6,211 a year. In 2004 alone, the use of 6,211 silicone gel breast implants was authorized. I find all that very unfortunate and worrisome. I would like to know why this is happening.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with this issue, I want first to give all Canadians the assurance that the medical devices special access program has been applied according to the spirit of the regulations. Health Canada has taken and continues to take the necessary measures to ensure that breast implants do not pose any risk to Canadian women. As with many other medical devices that were sold before the Medical Devices Regulations came into effect in 1975, manufacturers were responsible for testing these products.

Given the increasing questioning, in the early 1990s, of the validity of these test data, Health Canada took a proactive approach and, in 1992, asked manufacturers for information on the safety of silicone gel filled breast implants. Manufacturers were invited to voluntarily withdraw their implants from the Canadian market so that Health Canada could assess and examine these data on safety.

Following this withdrawal from the market, we invited manufacturers to submit evidence of the safety and effectiveness of breast implants during the pre-market review. Under the current regulations, which were enacted in 1998, breast implants are class IV devices, which are subject to the most extensive testing of any certified medical devices.

There are currently no licensed silicone gel-filled breast implants available in Canada. Health Canada is currently reviewing a number of licence applications for these devices and has received a large number of pre-clinical, clinical and other safety data for these implants from the manufacturer.

Health care professionals who require silicone gel-filled breast implants for their patients have to apply to the medical devices special access program. In order to be issued access, a physician must meet requirements under part 2 of the medical devices regulations which came into effect in 1998.

In her question, the member for Laval stated first that the medical devices special access program is only for people suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness. This is not true.

Part 2 of the medical devices regulations very clearly defines special access. It states that health professionals can have access to a medical device for emergency use or if conventional therapies have failed, are unavailable or are unsuitable. Currently, Canadian physicians making a request under the special access program believe that silicone gel-filled breast implants are the best solution available for some patients having to undergo breast surgery.

These requests are coming from physicians and women who are well informed about the risks and benefits of silicone gel-filled breast implants and who have decided that the benefits of such devices outweigh the risks.

One of the requirements of the special access program is that physicians provide patients with a document outlining the risks and benefits of such a device. Health Canada is made aware of the risks and benefits along with the request by the woman's physician for special access.

It is a complex subject and difficult to explain within these four minutes. The doctors and their professional organizations have to submit written requests for access according to the stipulations of their organizations.