Debates of Nov. 1st, 2005

Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my final comments, the list of seniors is in fact updated. It is updated in the extreme, because as I said earlier, not only have we had an aggressive campaign to ensure that each and every senior who is qualified knows that he or she can apply, but in addition, everyone who files an income tax form receives an automatically filled out form. All they need to do is sign it and send it in and the renewals are there. I am not suggesting that there will not be one or a few people who are not on the list, but it is an extremely updated list. That is number one.

Number two, for the rebate we are looking at those with an annual income of $30,000 and below. This will be going to poor seniors, seniors who are receiving the GIS. This is the intent of the bill. I think that is clear.

I think the hon. member was wrong when he said there was nothing for those seniors who do not receive this assistance and have high fuel costs. What is also important is the fact that there is the conversion project, which I mentioned earlier. This applies not only to seniors but to any Canadians who need to do retrofits to make their homes more energy efficient and bring down the cost of their energy bills.

In fact, these are exactly the three pieces. We are dealing with assisting Canadians in being able to retrofit and do conversion projects for their houses so that they can bring down the cost of their energy bills and also save our environment. At the same time, the government is looking to assist those people who are under some financial difficulties. I really question the hon. member's premise on this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as all members of the House know, this is the day on which the Gomery report is released and indicates some ways in which a government program should not be administered.

I do not know whether the hon. member has had an opportunity to listen to the way in which the Bloc Québécois is proposing the program be administered, but I respectfully suggest that this is another instance where the proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois is a way in which a program should not be administered.

The proposal by the Bloc Québécois is that the money be given out and then the government would come around afterwards to see whether the money was applied to the retrofits. If a little money got lost in carpeting or Jacuzzis or things of that nature, that would not be quite within the parameters of the program, but it would be easy to recover the money afterwards, either through the income tax system or lawsuits or things of that nature.

I want to ask the hon. member about the initiatives by the government with respect to the energy program. We have $170 million for the EnerGuide for household retrofits incentive program, a further strengthening of incentives for best in class energy efficient oil and gas furnaces, of $150 per unit, and $250 per household for homes heated with electricity.

I wonder whether the member would comment on how this program should be administered. Should homeowners qualify first or should we simply send out the money and hope that they apply the moneys to what the program is for?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to reiterate the fact that there are programs for retrofitting. I am very pleased about this, because many Canadian homes will benefit from the program.

Obviously any program needs to be administered in such a way as to benefit those who qualify for the program. For example, if someone has an old oil tank in the house that needs to be converted to highly energy efficient equipment, that person would qualify. If the individual already has a highly energy efficient furnace or heating system, he or she obviously would not qualify.

It speaks for itself. We need to have parameters, criteria and monitoring applied with any program, regardless of where the program is applied and for whose benefit it is given. In fact, that is the only responsible way to put forward a program as a government. We need to ensure that we hold accountable every aspect of the program in order to make sure we are meeting the intended objective of the program. Otherwise we have no way of knowing whether or not we are meeting the intended objective of the policy or the program, not to mention that we have no control over whether moneys are wasted. The answer is pretty clear on that one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague from Saskatoon--Humboldt.

I had a short conversation with my Liberal colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who asked me if my speech would have anything to do with Bill C-66, which is the energy package. I said it certainly would. He said that he assumed I might want to talk about the Gomery report because that is the issue of the day and people are primarily focused on it. It is not my intention to do that. I do want to talk about Bill C-66, the energy bill.

I did find it rather inventive that the parliamentary secretary, in his question to his other Liberal colleague who just spoke, did try to suggest, in a strange fashion, that the Bloc would somehow run this scheme along the same lines that the sponsorship scheme was co-opted by the Liberal Party of Canada, which fleeced the Canadian taxpayer and contributed to the largest scandal in Canadian history. I do not think there is any analogy there whatsoever.

It is typical of the Liberals right now to try to invent any excuse to diffuse attention away from what should be, in any setting, in any democracy anywhere, the demise of the government and the demise of the party. Instead, we have a Prime Minister and a government hanging on by their fingernails, refusing to leave and pretending that all is well when all is very bad indeed. Our international reputation and stature are going down the drain over and over again.

[An hon. member]

The NDP is propping them up.

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

Yes, the fact is that we are in a minority Parliament and we have the fourth party in this place continuing to run as a coalition with the government. It is most astounding. We have the NDP continuing to prop up the Liberals under any excuse, in any disguise and for any manufactured reason. All of this is an insult to representative so-called democracy.

With that, I will talk about Bill C-66, if I may. Bill C-66 is another example of legislation inspired by a crisis. The crisis of course was the run-up in prices at the pump. The crisis was the fact that natural gas has gone from $2 per unit to about $13 per unit for Canadian consumers, based on a government that cannot get its act together in terms of an energy framework or strategy for the country.

We have constrained supply because we do not have our northern pipelines sorted out, and with these guys in charge, we are not going to get our northern pipelines in order on any kind of timely basis. What we had was a price at the pumps that led to a huge spike as a consequence of some shortages due to hurricane season and hurricane Katrina and all of that.

Parliament was set to resume sitting in the last week of September. We received a request from the government chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology to have an emergency meeting on September 22, in order to have a televised discourse with witnesses on what to do about fuel prices.

I wanted ministers to take part in that meeting because ministers more than anyone else in this place can influence what happens. There was not a single minister whom I suggested who could or would make the commitment to appear on September 22. Many committee members were inconvenienced, especially the ones who had to come from farthest away to arrive in Ottawa on a Thursday. We had to change all our plans. Those days were important for members of Parliament prior to returning to Parliament after the summer break. That is when many constituents are back in their regular duties and it is a good time for members to carry out their functions.

September 22 turned out to be the day hurricane Katrina was hurtling toward the southern gulf coast in the U.S. At that meeting we witnessed government members finding every reason in the book to point fingers. They thought up inventive ways of suggesting that it was a conspiracy that did not involve the government, that it was because of the oil companies or some other factor that the prices were ridiculously high on that very day, and of course they were because it was a one week event.

The real crux of the issue is what has the government been doing? Where is it headed when it comes to taxation issues surrounding what Canadian consumers pay at the pump, or for heating oil or natural gas? Let us not forget industries such as the air transportation sector, the trucking sector and agriculture and resource industries that use huge amounts of fuel as part of their input costs. What is the government's approach to all of this, other than doing everything possible to protect maximum extraction of tax revenues to the detriment of consumers of every stripe?

We heard witnesses from the finance department. They did not act like witnesses from the finance department. What became very clear is that this announcement comes to a very small portion of government revenues. The portion is so small that the finance department officials said if that same amount of money was reflected in a tax decrease, it would be insignificant.

The government is still protecting its revenue sources. The government still has no strategy on how it is going to deal with all of this. The government takes this revenue, puts it into general revenues and returns 2¢ on the dollar for highway infrastructure. It blatantly transfers a very small amount to the municipalities with the future promise, which the Conservative Party is also committed to, of eventually getting to 5¢ a litre.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding the government announcement to assist seniors and those least able to accommodate the changes in fuel pricing has been very well received. When I approach seniors homes or other organizations, particularly those people receiving the national child care benefit supplement, it has been quite positively received. Some of the organizations that have been coming to see me about federal and provincial clawbacks and those types of things with regard to those least able to accommodate them have viewed this step as being very positive.

When I hear the comment that people would not want to receive this, I cannot believe that would be quite true. It has been very well received in my riding and when it comes, I believe it will happen at a time when it will be most effective.

In view of the fact that we are protecting the most vulnerable and it combines with the strategy for long term energy conservation, why would this not be well received in the member's riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member might be putting words in my mouth that I never said. We are supporting this bill.

What the government has proposed in Bill C-66 is $250 to families entitled to receive the national child benefit, $125 to seniors entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement, and $250 to senior couples where both spouses are entitled to receive the GIS.

We are not saying that is not an appropriate thing to do. What a lot of my constituents are saying is, “Why is it that every time the government makes these kinds of announcements it never includes us? We are very strapped. We are on a fixed income. We do not make a lot of money. Like other Canadians, we have sacrificed in so many ways and yet these things never apply to us”. They are actually fairly short tempered about the fact that everything seems to accrue to anyone but them. They are really feeling stretched.

If we look at the increases in heating costs for Canadians this winter, even for people who receive something from this plan, it hardly pays for the incremental difference.

The government's own finance department says that this is a very significant program but says that an equivalent amount of money in tax reduction is insignificant. The discrepancy between those two statements does not go unnoticed by Canadians.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 has some merit and it does address some issues. Unfortunately, there are too many holes in it.

Approximately three million Canadians will receive a payment. It will aid some low income Canadians. However, it does not assist students or those receiving disability benefits, farmers, low income seniors who do not file for the GIS, and childless poor Canadians or many Canadians not close to the poverty line. I would like the member to speak to that.

The natural gas bills will be going up between $120 and $300 this winter. I wonder if the member could also address whether it will actually meet those needs and the increased fuel costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that it will not cover the costs.

A large group has been left out. Comments from some of the cabinet ministers indicate that their approach is toward transit and other issues relating to this energy issue. Over and over again they are thinking about urban Canadians, who are important, but they are totally excluding rural Canadians, who in many cases must use their own vehicles and must use more fuel than urban Canadians. There is no recognition of this in anything the government is proposing.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to deal today with an issue that is very important and very crucial to the future of Canada as well as the prosperity of the nation and the well-being of its citizens.

Bill C-66 is a bill which deals with a very small portion of our energy policy. This bill is long overdue. We need a debate on energy policy in this country. We need a debate not only dealing with very small elements, rebates, a little bit of retrofitting for houses and urban transportation, but an overall comprehensive debate of where we have been, what we are doing and where we are going. These are all facets of energy policy, not only one specific area. We must do this because the government tends to get into this crisis mode. It is only when there is a problem does the government act.

Today we are being somewhat distracted by events outside this House, but again they reflect the general principle. Something happened. The problem had been going on for years. Only after the government got caught, only after something came immediately to the surface did the government act. This is the same principle that the government has applied to its energy policy.

When I was first elected to this House, the Conservative Party began to deal with our energy problem by setting up an internal energy caucus over a year ago. It began to look at the specific long term and short term issues that are involved.

The Liberal government which has been in power for years talks about its energy framework in 2000. It has talked about updating it, but really has no plan, no agenda and no way of looking at it. It was only this summer when gasoline prices began to spike because of the run up in crude oil prices and the refining problems in the gulf coast did the government begin to think of this problem.

It has been known for years that we are going to have particular problems with home heating costs because of the rise in demand for natural gas and the inability of supplies to meet it.

My hon. colleague noted that in prior years $2 or $3 per million BTU was the price for natural gas. I believe the last numbers I saw were $13 or $14 per million BTU. That is an enormous run up in cost. It is one area in particular where the government should have been able to deal with the problem through long term thought and foresight to begin to handle this issue.

I understand crude oil prices are an international commodity. We ship to one place and we ship to another. It is an internationally set price because it is a very fungible commodity.

When dealing specifically with home heating prices and natural gas, which has tended to become the fuel of choice for most of the country for many consumers, the government could have thought ahead. It could have had a priority and could have had a plan, but the government chose not to. It chose to ignore it. It used the exact same procedures that it followed in the ad scam problem. The government did not worry about anything until it was caught in front of the media.

As I was noting, particularly with natural gas and so forth, it is a continental market and not so much an international market. That will be changing as LNG, liquefied natural gas, becomes a part of the North American experience in increasing fashion.

I will note just how much this costs the average Canadian by not thinking ahead and not planning. There was a study released the other day by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association about the higher costs of natural gas for Canadian consumers in its totality if there was a regulatory delay of merely two years for things such as the Mackenzie pipeline and liquefied natural gas plants.

The association came to the conclusion that over 19 years it would cost consumers $57 billion. That is $3 billion a year for each and every Canadian in sum, using a rough number of roughly 30 million Canadian and I know we are slightly higher. That is roughly $100 for every man, woman and child in this country.

We are talking about energy rebates for one year, not two years, three years or four years, but for just one year. It is $565 million according to the numbers I have. We are talking about these numbers merely through lack of planning and lack of foresight which would result in $3 billion in higher costs to the Canadian economy. This is for the next 19 years, not just for one year, but for the next 19 years.

For a high flyer, a wealthy person, $100 a year per person in the family may not be very important. One of the supposed purposes of this legislation is to deal with low income earners and to help them. For a family of five, it is $500 a year for the next two decades, all because of a lack of planning and foresight. This is an area which needs to be taken seriously and looked at not just for the immediate and the now, but for the future.

There are other impacts of a poorly thought out energy policy on other elements in the Canadian economy. I wish to make special note, coming from a riding that is one-third agriculture, of the effect on farmers. Farmers use intensely more amounts of fuel than the rest of the population to fuel up a combine, to fuel up a tractor, and to drive over their fields. Be it for seeding, harvests, swathing, whatever, they continue to use up more fuel than merely commuting to and from work every day once or twice.

That is not to downplay the impact on any other consumer or any other element of society but to stress the importance of how the burden is disproportionately placed on certain elements, and this is with very low prices. Farmers are already struggling, particularly in certain elements of the agriculture community. Prices are lousy. There is very little support from the government on overall agriculture policy, and now they are being hit with higher fuel prices.

I would also note, something that the general public does not always appreciate, higher fuel prices contribute to higher fertilizer prices. Fertilizer is a substantive input. It depends on what particular methodology is used for farming, but fertilizers have a particularly high input cost for farmers. The run-up in natural gas prices directly impacts the price of the fertilizer and has for years.

This lack of planning, particularly when it came to a natural gas and energy framework policy for this country, has had particular impact on farmers, more so than anyone else. In this legislation, there is absolutely nothing for agriculture. There is absolutely nothing for agriculture to deal with the higher prices of diesel fuels, gasoline and the higher resulting prices of fertilizer. It was completely forgotten. As my colleague was noting at the end of his remarks, that is generally true for rural Canada. There is absolutely no planning or no specificity of a plan for the rural areas.

I come from the province of Saskatchewan. Per capita, we are the second largest payers of the national fuel tax, the infrastructure funding which is being juggled around between various bills. We pay 4% of the national tax with 3% of the population. We are only getting 3% of the tax revenues allocated to our province, and that is because it is disproportionately being taken away from rural communities.

Rural communities are being completely forgotten and completely left out in this plan. It is something that the government has shown repeatedly, a bias against rural Canada. That is one of the reasons why the government nearly lost all of its seats and in the next election will lose all of its seats in the rural and farming areas of this country.

Those are some of the impacts on the country. One could go on about other industries that are specifically impacted such as chemical plants and the chemical industry. With the high input costs for key feed stocks and energy stocks, they are being driven out of business along with the fertilizer industry and manufacturers due to higher electricity costs.

What is the alternative? What is the better plan? First, we need to have a long term energy framework which deals with both the supply and the demand side. I wish I had more time to deal with it because there is a lot that can be done.

There is a need for general overall tax cuts that are sustainable for the future and for everyone. This plan that the government has is a one year rebate plan. Next year there are going to be high prices again for natural gas. Thankfully the government will not be in office at that time, but we need to have sustainable tax cuts. Tax cuts help everyone. They help grow the economy. They help diversify. A diversified base of tax cuts helps everyone.

It is important that we deal with energy issues, not just on an ad hoc basis but on a basis which addresses the future and the now. This bill has a few good things about it, but honestly not a lot. It is one of those typically mediocre pieces of legislation that we have become accustomed to seeing from this government.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Conservative colleague's comments. He had several concerns about this bill, particularly the fact that it did not take the regions into account.

I am the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, in Quebec, and it is also a rural area. Many people are seasonal workers or employed by small companies such as the furniture industry. They are not well paid and often have to travel a long way to get to work. These people are, of course, all affected by the price hikes. Getting to work often takes great determination and costs them a fortune as well.

I would also like to point out that there are many inconsistencies in this bill, for instance concerning the efforts required under Kyoto. Nothing is being proposed to encourage the use of more economical cars, nor to encourage people to save energy on home heating, for instance getting off oil.

I would like to hear his comments on this.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. I dealt with that a bit in my speech.

The outlying areas of the country have been forgotten. This plan does not take into account people who use fuel more than others. If the member's rural area is anything like where I come from in rural Saskatchewan, people cannot get around with small vehicles. They need trucks to do their work. Farmers need trucks to do their work. Part of their basic ability to survive is using fuel in a more intensive way than someone living in an urban area who could walk to work or take a short drive to work.

I particularly appreciated his remarks about seasonal workers, which brings me to the point that there is often no overall tax relief for the working poor. People are going to fall through the gaps with this legislation. It is based on seniors GIS eligibility and someone getting the child tax credit rebate. The working poor, particularly in rural areas, are being hit with high costs. They are not getting any relief in income tax, in EI, or at the pump in a direct tax cut.

The hon. member also mentioned the fact that the government has no overall plan. There was no thinking. He referenced Kyoto and so forth and the fact that nothing seems to be getting done. That was the point of my speech. The government has no overall plan in anything it does. It has a firefighter mentality, but not a fire prevention mentality. When it sees a hot spot, it will put some water on it to take care of the problem. However, those members do not think about how to construct the house, so it does not burn down or how to make the house safe so it will not burn down. When the house is burning, the government will sprinkle some water on it and say the problem is fixed. It will not worry about it the next year or the year after that.

I appreciate my colleague's comments. The regions were forgotten, and there is no plan. I am completely in agreement with his comments.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I and members on this side of the House highly support the new deal for cities and are looking forward to seeing it come into play. Hopefully, as a result of Bill C-66, money will get out to the people who need it very quickly before winter sets in. Could my colleague please comment on the lack of credibility of this government when it says it will really deliver?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague essentially asked me to comment on the government's administrative competence. The government has no administrative competence. It is completely incompetent. It has made a mess of issues. We are seeing ad scam today. We see the gun registry. The list goes on.

Do I expect the government to be inefficient, wasteful and to do a very poor job of administrating the program? I most certainly do based upon past experience.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to express my support for this important bill. Bill C-66 represents what Canada is all about: a caring society that helps those who need help. We have a reputation for being a compassionate society and, I would venture to say, there is not a person in this chamber who is not proud of that reputation.

The government has a history of helping those in need. Sometimes it is people who are vulnerable and cannot help themselves. Other times it is those who just need a boost to help them get a footing so they can participate on an equal basis in our society. Either way, Canadians look to their government to develop good policy that will help their fellow citizens and the bill before us today is good policy.

All of us here today are affected by the recent increases in gas and energy prices. Bill C-66 provides direct assistance to those Canadians who are particularly concerned about these price increases: low income seniors and low income families with children.

My hon. colleague has outlined the details of the bill and his comments illustrate that the proposals in the bill would make a meaningful difference to those Canadians.

Today I would like to illustrate just how Bill C-66 fits into the bigger picture of what the government has done to help increase participation in Canadian society.

First, with respect to tax reduction, there is no doubt that we have a strong record. Every year, since balancing the budget almost 10 years ago, the government has reduced taxes to Canadians, the most significant of which was the $100 billion five year tax reduction plan introduced in 2000. The broad based tax relief provided by that plan benefited those who needed it most, in particular low income families with children.

Subsequent budgets completed the five year plan to further enhance the fairness, efficiency and competitiveness of our tax system. For example, building on the plan, the 2003 budget announced additional increases to the national child benefit supplement for low income families with children. The benefits from that budget will bring the maximum assistance for a first child to a projected level in 2007 that will be more than double that in 1996.

To provide tax relief to all taxpayers, particularly those with low and modest incomes, budget 2005 will increase progressively the basic personal amount so that by 2009 the amount of income that all Canadians may earn without paying federal income tax will increase to $10,000. Just to put that in context, compared to 2004, for example, that is an increase of almost $2,000 more that Canadians will be able to earn without having to pay tax. This change will provide more than $7 billion in tax relief over the next five years. When fully implemented in 2009, the measure will remove hundreds of thousands of low income taxpayers from the tax rolls, including almost a quarter of a million seniors.

Now I would like to address why we were able to produce this historic tax cut of $100 billion between 2000 and 2005.

Today is the day after Halloween when all of Canada's children enjoyed a good fright in the name of fun. However just over a decade ago we inherited a fiscal situation from the previous Conservative government that was truly frightening and was anything but fun.

At that time the unemployment rate stood at 11.2%. Our debt was at $563 billion, or 68% of our GDP. We were in a situation where international financial writers were writing us off and international investors were threatening to pack up their bags and leave. Today unemployment sits at 6.7%. Our debt to GDP ratio has dropped 30 percentage points to 38% of GDP, or $499 billion.

This government has been able to convert an economic downward spiral into a set of economic statistics that are the envy of the G-7. The finance minister has built on a fiscal foundation set by the right hon. Prime Minister, in his former capacity, a record of surpluses, growth, jobs, debt reduction and tax reductions. It is for that reason that we are able to provide in times of uncertainty.

When we were hit by an unforeseen set of circumstances and prices rose at the gas pumps we were able to react because our fiscal foundations are solid and we were able to react in substantive ways.

Perhaps I can address some of the parts that Bill C-66 encompasses. Under the energy cost benefit, a total of $565 million would be paid out to about 3.1 million low income families and seniors who would receive anywhere from $125 to $250 per household this winter. These payments would be a first down payment on further personal tax relief being introduced over the next five years.

In order to address the issue of energy efficiency, a total of $1.04 billion has been set aside to assist low income households as well as public institutions, such as hospitals and schools, with the cost of upgrading their dwellings and buildings to make them more energy efficient. This would include $500 million for 130,000 low income households that are eligible for up to $5,000 to help with the cost of heating system upgrades, window replacement and draught proofing; an additional $150 million for government houses retrofit incentives programs which would provide money for 250,000 more households; $185 million for those who install best in class energy efficient oil and gas furnaces, $150 per unit for those who heat with electricity, $250 per household; and an additional $210 million in retrofit incentives for public service institutions.

As well, we have addressed the issue of public transit infrastructure. For people who choose public transit there has to be better accessibility and service. Up to $800 million over the next two fiscal years would l be freed up for accelerated investments in urban transit.

I would like to more specifically address the issue of seniors. I mentioned earlier that Bill C-66 focuses on helping those Canadians who have difficulty coping with higher energy costs, which is why the bill would provide assistance to low income seniors who often are on fixed incomes. Support for our senior population, particular those with low incomes, has been one of the major success stories of government policy since the 1950s. At the same time, the government is facing new challenges resulting from the longer and more vigorous lives of our seniors.

To address the evolving needs of seniors, budget 2005 made significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors, from health care to income security programs, retirement savings, assistance for people with disabilities and for care givers and support for voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors.

For example, budget 2005 increased the maximum benefits of the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, for single seniors and for couples. Corresponding increases will also be extended to recipients of both the allowance and the allowance for survivor benefits. This increase will raise total GIS payments by almost $3 billion over the next five years, significantly exceeding the commitment of $1.5 billion over that period. A total of 1.6 million GIS recipients will benefit from this increase, including more than 50,000 seniors who will become eligible for benefits as a result of the change.

I would also note that the increase will be of particular benefit to senior women who account for over one million of the seniors receiving GIS benefits.

This government is committed to providing support for our senior population. With that in mind, budget 2005 also set aside a further $13 million over five years for a national seniors secretariat to be established within Social Development Canada. This will serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts to address the new challenges facing seniors. The secretariat will be tasked with working with senior organizations with a view to developing and coordinating government programs and services that matter to seniors.

During this unexpected gas hike there were many questions about whether refiners and gas station owners had taken advantage of the public during the most recent spike. To prevent profiteering and price gouging by these oligopolies during the sudden oil price swings, we established a new $15 million office of energy price information. This office will monitor energy price fluctuations and provide clear, current information to Canadians and to Parliament.

To act upon profiteering or gouging, another $13 million has been earmarked for the Department of Industry to take a number of steps to deter anti-competitive practices, including giving Canada's Competition Bureau more powers and strengthening the Competition Act.

Finally, in an earlier gas spike several months ago, the government earmarked the increases in gas tax proceeds toward a medical equipment fund. We should keep in mind that since the June budget the Liberal government is now transferring half of the gas tax to Canadian municipalities to help pay for public transit infrastructure. A case in point is the $24.45 million first installment received by the City of Toronto in September.

Canada's reputation for being a caring and compassionate society is well-known internationally and this government wants to ensure that we keep that well earned reputation. As I have outlined today, this government is taking numerous actions to help those in our society who need it most, in particular, low income seniors and low income families.

Bill C-66 takes concrete action by providing timely and direct relief to many of those least able to cope with rising energy costs. I urge all hon. members to accord the bill swift passage.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not question the sincerity of the hon. member at all but probably his naivety.

In light of the release of the Gomery report today, which showed that the Liberal government has presided over the worst fraud and scandal in Canadian history, how can the people, to whom this program is directed, have any sense of confidence at all that they will receive the money, especially given the fact that this is coming over a five year period? That is presuming that there will be that kind of commitment when in fact, as Mr. Justice Gomery has shown, the ability for the government to follow through on commitments of honesty is severely jeopardized.

Also, what specific audit program is in place because the last time a program like this was tossed out right around election time it was later found out that millions of dollars went to dead people and to people in jail? I realize the federal Liberals have a great propensity for those in jail. They even want serious repeat offenders to be out all the time so they can vote and campaign for the Liberals. They want them to have all kinds of freedoms and niceties but sending them a cheque while they are in jail getting warmed up at taxpayer expense was hardly a sound move.

Rather than just words, could the member identify the specific audit plans in place that will somehow prevent wasting millions of dollars again on a heating program? We are for this program if it works well. There are some things that we would propose to make it work better. We just want to make sure that prisoners and dead people do not get millions of dollars in cheques just as the federal Liberals got millions and millions of taxpayer dollars as evidenced by Justice Gomery again today.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised a number of issues, including the issue of naivety on my part. Perhaps he is confused by my earnest belief that we can actually do the right thing by passing Bill C-66. Passing Bill C-66 expeditiously will guarantee that seniors on fixed incomes will receive a supplement.

The last thing we want is for the bill to fail. Do we really want seniors to have to turn down the temperature in the middle of winter because they cannot afford the cost of heating? That is exactly what would happen should this bill not pass.

Do we really want mothers in low income families having to decide between paying for the heating costs or buying winter clothing for their children? Perhaps they would have to decide to buy the pants but not the socks and underwear so that people at school would not see whether or not they were wearing them. Do we want people to have to make those sorts of choices?

The choice we have here is to address the situation of fixed income Canadians, low income seniors, low income families being able to cover their energy costs.

The member opposite referred to the government's ability to send the cheques to those who really need the money. His worry is that people in prisons will receive it, et cetera. One of our roles is to learn from the mistakes of the past. We have a much better system in place to make sure that exactly that sort of situation does not arise.

The sooner we pass the bill, the sooner people can get the money. In fact, we have already started the work to make sure that the lists of recipients are accurate, to make sure that those who need it receive it.

The member opposite also asked how people can trust this government in view of the findings of Gomery?

I would like to remind the member opposite of who called for that inquiry. Whether it was the previous government or Prime Minister Mulroney's government, governments in the past have swept things under the carpet. The present Prime Minister showed courage by throwing the curtains wide open. He is the one who called the Gomery inquiry. Most Canadians will be pleased that the Gomery conclusions today unequivocally stated that this Prime Minister was in no way involved.

We have seen a break with the past. The current Prime Minister inherited a fiscal situation that had us on an economic downward spiral. The Prime Minister addressed a fiscal situation that was on the verge of collapse, and managed it to the point where today we are the envy of the G-7. When the Prime Minister saw that there was a situation of potential malfeasance, he addressed it directly. He called an inquiry. Notwithstanding the opposition's attacks, and initially there were attacks for having called for the inquiry and there were attacks on the cost of the inquiry, the Prime Minister stood firm because he felt it important that we get to the bottom of the issue. That is what has happened today.

I am proud as a new member to be part of a government that has done the right thing and to support a Prime Minister who did the right thing by calling the inquiry.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, permit me to doubt the fact that this government is really doing the right thing. While the rich oil companies are lining their pockets, the population is getting poorer.

They are trying to set up a program to help the disadvantaged of our society, but they forget the farmers, the students, and other single persons even more disadvantaged.

Meanwhile, the oil companies have increased their profits 157% over the last five years. That is the finding of a study done by the research chair of the Université du Québec à Montréal. We are talking here about Imperial Esso, Shell Canada and Petro-Canada. The study shows that Imperial, for example, has made $12.1 billion in profit and issued $12.5 billion to its shareholders. The intention of these oil companies is therefore to return as much money as possible to the shareholders and not to develop new refineries or take other measures to play a “more social” role in our society.

I would like to hear the hon. member on this subject: once again, it is the people, through their taxes, who will pay for these measures being put forward, while the oil companies, who are making all these profits, will be contributing very little to this bill.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for saying that Bill C-66, in his words, is doing the right thing. We look forward to the Bloc doing the right thing and supporting us on this bill.

I would like to differ a little with the member opposite when he spoke of profits. Sometimes there is the connotation that there is something wrong with profits. We want a healthy economy where companies make profits. We want a fiscal environment where companies can make profits because then they pay taxes and they hire more employees and we are able to provide for the very social programs that the member mentioned.

Once again, I would refer to our fiscal record, a record of growth, job creation, debt repayment and lower taxes. There is a real issue when it comes to the refiners and gas station chains. The last thing Canadians want is to be taken advantage of when an unforeseen set of circumstances arise and there is a potential for price gouging and excessive profits.

We understand that and we are addressing it. There are a number of initiatives that we have taken. There is a new $15 million office of energy price information to keep close tabs on what the refiners and gas station chains are doing and how they are reacting. There is also $13 million earmarked for the Department of Industry to take a number of steps to deter anti-competitive practices, including giving Canada's Competition Bureau more powers and strengthening the Competition Act.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to have this opportunity to say a few words on this important piece of public business. It certainly is something that is on the minds of a lot of Canadians across the country, no less than some of the folks in my own riding of Sault Ste. Marie where I had a town hall meeting two weeks ago. The leader of our party was there. They wanted him to be there because they know that Jack Layton and the 18 New Democrats--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

May I remind the hon. member that he is not to use the names of members, but rather their titles, please.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the correction is accepted.

The leader of our party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, came to Sault Ste. Marie. The people of Sault Ste. Marie know that if they want something done in this place, they talk to the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth and his 18 colleagues in this place because they know that we will get something done.

We were the only party whose members had their noses to the grindstone. We came here day after day in the spring of this year. When everything was falling down around us and other parties were looking to their own benefit, we came here to actually get something done, to pass a budget with $4.6 billion for spending on programs for people and communities across this country, some of which we now see showing up in Bill C-66.

Our caucus will support sending the bill to committee where we will have a chance to make some amendments and work with all of the parties to see if we can make the bill better. There are some things in the bill that will help a few people. It will not help the large majority of people who will need relief this winter from the cost of fuel for heating their homes, for driving their trucks and operating their machinery, to do their business, to participate in industry and to drive their vehicles to school or to pick up groceries. In particular in northern and rural Canada, people need fuel to live, to do the things they do on a daily basis.

There is some money for a very important group in our society, those at the very low end of the spectrum. Seniors who collect the GIS and poor families with children who collect the child tax benefit supplement will get money out of this. However, there are a whole host of others, low income, middle class, lower middle class, hard-working men and women who will not benefit one little bit from the bill. That is tragic.

The folks who came to our town hall meeting the other night in Sault Ste. Marie were the truckers, the farmers, the seniors, the small business people represented by the Chamber of Commerce, and the low income people in my riding. The union hall in Sault Ste. Marie was full.

The leader of our party and I listened to people as they told us of the impact of the horrendously high rise in the cost of fuel, particularly over the Labour Day weekend and what that did to their ability to make ends meet, their ability to participate in the economy, in the industry that we all know we need to be supporting if we are to have a good economy, jobs and a future in northern and rural Canada.

That night they said that government has to get tough with the industry. That is not what the bill is about. Yet again, the taxpayers, the men and women across this country, are subsidizing an industry that is actually doing quite well, thanks very much. It is making record profits these days as the price of fuel goes up. While people are hurting, it is taking advantage of natural disasters to pad its own bottom line, to pad its own profit margin and to do better than it has ever done before.

The oil industry knows about this contribution that will be made to some people. Money will be spent on retrofitting homes and buildings across the country. Money will be spent in other ways to help in this very difficult time when it comes to the cost of fuel. That money will come from general revenues in Ottawa, the tax base, to yet again subsidize an industry that really does not need to be subsidized. That industry needs to be challenged.

It needs to be met strength to strength, face to face, at a table where the government has the power to actually do something. The government must have the power to challenge it and make it do something, to at the very least have it justify the cost of fuel, the price that it is putting on fuel, or to do at the very least what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives did very quickly. It was not rocket science. It did not take forever and it did not cost a fortune.

The centre did a quick and dirty study to indicate, for example, that while the price of crude oil has gone up and the centre's calculations find a 7% to 9% per litre increase, which would have matched the crude oil price increase, the 15¢ increase that the industry put on the cost of fuel for us is profiteering, as far as the centre is concerned. The 40% increase that we were all paying over the Labour Day weekend was just plain gouging, according to the centre.

If an organization like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives can very quickly do that analysis, do the math and present the reality to us in that fashion, why can the government not do that? Why can it not challenge this industry and let it know that it is not acceptable to profiteer or to gouge in the market that we all support in this country today?

According to Hugh Mackenzie, who did this report, a reasonable price for gas in Ontario would be around 95¢ per litre. A 10¢ per litre difference may not sound like much, but every penny per litre generates an additional $2.5 million for the industry every day.

[An hon. member]

It is 84¢. He is saying 95¢.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Pardon me?