Debates of Sept. 26th, 2005

Gasoline Prices

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult question for the member which has not been asked yet. I think this is a very interesting question.

The Competition Bureau and the Conference Board through their many studies have shown that, up until this recent crisis, the surges in prices virtually followed crude oil prices exactly, so there was no collusion or attempts to fix prices.

In this last crisis crude oil prices did not change that much and there was still a dramatic increase that we had. I have two questions related to the price increase.

First, at the industry committee the member for Tobique—Mactaquac showed that 40¢ of the 50¢ increase was related to the refinery level, even though it did not cost any more to refine gas. Second, there were suggestions that speculation of coming shortages caused by hurricanes could have caused that. Can the member provide Canadians any insight in those two areas?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that refinery capacity is at an all time low and there are issues dealing with that. I suggest to the member that refining capacity has been and continues to be a major problem. I think that is admitted by everyone, including the oil companies. What are they doing about it is a different issue, but there clearly is that problem.

I would suggest that the member's initial premise is absolutely correct. That has in fact been the trend with regard to pricing and crude oil prices and until recently that has been the case.

Yes, there is a lot of speculation in the marketplace. Some were reporting that we would see gas at $2 and $3 a litre last weekend. In fact, it did not happen, but again, it may happen because of some hurricanes which may impact on the United States but not this country.

We need time to bring all of the parties together and suggest that we need to see decisive action, particularly in the area of monitoring. There must be an ability to assure Canadians that when prices go up in this particular industry which affects Canadians in every walk of life, that in fact oil companies can justify that increase and be accountable, and at the same time ensure they make a reasonable profit. I am sure nobody has a problem with that. What we have a problem with appears to be the issue of gouging.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to take part in this emergency debate on the hike of fuel prices. This issue is very important for me.

In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, we often say that we like to be in the headlines and to have our riding and region known all over the country for positive reasons. There is no doubt that during the past weeks, we were also known because of the fuel crisis. I will expand later on this aspect. It is very important for me to take these few moments to make sure the voice of the riding I represent is heard.

In fact, one can look at the situation at the level of gas, heating fuel or oil price. In the end, we are all affected directly or indirectly. We have to take this into account and make sure to make changes to improve the situation and the standard of living of our fellow citizens.

On the personal side, we are affected when we go to a service station or when we need heating fuel for our homes, like most people who live in rural areas. Winter will soon be here. Therefore, the situation could become a problem.

Companies will have to review their operations to continue their development and maintain their profitability. The not-for-profit organizations, like food banks and help centres for disadvantaged people, also have to face the consequences of rising gas prices.

In New Brunswick, my province, my neck of the woods, the economy depends mostly on the forestry sector; the situation affects all sawmill and logging operations. And let us not forget the trucking, transportation and tourism industries that have already been affected. If we do not look into this adequately, the tourism sector will take an even harder hit in the coming years.

The blockade instigated by truckers from my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and from other parts of the province was a warning, the beginning of an even more alarming crisis if we do not act quickly to stop the rise of gas prices.

As parliamentarians, we not only have the duty to act, we must also take part in debates like this one in order to find a solution, together. This is not about partisan politics. Our work goes well beyond that. That is why I was outraged this afternoon when I heard comments such as those from the deputy House leader of the opposition, who alluded to the Prime Minister's and other ministers' travels over the summer.

One can blame it all on the government or on somebody else, but sometimes the opposition must push matters further and realize that the summer barbecues of its leader did not succeed any better at solving the problems brought about by rising gas prices.

I will not make any other comments of this nature tonight, but I had to speak out against some of the comments I heard in the House this afternoon that were not well thought out.

I was at the truckers' blockade that took place in my riding in northwestern New Brunswick. I met the truckers in order to better understand their reality and to find solutions with them.

My colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac has also helped me a lot. As we know, my colleague also sits on the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. We have worked closely together to find a solution and to push the issue forward.

The hon. member and I will do our utmost to convene the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology to get answers to questions that we are frequently asked and to which Canadians deserve answers.

I am pleased to see that, as a result of work by my colleague and I, the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology resumed last week on September 22, even if the House had not yet done likewise.

We can understand the frustration felt by truckers, whose income depends in large part on the price of gasoline. Obviously, there are operating costs, fixed costs and equipment rental costs. It is increasingly expensive. However, these people must suffer through this and deliver goods that we need such as food, clothing or any other commodity we want.

As members of this Parliament, we must do much more than understanding the facts. Canadians are calling for action. Those who elected us are asking us to work to improve this situation.

One of my constituents shared his concern and dismay with me about the increase in the price of fuel. This winter, he will have to heat his home with fuel oil. He was just told that the monthly charge will be $185. Less than one year ago, it was $95 per month. We can imagine how this will affect the overall household income.

When we look at this, we think that, obviously, the government will collect more taxes. When cost jumps from $95 to $185, it reaches an entirely new level. The purchasing power, the economic power of these individuals, has been greatly reduced. Ultimately, the government will not be reaping the benefits with regard to taxes.

People on limited or fixed incomes, low-income earners and even the wealthiest members of society are affected. In short, each of us, as Canadians, is affected. People in rural regions, such as mine, are as affected, if not more.

Let us look at the situation. I know that certain of my colleagues have also talked about this. In the last few weeks and again today, in two areas—often in the same province—less than an hour's drive apart, there was a 9¢ difference in the price per litre of diesel. It is difficult for us to understand this, but it is even more difficult for our fellow citizens to understand why there is a 9¢ difference between the price they pay for diesel fuel at one location and another that is located only one hour's drive away in the same province and the same riding.

As a federal member of Parliament, it is much harder to represent a rural riding because there are greater problems to overcome. One of them is that we do not have access to public transit. We do not have buses to transport people. Our only means of transportation is our car. The only means of transportation by which the people of my riding can get their groceries and pay their bills is their car. The only means of transportation by which the people of my riding can go to work is their car. Driving a car costs a lot of money, but their wages are not raised accordingly.

We depend on energy, and we need to find more efficient solutions to offset this dependency in the very near future.

But before we even turn to more efficient solutions, more ecological solutions to counteract this phenomenon of increasing energy dependency on this continent, we need to find solutions to the present situation, in order to remedy the soaring gas and fuel costs.

In recent weeks, within a whole different context, I met with forestry industry leaders in my region. Most of them told me that one of the crises they are experiencing at the present time and will certainly have to overcome in the future is increasing energy costs. Obviously, diesel and gasoline are factors in that increase. There is another problem, however. When energy is produced from diesel or oil, this automatically increases the cost we have to pay for electricity.

This is a situation that requires realism. Producers and people in the forest industry must address it. They must counteract increasing energy costs by remaining competitive, not only regionally or nationally. When we want to do business today, the bulk of it involves exports, particularly in our small regions. So if we want to export, we absolutely must be competitive on the world level. That requires our businesses to have some tools.

When we examine the situation, we can certainly look here and there to find solutions, to put the finger on the problem and to describe the situation. Along with citizens in my riding, we have witnessed the profit margins that oil companies have taken in during the last weeks. This is unrealistic. What other industry in our country or even in the world can increase its profit margins for refining three, four or five times? To my knowledge, no other industry can do so.

If this industry has difficulty taking responsibility, we must, as parliamentarians, make it do so. It is certainly something on which I will work relentlessly. I will work to find solutions for the citizens in my riding.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of compassion for the people of Madawaska—Restigouche. New Brunswick, like Quebec, is going through very difficult situations. I have a little less compassion for the hon. member because he belongs to the same political party as the Minister of Transport, who, as recently as August 26, said there was no solution and there was nothing the federal government could do. In this House, over the past few hours, some solutions have been suggested including some that are not new, not even to the hon. member.

For five years, the Bloc Québécois has been asking to give more teeth to the Competition Act. This is just as important to New Brunswick, where the oil companies also own the trucking companies and compete with independent truckers by taking part of the refiner's margin to decrease the cost of gas for their own trucks. It is scary, but that is the situation.

We are dealing with a vast monopoly that goes beyond the refinery. Oil companies own the trucking companies and freely compete with our poor independent entrepreneurs. That is my question for the hon. member.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing a tax credit for independent truckers. We truly need to help this industry that is in the process of being eaten up by the major oil companies that have their own transportation industry. That is the reality. We are experiencing it here. They are experiencing it in Madawaska—Restigouche. I understand truckers and the public. Nonetheless, it is also time for their Liberal government to take decisions. We cannot wait for this to happen six months from now. Many independent truckers will lose their businesses.

I am asking the hon. member whether he agrees that a tax credit should be introduced quickly to help independent truckers.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on the government side we try to find solutions, of course. Whether we are talking about your regions or ours, in the end, those affected by the constant increase in oil prices are ourselves and our fellow citizens.

The hon. member proposed a solution or an option. No doubt that all options must be evaluated, but one must also examine the underlying factors. The tax issue has been raised. We just heard a suggestion for a tax credit.

A tax credit is obviously an interesting idea. However, we are in September and the taxpayer who files his or her income tax return in March will not get a penny before April. In fact, other tragic situations could happen before then.

No matter how we proceed, we must make sure that the measure we choose does not benefit only a small group or does not contribute to helping the oil companies maintain what I would call excessive profit margins.

Sure, we must help our fellow citizens, but we must take care not to allow an industry to get richer on the backs of the have-nots in the process. We must continue to work to find solutions, but they must be long-term solutions to make sure that our fellow citizens, the men and women of Canada, can face the challenge successfully and with meaningful solutions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from New Brunswick did find that 40¢ or 50¢ were refiner prices and that it was a large margin. I wonder if the member could tell me how that refiner margin works out over the entire cycle of a year.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that you will not give me a lot of time to answer this question.

Let us look at the refinery margins. When, over an annual cycle, there is a normal margin, no one will say anything. After all, we are in a free enterprise economy. Everyone can start their own small business and hope to make some money and profits.

If one looks at margins on an annual basis and finds that they are normal, nobody will have a problem with that. But when the refinery margins increase by 30¢ or 40¢ in very little time, that is where the problem is. It is not when the margins are calculated on an annual basis.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue on behalf of my constituents of Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam.

As the transport critic for the official opposition, I rise to call on the Liberal government to take action on the rapidly increasing price of fuel for Canadians.

I am a bit distressed by some of the comments that I have heard tonight by my Liberal colleagues opposite. Some of them have suggested that the government has no plan at all, that they hope that the continued Liberal inaction will help wean Canadians off of petroleum and off of this issue. For example, the Minister of the Environment said that high gas prices are not necessarily a bad thing and that in fact they are “actually good for Canada in the medium and the long term”. He is on the record as advocating greater use of both bicycles and public transit.

I agree with both these latter initiatives. The Leader of the Conservative Party is a very strong advocate of public transit. On August 4 of this year he announced our party's plan to allow commuters to deduct the cost of their monthly transit passes from their income taxes as part of a made in Canada clean air policy that would promote increased transit ridership and result in reduced traffic congestion, smog and greenhouse gases.

The Liberals have not yet adopted a similar position. They are more interested in taxing Canadians than in giving them real incentives to take public transit.

However, Canada is not a nation that can last simply on public transit such as Hong Kong where an excellent urban transit system and greater use of bicycles are a clear solution to rising oil prices. Instead, we are a country that spans an entire continent encompassing a full seven time zones. Our territory is slightly greater than that of China and our population is roughly twice that of the Netherlands. Many Canadians do not know this but Canada is more than twice the size as the Roman Empire was at its peak in size.

We are a relatively small population spread out over a vast land. For example, the distance between Ottawa and my riding of Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam is greater than the distance between Toronto and Mexico City. Halifax is closer to Europe than it is to Vancouver.

The need to facilitate interprovincial trade is essential to both our economy and to our identity as Canadians. Thus on February 25, 2003 when the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. David Collenette, tabled “Straight Ahead: A Vision for Transportation in Canada”, he highlighted the need for efficient movement of people and goods to support economic prosperity and a sustainable quality of life based on competitive markets and targeted use of regulatory and spending interventions. Let me repeat that. Two and a half years ago the then Liberal Minister of Transport saw the efficient movement of goods and people as central to our economic prosperity and quality of life.

When former transport minister Collenette made his statement, 100% of the means of transportation between our cities and regions and provinces was dependent on hydrocarbons. In fact, when he proposed a high speed train for the Montreal-Toronto corridor, the technology he proposed would have required fossil fuels. Nothing has changed. Despite a dozen years of Liberal talk we have seen no concrete actions by the government that would significantly reduce our reliance on hydrocarbons.

When the Minister of the Environment approves of higher gas prices, he is turning his back on the efficient movement of people and goods and supporting the type of inflation that threatens the very economic prosperity and quality of life that the former transport minister claimed the government supported.

Already StatsCanada is reporting the impact of high gas prices on the economy. It stated that in August “consumer prices rose 2.6% compared with those of a year earlier mainly because gasoline soared by 20.1%”. On September 22, Ted Carmichael, chief economist at JP Morgan Securities Canada, predicted that Canada's inflation rate could reach 3.5% or 4% in the next couple of months as a result of spiralling gas prices. In fact, even as far back as June of this year when the Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed its 100,000 members, fully 78% of its members cited rising energy prices as their top concern.

That is hardly a surprise because Canada's business leaders are always ahead of governments and they truly understand the links between fuel prices and distribution costs. They know that rising fuel prices are reflected in the price of fresh fruit, merchandise and household items. They are aware that fuel costs are a component of almost everything we buy and everything we sell. In fact, already representatives of the Canadian Trucking Alliance have been quoted as saying that a 25% fuel charge is currently being applied to most truck shipments and this will undoubtedly be reflected in the price of most consumer and business items.

Last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that soaring energy prices are squeezing most small businesses and pushing one in five into the red. Small and medium size businesses are the engine of our economy, so if high energy prices are negatively affecting small businesses right across Canada, the government should listen.

In British Columbia, Laura Jones, CFIB's Vancouver based vice-president, said that the vast majority of small businesses, more than 95%, have fewer than 50 employees. Eleven per cent of B.C.'s small businesses report that they are actually losing money directly due to fuel prices, and a whopping 68% have reported significantly lower profits.

Predictably, the most vulnerable small businesses are in the transportation sector where 32% of operators say they are losing money. That means that one in three transport companies are losing money because of high fuel prices. Already Air Canada and WestJet have introduced fuel surcharges and contemplated other strategies such as reducing baggage allowance and carrying fewer pillows and blankets on domestic flights.

However, the two transportation sectors that are getting savaged the most are taxis and independent truckers. Both are in situations where they are not easily able to pass on higher costs to their customers. For example, in most cities taxi authorities want to ensure that taxis can carry passengers large and small, as well as families and those with mobility challenges. It is not uncommon for them to require a taxi operator to drive a full size car, such as a Chevy Caprice or a Ford Crown Victoria. Neither of these is easy on gas, but cabbies are generally not allowed to drive Toyota Echos and Daimler Smart Cars by law.

As a result, rising fuel bills are really hurting taxi drivers. Cabbies are caught between a rock and a hard place, the rock being rising fuel prices and the hard place being local requirements and metered fares. The result has been taxi driver demonstrations and desperate and unheard pleas for the government to listen and to take action.

Independent truckers are in a similar spot, caught between rising fuel prices and low freight rates. The results here included a 47 day blockage of the entry to the port of Vancouver by 1,200 members of the Vancouver Container Truckers Association in July and August, and an 11 site, 500 truck demonstration that blocked New Brunswick highways 2, 11 and 17 for three days in early September. A more attentive government would have noticed that fuel prices were a central issue of both protests, but the Liberals are not known for listening.

Given that taxes make up roughly 40% of the pump price of gasoline, one would think that the government has ample room to take action. However, there is no political will to do so. In fact the member for Ajax--Pickering actually said, “The worst thing we could do is slash what little we collect because then we're not working toward any kind of solution”. I suspect that his kind of little amount is quite different from mine.

Budget estimates pegged total fuel revenues from the 10¢ a litre excise tax at $4.68 billion this year. In addition, last year the federal government collected $1.198 billion in gasoline GST revenues. That is roughly $7 billion, or about 3.7% of total federal revenues. Last year's GST revenues of roughly $1.2 billion were based on an average pump price of roughly 84¢ for the period May 2004 to April 2005. For every 10¢ per litre increase in fuel, Ottawa's GST revenues increase by $175 million a year. According to M.J. Ervin Associates the Canadian average pump price on September 13, the last date for which they have a Canadian average price, was $1.099 per litre.

If the May 2004 to April 2005 average was 84¢, and if the current price stays at $1.10 a litre, the Liberal government will bring in an extra $455 million in GST revenue this year, or roughly $14.15 from every man, woman and child in the country. That is $455 million that was not in the budget and was not expected for current expenditures. It is money that comes from a tax on a tax. More important, it is money the Liberals want to put into their election slush fund.

Soon Canadians will hear of home heating fuel rebates and similar ill-conceived plans from the Liberals that did not work before and will not work again if these Liberals are to manage them. Canadians do not just want a break on heating bills, they want a break on the price of lettuce, taxi fares, appliances, fast food, and children's clothes. Unless fuel prices drop, all of these items will increase in price because they are all carried by truck.

I call on the government to take action today against rising fuel prices, or during the next election Canadians will be asked to choose between a Conservative government that understands Canada's transportation needs and a Liberal government that has no plan, no agenda, but pockets full of disposable taxpayers' dollars that it does not need.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the member did not include in his calculations the point that the GST may not go up at all as income to Canada. He did not include the calculation that people have less disposable income to spend on other things so the government loses GST there. There are pensions and GST rebates that are indexed and it will lose GST there. There is less gas purchased when prices are up, so the government loses GST. There is not necessarily an increase to the government in taxes.

My second point is that earlier in the evening, and the member may not have heard this, it was outlined how the attempts to reduce excise taxes in other jurisdictions did not work. This did not get passed on to the consumer. We are looking for a solution that will be passed on, especially to low income people. As imperfect as the last solution was, I think everyone agreed that it was far better that a vast majority of low income people got it even though a few people should not have.

My question to the member is related to the tax regime for the Canadian petroleum industry. Earlier in the evening an NDP member suggested that because the government had reduced taxes to the industry from 28% to 21%, that was not good. I would like to ask the member about this. If the tax regime that the petroleum industry in Canada is in now is competitive with the rest of the world and creates, as was said earlier in the evening, several hundred thousand jobs in Canada, should Canada not have competitive tax rates such as that reduction and the tax regime that the petro Canada industry is now working in so Canada could compete with the rest of the world and keep those jobs in the industry?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should have competitive tax rates. Tax rates would be more competitive if this Liberal member and this Liberal government had not gotten into bed with the NDP to nix the tax relief that was offered in the first Liberal budget this spring. We should have a competitive economy and competitive tax rates, but we are not there yet.

There were three points that the member made in his preamble. His first point was that GST collected on fuel taxes will not necessarily mean savings for citizens, because if citizens are not paying that GST tax by purchasing fuel, then they will pay that GST if they are purchasing groceries, clothing, books or whatever, and that money would still flow back to the government.

That is a pretty weak argument. In fact, it is a profoundly weak argument, because what the member is missing is the very idea of choice. Citizens should have more choice in how they want to live their lives.

The reason I am a Conservative is that I believe in lower taxes, less government and more freedom. I believe in personal responsibility and empowering citizens to make choices about how they want to live their lives. Everything should not be governed by what impact it will have on a Liberal government and its ability to have a certain amount of money to spend.

What it should be about, and what we should be trying to do here, is setting up an efficient economic system so that citizens have more choice in how they want to live their lives. They should not be saddled by excessive GST on fuel because that money would just be collected elsewhere. Citizens should have choice as to whether or not they want to purchase fuel or purchase something else and not be hammered down by the cost of heavy taxes.

The second point the member made was about the issue of tax relief on fuel not being passed on to consumers in times past, the argument being that if we cut taxes on fuel, the oil companies will just come in and consume the tax room because the presumption is that the market sets the price of fuel relative to what the taxes are. The truth is that this is not entirely true. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made that the centrepoint of his whole presentation here this evening and it is not true. It has been true in circumstances, but it is not a universal truth.

There are certainly circumstances where taxes have been lowered and consumers have seen that benefit. That is what needs to take place. If we drive around almost any city in this country, we will realize that at one gas station, gas is $1.06 per litre, and if we drive three blocks, it is $1.17 per litre, and if we go somewhere else, it is $1.04 per litre, all in the same day. That is because there is competition. It has never been proven in the last 15 years that there is some kind of collusion between the gas companies. There is competition, and if the government lowers the taxes it will be reflected in the price at the pumps.

The third point the member made is that the government said it does want to do something with the home heating situation that will arise this coming winter and that even though the government made some mistakes in the past it was not all bad and we should try it again. The government did not just make some mistakes in the past; it was a horrendous failure. Over $1 billion went to people who did not need home heating rebates. Prisoners got it. People who were dead got it. Students in university, who do not pay for home heating fuel, got it. One out of every three cheques went to people who did not need it. It was a huge waste on the treasury. That tax relief could have gone somewhere else or that investment could have been used by the government on something else.

I received a home heating rebate cheque. Every member of Parliament in this place earns $144,000 a year. I do not hear any members of the House complaining about their salaries, but the government so pathetically botched that home heating rebate that I as a member of Parliament personally received a home heating rebate cheque. If the member thinks his government's scheme for home heating rebates is a good plan and wants to revisit that this fall and this coming winter as a solution to the high cost of fuel, the member is sadly mistaken and clearly has not learned the lessons of the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam outlined so succinctly the kinds of challenges Canadians are facing today due to the high cost of rising gas prices on a daily basis.

Listening to the debate tonight, this should have been put forward by the government months ago because it did not happen overnight. The gas prices have spiked frequently over the past 18 months. Prior to that, a government in the know would have understood that problems would occur and a strategic plan should have been put in place.

Tonight, as we talk about changes to the Competition Act and the need for action and as we listen to the debate and the answers that have been put forward by members opposite, clearly it is a pathetic display, in my opinion and in the opinion of my constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, of how the government governs. The government has absolutely no plan. The government generates $32 million per year every time one litre of gas goes up one cent. That is an awful lot of revenue.

The government has bragged about a great surplus of money in the bank. However, we see people in health care waiting lines, waiting for treatments or for tests. Seniors have to pay exorbitant prices for medicines. Crime is on the rise across Canada. My city of Winnipeg has its fair share of major crimes, but we do not have the police resources to hold it down. Yet we have a federal government that deals with every issue, including the gas price crisis, with a laissez-faire response such as, “We'll all get together, have an all party meeting to come up with some sort of solution sometime in the future, somewhere, and it will help somebody”.

We have seen a myriad of examples, on which the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam just expanded. We have seen a myriad of problems with some of the half-baked schemes that the government has come up with. Right now we are talking about a country that is financially under duress. Our country is overtaxed. Our country is meeting challenges on a daily basis with a government that is making irresponsible choices. We have a copyright bill, Bill C-60, in which the government forgot to place an educational amendment. Now schools will have to pay for the price of downloading materials that are free every where outside the school. It does not matter whether it is gas prices, or legislation, it is clear that the government has no plan and the action that it has taken is slow and tardy. We have example after example where people are suffering because of the fuel situation.

Let us go back to the school situation. Bill C-60 neglects to have an educational amendment was not put into Bill C-60. School buses use fuel to get around and we have an added tax on the school systems in Canada.

The rise in gas prices impacts people. Before I came here for this debate I was talking with a young woman in my hotel. She said that her husband did not pick her up at work any more because gas was so expensive. She now takes a bus. She said that she was a little afraid of walking at night in some areas. She is very nervous because she works the night shift.

Government has to look at the well-being of all Canadians. Government has to be able to predict the future. It has to look at the signs and see what is going on in the economic engine of our country.

Everyday Canadians feed their families, go to school, try to have some recreation time, a quality of life and to build a foundation where they can be comfortable. We need a government in place that takes all this very seriously. We must have a government that is able to plan and put programs in place that assess and meet the needs of Canadians across our country.

I will not repeat what the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam said. He very eloquently outlined most of the businesses that had been impacted as a result of the rising fuel prices. The member outlined some of the reasonable arguments as to why Canadians could not wait. The solutions have to come now.

We have in place a government that is not ready to bring forth those solutions. As I have listened to the debate tonight, the government is obviously throwing out policy on the fly. The member from this side of the House pointed out a little earlier that it is very piecemeal.

This became quite clear when I drove down one of the main thoroughfares in my constituency and saw lineups of cars at the gas stations at midnight when there was a threat of hurricane Rita impacting the coast of America. The motorists were afraid that the environmental threat would cause gas prices to go up.

There should have been leadership in the House of Commons from the Prime Minister and from the government, explaining and reassuring Canadians of what could happen. When people have a fear of filling their gas tank in order to safely get to and from work, there should be a solution. Canadians should not fear the fact that they might have to cut the grocery bill because they cannot afford to pay for gas.

To be quite frank, Canadians do not really care a whole lot about excuses. What people care about are solutions. Here in the House the confidence of the Canadian people in the government is being undermined because of the lack of action and strategic planning and because of comments that high gas prices are good for Canada.

I challenge the members opposite to find one Canadian who believes that statement to be true. I am calling the government to action, to put a plan in place that will meet the fuel and heating challenges that Canadians are facing this winter.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague in the Conservative Party will first refer to the plan proposed by her party, which is, obviously, to lower the gas tax. I am open to this situation and to this solution. The numbers which have been bandied about, among others by her colleague from Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, mention $14.5 per capita. This corresponds to the monies the government would be collecting this year compared with what it collected last year from the GST, that is to say somewhere between $400 and $450 million in extra revenues. One cent brings in $400 million. Thus, it can be argued that we can hope for a one-cent reduction in the gasoline tax. I can concur with that.

However, my other problem has to do with the fact that the government is collecting an extra $450 million, whereas the oil industry will be collecting $2 billion dollars. That does constitute a concern for me, as it is hard to make out the position of Conservative members.

Here is my question for the member: does she acknowledge that it is possible to tackle the problem of the mind-boggling profits raked in by the oil companies, which use crude oil prices in such a way as to be in a position to grab extra profits at the refining level?

During the past 30 days, the average in refining profits was 26.1¢ a litre, while from 1999 to 2003, the average was 7.5¢ a litre. During the past 30 days, oil companies pocketed $800 million in net profits. Will my colleague agree with me that it is time to put an end to this, to discipline the industry, to give powers to the Competition Act, and to create the monitoring agency so that the industry will no longer use the increase in crude oil, for all kinds of international reasons, to try to make additional profits that must go to shareholders every three months?

I hope that my colleague understands the position in which we find ourselves. We are willing to support the Conservative Party for a reduction of the tax. However, we must also deal with these huge profits, because, during the past 30 days, oil companies took between 20¢ and 35¢ a litre every day in refining profits. Apart from the one cent that we will be able to give back as a reduction, we could have allowed our citizens to save between 20¢ and 35¢ during the past 30 days. WIll my colleague agree with me that we must discipline the industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight, as we are debating this issue, there are changes to the Competition Act and other issues that need to be looked at but the fact is that we have a government that is in surplus. It is collecting copious amounts of taxes and has promised gas tax benefits to municipalities across the country. Some municipalities have not received what they feel is their fair share of that money at all. We are talking about infrastructure money and about building communities.

When we talk about the rising gas prices right now, this is fully on the shoulders of the government that is in power at this time. We have made suggestions on this side of the House about the gas tax. I fully support what we are talking about because it would have a direct benefit to Canadians at the gas pumps.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Canadians assume that the increases in gas prices result in windfall billions for provincial and federal governments. There should be no windfall to any other order of government or business at the expense of Canadians. There is much value in this debate, but one fact is clear: gas guzzler sales have not diminished and some dealers are actually reporting increased SUV sales over the past month. I am prepared to deal fairly with the oil companies but another fact stands. They have been less than open in explaining their record profits while moaning about the world situation.

The Canadian Tourism Association had produced a document confirming that tourism from the south has dropped by 30% over the past four years. If we are going to restore discretionary tourism from vehicular traffic in the United States, then certainly high gas prices will not help.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River and the surrounding ridings throughout northern Ontario, which have already been devastated by high electricity costs for the forest industry, the additional cost of fuel is further pressuring the competitiveness of the truckers who supply the products to the mills and then back to markets.

Canadians expect Parliament to react but also to lead by challenging big oil companies to fully rationalize their pricing. It is difficult to overcome the cynicism that the recent, rapid rises have generated. Parliament has to produce a plan that shows we are not simply subject to whimsical pricing by multinational corporations who care little for the people dependent on their products. Any relief we can provide will not only be appreciated by Canadians, but by those who visit and work in our country.

I am proposing a national task force into gas prices composed of members of all parties. This could spark the type of answers Canadians need. All suggestions heard tonight would be objectively weighed and considered. As it would be objective, it would hopefully set a tone, so that we may face the future with some measure of confidence.

If the Competition Bureau cannot prove collusion, then it should at the very least determine if the current skyrocketing pricing is anti-competitive and therefore unethical behaviour. If indeed the provincial governments can freeze gas prices tomorrow, then we should encourage them to do so, this from the federal government. The national government has to lead on this issue.

My experience over the past number of years as mayor in starting a local task force on gas prices and combining different people had some very interesting results. The most conclusive was that we were unable to obtain from any of the national oil companies in Canada a definitive reason as to why prices fluctuate so widely. Why do they rise rapidly on Friday morning? Why do they slowly come down on Tuesday? And why does this happen in different areas of the country irrespective of the transportation costs which are actually quite marginal?

I believe that, with my fellow member, the points that we will make tonight will be considered and I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak for northern Ontario.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for my Liberal colleague who just spoke.

My colleague is proposing the creation of a task force comprising members of all political parties. There is already an all-party committee on industry. Five years ago, this committee wanted to amend the Competition Act to strengthen it and authorize disciplining industries such as the oil and gas sector. The government refused.

I really want to talk about this. In 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology proposed implementing a petroleum monitoring agency, but it is still not in place. We can strike another committee, but how much longer will this government wait before reining in this industry?

In the meantime, over the past 30 days, the oil companies have pocketed $800 million in profits at the refinery stage. Their standard margins have generated this surplus. They took advantage of all kinds of international events, hurricanes and other things, to fill their pockets.

My colleague is quite right. In addition to this, over the Labour Day weekend, we saw profits at the refinery stage of 46.4¢ per litre on September 2, and of 39.3¢ per litre for three days, September 3, 4 and 5. That is why I am saying that, over the past 30 days, they have pocketed over $800 million more in profits compared to last year.

I am asking my colleague how much more time the Liberal Party will need before reining in this industry, strengthening the Competition Act through amendments and creating a petroleum monitoring agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians have been asking this minority Parliament to work together. I would think that a task force such as this composed of members of all parties incorporating all the very valid suggestions that were made tonight would be a true example of that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for splitting his time with me. I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of my electors who are deeply preoccupied by the fluctuating and rising price of gasoline and who are indeed angered by this phenomenon. I share their frustration as a motorist and as their representative.

As elected officials, we have a duty to propose responsible, reasonable and rational solutions to the problems that we confront here in the House on behalf of the citizens of Canada. I have noticed essentially two proposals from the opposition parties. One would create an office to monitor and study the price of gasoline and the margins at retail, at wholesale, and at the refinery level.

This idea has been promoted by my colleagues on the right in the NDP and by my colleagues on the opposite side from the Bloc Québécois. I accept this idea. It would be a very good thing to analyze regularly and with some rigour what is going on in the oil markets. I believe that information is power and with that information Canadians and their government could put pressure on oil companies and call them to task. I support that idea, whether it has to be a separate bureaucracy with all the added expense associated with it or whether it could be something created within the Competition Bureau. I am rather agnostic on that point.

The other solution that has been advanced is one which I do not believe to be the right solution. It has been advanced by my colleagues in the Conservative Party. They believe that we should reduce the GST on gasoline. I do not believe that this reduction would be passed on to consumers. It has failed in the United States where it has been tried, more specifically in Indiana and Illinois. It has not worked in New Brunswick. It is a very weak measure and just window dressing by a party that is not interested in reforming the structure of the oil industry in North America.

Indeed, it is a very difficult thing to do. Rather than propose a quick fix and ineffective solution, we need something at the federal level that will be more meaningful to Canadians. As a result, I would personally, on behalf of my constituents, favour a generalized cut to income taxes to compensate consumers for the added costs of gasoline in these very tumultuous times.

Similarly, I would support a direct rebate. I know this measure has been tried before, but I believe that if it is possible to work something out that is administratively sound, then I would support that as well.

In conclusion, the oil industry has a North American market. Reducing the GST on gasoline and creating some kind of price gap between the United States and Canada would simply result in Americans crossing the border and absorbing the supplies of gasoline in Canada that would and should otherwise be available to Canadian consumers.

Again, we need to focus on increasing the productivity of our economy. We need to focus on a tax system that is competitive. Lowering income taxes and/or providing a rebate directly to consumers would be the best way to go in this matter.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being midnight, I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, September 26.

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)