Debates of May 8th, 2007

Opposition motion—Gasoline Prices

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding are asking themselves some serious questions. A year ago, a barrel of oil was worth $73, and gas sold for $1.06 at the pump in Quebec. Today, gas sells for $1.15, while the price of a barrel of oil is much lower, at $61. If a barrel was worth $73 a year ago, how is it that a year later, when it is $61 a barrel, we are paying more for a litre of gas? The difference lies in the refining margin. While a reasonable refining margin is 4¢ to 7¢ a litre, last March and April it was over 15¢ a litre. As well, it climbed to 23¢ a litre last week, four times the reasonable margin.

There are four factors that can explain the rise in gas prices: the price of crude oil, the refining margin, taxes and the retail margin. The latter varies from 3.5¢ to 6¢ a litre, depending on the region. Apart from that, the retail margin is stable.

Some will say that this is because of taxes, but taxes are also stable: the excise tax is 10% and the GST is 6.5%. The same is true at the provincial level. Taxes are not what make oil prices fluctuate.

Refining, on the other hand, is a different story. To reduce their costs, the oil companies have closed a number of refineries, and as a result have been able to increase their production capacity. The gap between supply and demand has narrowed, and so the slightest weather-related or technical problem leads to a price increase to maintain the balance between those two factors.

As my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, long weekends and vacations are not unforeseen events. And yet the oil companies do not seem to be able to prepare for them. One would think they were unaware that such events will occur and the price will fluctuate. And yet every year, and every time there is a vacation period or statutory holiday, we see their prices go up.

Can we imagine a small businessperson failing to keep any inventory in the lead-up to Christmas, and then claiming scarcity to raise prices? He or she could do just that; that is what we are experiencing, and yet it is the oil companies doing it. Because they sell an essential product and there is little competition, they make off with it all, while we depend on them.

We can conclude that the inability of the refining industry to overcome the slightest hitch is responsible for recent increases. Is that situation intentional or not? We do not know, because the Competition Bureau does not have the tools that would enable it to carry out a serious, complete investigation; and that is the reason for our motion today.

One thing is certain, however: the structure of the oil industry encourages precipitous price increases and provides the opportunity for abuse. That is why it must be monitored. In Halifax, Esso refines for all the companies; in New Brunswick, it is Irving; in Quebec City, it is Ultramar; and in Montreal, it is Petro-Canada and Shell. The refineries have all cut their gasoline supplies, and in so doing have caused the price to climb about a month earlier than usual.

However, the oil industry is making huge profits. Some may say that the oil companies are not making money, but let us look at the profits they are making. Petro-Canada made a net profit of $590 billion in the first quarter, which is twice as much as the $206 billion it posted last year. It doubled its profits in a year. ExxonMobil took in an enormous net profit of $9.3 billion for the first three months of 2007 alone, which is a 10% increase over the same period last year. However, its sales were down 2% because the market price of oil went down. As I was saying earlier, the price per barrel of oil went from $73 to $61.

How was ExxonMobil able to exceed the record profit of $39.5 billion it posted in 2006? Thanks, in large part, to its refining margin which increased substantially. If the price per barrel of oil goes down, the oil companies lose a bit of money. They then increase the refining price in order to more than compensate for any loss.

The gas crises may be a result of lack of competition in the oil industry. The three largest refiner-marketers have 75% of the market share. The five largest represent 90% of the market. The net profits combined of the six major integrated oil companies in Canada, Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, Husky Energy, Petro-Canada, EnCana and Suncor, reached $12 billion in 2006. In three years, they doubled their profits. It is incredible. The net profits of the entire oil industry have gone from $17 billion in 2003 to $20 billion in 2004 and $35 billion in 2006. That is a 100% increase. After all that, they complain when we want to take back a bit of that money. Give me a break!

Furthermore, the oil companies that are investing in tar sands development in Alberta—the representative of the governing party and especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry were wondering about that—can deduct 100% of their investments from their income from the first year onwards. They can invest a dollar and deduct it the same year. It does not cost them much; things are going all right for them; life is beautiful.

A recent study prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers did a three-year projection of the impact of all the tax breaks given to oil companies. I am talking about breaks, but we could call them gifts. In 2005 they paid $5.1 billion in taxes; in 2008 they will pay $2.3 billion. The income tax they pay has been cut in half. These are tax breaks from this government. We have to get our feet back on the ground. This is a federal income tax reduction of 54%. I would like all the citizens of Quebec to receive such tax reductions, not just the oil companies. The Bloc Québécois has often criticized these tax breaks for oil companies, but no one has made a move. It is time to do so now.

There are proposed measures for disciplining the industry. First of all the Competition Act must be strengthened. I am going to target the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry again. Because he misunderstood, I am going to explain to him so that he understands. The Competition Bureau cannot conduct an investigation on its own initiative; it must receive a complaint or a request from the Minister of Industry, who will doubtless be asleep again, since has been asleep at the switch all this time.

The Competition Bureau is sorely lacking in powers when it conducts a general review of the industry: it cannot summon witnesses. How can it operate? The bureau cannot even summon people as witnesses to find out whether there is any collusion. That is not right. It cannot ensure their protection so as to get them to talk. They cannot even be summoned, they cannot even be protected so that they will tell the truth. And then we are told that the Competition Bureau can do its work. Somebody should wake up. There is something missing here.

Without these tools, it is almost impossible to prove collusion or any other anti-competitive practices. And even when competitors reach an agreement, the burden of proving collusion is on the Competition Bureau. Imagine that! This is a long way from burden of proof reversal. But that is what is being asked for.

We must reinforce the Competition Act by giving real powers to the Competition Bureau.

Near the end of its mandate, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-66, which was for the most part inspired by a comprehensive plan tabled one month earlier. That bill died on the order paper. Why? Because, once again, the Conservatives did nothing.

When Konrad von Finckenstein, the competition commissioner, appeared in front of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on May 5, 2003, he identified the following shortcomings in the Competition Act:

—while the bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study.

It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a study on the overall situation carried out by an independent body that would have authority, that would be able to summon witnesses and gather information. It should also have the power to protect confidential information that someone is not necessarily going to want to share, but which would be vital in order to reach a conclusion based on the real facts.

Hence, the motion from the Bloc:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the Competition Bureau can initiate its own inquiries. Last year it initiated over 75 cases. In the price-fixing case last year on fine paper it prosecuted successfully for $32 million.

The member stands and feigns outrage as if the Bloc Québécois wants to keep gas prices down for the people of Quebec and Canada. The Bloc's environmental platform is to increase the price of gasoline by least 60¢ per litre, which means that today Canadians would be paying between $1.60 and $2 per litre for gasoline.

The Bloc's platform says that it would increase corporate income taxes paid by oil companies by $500 million. We know this. That is what the Bloc Québécois stands for. Who would pay for that? The consumers would be the ones paying for these expensive policies of the Bloc Québécois.

I have been trying to get the Bloc to come clean and let the people of Quebec and all Canadians know where that party actually stands on gas prices.

We know that the leader of the Liberal Party is on the record saying that high gas prices are actually good for Canada in the medium and long term. We know that the Bloc Québécois has an environmental program that will increase the price of gasoline per litre. We know that in the Bloc's platform it wants to increase levies on oil companies by a half a billion dollars.

Will the member do the right thing and stand up and tell us whether he agrees with the leader of the Liberal Party on higher gas prices for Canadians, or will he just stand there and pretend that he is fighting for the consumers of Canada?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still playing the fearmongering game. They say, “If we do that, prices will go up and, again, it will be the consumers who will have to pay”. This is just fearmongering to protect oil companies. The member says that the Competition Bureau has all the powers. That is strange. I will remind him of what the then competition commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on May 5, 2003. Here is what he said about the flaws he saw in the Competition Act. I am not inventing this. It did not come out of nowhere. He appeared before the committee and said:

—while the bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study.

Is this clear enough? I am not inventing this. That is what the competition commissioner said when he appeared before the committee. He further said:

It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a study on the overall situation carried out by an independent body that would have authority, that would be able to summon witnesses and gather information. It should also have the power to protect confidential information that someone is not necessarily going to want to share, but which would be vital in order to reach a conclusion based on the real facts.

It seems pretty clear to me. I think the witness who told us that is very credible. He knows what he is talking about. And yet the member just told us that the Competition Bureau has all the powers. I do not believe this is the case. It is lacking certain powers. The motion is aimed at correcting that so it has more powers to shed some light on what is going on with the price of gas.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that the Competition Bureau has the authority to do all these investigations and yet when many of the regions and small communities in Canada have made overtures when they have seen the huge price differentials between the outlying regions and the large centres, the Competition Bureau simply pays lip service. It comes back saying that there is no collusion and that there has not been any gouging. However, people who live in areas such as northwestern Ontario, and I am sure your own region, can see it very vividly every day.

In support of the motion, I am asking you if you have any record of any effective work done by the Competition Bureau that has actually achieved some exposure of this gouging?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, when addressing the House, should refer to a member in the third person through the Speaker.

There are 12 seconds remaining for the answer.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau is indeed doing a very good job with the tools it has right now. It is unable to determine if there has been a collusion. By giving more tools to the Competition Bureau—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Industry.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion from the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will share my time with the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I am well aware of the concerns about the price of gasoline expressed by Canadians, Quebecers and the people of Beauce. Canadians work hard to earn a living. They work hard to have a healthy economy. The high price of gasoline is a financial pressure felt by all Canadians.

People must know that the price of gasoline is determined by the market, by the free market, and as far as we can see, the price of gasoline reflects at this time the changes in market conditions such as the increase in the price of a barrel, but mostly the low reserves in North America.

The increase in the demand combined with supply problems—yes, there are indeed supply problems—due to the maintenance of some North American refineries and even due to fires in some refineries in Canada and in the United States are partly to blame for the decline in the reserves.

We know very well that the Bloc members do not want to let the market work. As usual, they want government intervention. The Bloc members should know by now that controlling the economy, as Ronald Reagan said in one of his famous speeches, ultimately means controlling people and controlling Canadians. This government is in favour of the free market and prices in the petroleum industry that reflect market conditions. In contrast to the Bloc member, who would like a controlled economy, we are opposed to any socialist intervention in this sector.

The Commissioner of Competition is not responsible for determining how much profit companies will make. Companies are free to set their own prices in light of demand and their costs of production. Business people in this country work very hard to earn a living and make a profit. We have a capitalist system. Profits are healthy and generate further economic development. Businesspeople deserve to reap the fruits of their labour.

The spirit of the Competition Act is to maintain and promote competition in Canada. We want an efficient economy that is able to adapt to globalization. The Competition Act exists as well to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses participate fully in the development of the Canadian economy. It is also important to remember that the act does not apply to only one sector of the economy. It does not apply just to the oil industry. The Competition Act is there to stimulate market forces. Prices in all markets go up—certainly they go up sometimes—but they also go down.

Over the last few months, the price of gasoline went down at the pumps. Now we are seeing it go up, but in a few months, market forces should bring it down again because of a number of factors, some of which are predictable and some not.

Even though prices sometimes increase, I believe it is preferable to allow market forces to play their role rather than to increase state control of the economy. Sometimes, some companies may exhibit anti-competitive behaviour. It is important to keep that in mind. It is also important to have a Competition Act that works to eliminate that type of behaviour in Canada. That is the point where the Competition Bureau must intervene: when a company, regardless of its area of activity, acts in an anti-competitive way.

As Minister of Industry, I am convinced that the Competition Bureau will intervene very quickly if there is any suspicion that a company is not obeying the law. It has done so in the past and it will do so in the future. Competition Bureau investigations have led to 13 prosecutions relating to the price of gas and heating oil and there have been eight convictions.

I can assure you that the Competition Bureau follows the activities of the oil and gas industry very closely. It analyzes all the data available in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere in the world. In addition, it has carried out six major inquiries into the oil and gas industry.

It has made public reports on its investigations and it has never found any evidence that an increase in the price of gas could be attributed to any national conspiracy on the part of the oil companies. It has never found any evidence of collusion between the oil companies in terms of price fixing.

By introducing motions such as this one, the Bloc is only demonstrating once again that it is useless here in Ottawa. I really wonder what led the members of the Bloc Québécois to launch this debate in the House this week. If I may be permitted a guess, we know that war is being waged within the sovereignist camp since the crushing defeat of the Parti Québécois, on March 26. Not a single day goes by without more news of the battle between the leader of the Bloc Québécois and André Boisclair, the leader of the Parti Québécois.

By introducing this useless motion this week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to distract the attention of the media who have been interested in this dispute in the sovereignist camp for several days already. However, there is at least one positive aspect to this business; the leader of the Bloc Québécois appears to have finally understood that he is useless in the House of Commons and that the Bloc Québécois is useless in Ottawa. So now he wants to move to Quebec City. The leader of the Bloc is jockeying with his friends to take over the leadership of the Parti Québécois. During this time, the leader of the Bloc Québécois in the House is doing everything within his power to succeed him.

The fact is that Bloc members are not concerned about the price of gasoline this week; they simply want to deflect attention. The Bloc has been in a state of crisis since March 26. Sovereignist supporters are calling on the party to pack up. Meanwhile, the member for Repentigny here states in the media and outside the House that he is bored in Ottawa. Clearly more and more Bloc members are wondering why they are in Ottawa. They are realizing that they have not managed in any way to influence government policy over the past 15 years. They are recognizing their impotence.

Before I conclude, I must point out the Bloc's inconsistency in the matter of gasoline prices. I would point out that Bloc members unconditionally supported Bill C-288, introduced by the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier. Should the bill become law, as the Bloc wants, the price of gasoline would skyrocket. A number of analysts have said the price would vary between $1.60 and $2.00 a litre.

The members of the Bloc Québécois then have the gall to say that they defend the interests of Quebeckers in this House. Increasingly, Quebeckers are realizing that the Bloc members promote their own interests first, ahead of those of Quebeckers. I would add that Quebeckers are lining up behind our Prime Minister in increasing numbers because they can see that our party best defends the interests of Quebeckers in this House. Among other things, our government has put an end to the fiscal imbalance, has acknowledged that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada and has lowered income tax, which we will continue to do.

These are specific actions, not empty words. Action is what Quebeckers and Canadians want.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it sad that the Minister of Industry used only half of the time allotted to him to talk about the gasoline crisis that many consumers are going through.

Since he became a minister—we have seen this in telecommunications and other areas—prices have increased every time he has relied on market forces. I also rely on them, but I see that there are no solutions.

Does the hon. minister agree? I have heard these speeches before, even from my own ministers of industry, and they finally realized they were wrong. The Competition Bureau said in 2002-03 that as a minimum it had no difficulty with pricing provisions going from a criminal to a civil burden, particularly for predatory pricing and price discrimination, which is what got us into this problem to begin with.

Prices have gone up. Does the minister take the time consider what the price of gas will be tomorrow?

On the two propositions made by my colleagues and by the NDP, would he at least agree with the wisdom of the previous competition's leadership and agree to those changes to ensure that Canadians have transparency as opposed to simply relying on what he calls market forces and allowing whoever it is to set the prices? The fact is that there is a 3¢ difference between us and the United States, ex tax. Will the minister act today to protect the interests of consumers? Or are we going to hear more lip service and the same line from the same department?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why the price of gasoline is at this level today in Canada. Quite simply, it is because of the famous law of supply and demand.

Currently, United States gasoline inventories, that is supply, are at their lowest level in 10 years. In May 2007, they were at around 190 million barrels, while in May 2006, they were at 210 million barrels. Thus, we see that inventories are extremely low, something we have not seen in 10 years. Consequently, Americans and Canadians have to rebuild their inventories.

Demand is also very high, and we will see this in the coming months. Why is the inventory so low? Because it is being depleted, since there have been some fires in refineries. Moreover, very old refineries in the United States require regular maintenance, which forces production shutdowns. The inventory that is being sold is the inventory the Americans have. It is being depleted and we see that it is at its lowest level.

Inventories are currently being rebuilt. Since the capitalist system has always worked well, to ensure that supply and demand are balanced, when there is a shortage, prices increase, and when supply is very high, prices decrease.

I can assure members that in the next few weeks, oil prices will go down again, as we have seen in the past. This situation is only temporary, since there is global competition for oil.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take some offence with the Minister of Industry taking half the allotted time to reject the democratically expressed will of the people in choosing their representatives.

This does not surprise me however. Controlling the gas prices through a more rigorous body is in keeping with the objective of the people, who believe it is unfair for them to be taken hostage by big oil companies and to see no competition at all. We are being denied the benefits of the free market, and this is what we would like to change with our motion, at last. We believe in the free market, and not in the control by corporations.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note, for the benefit of my honourable colleague, that socialist decisions do not work. History has shown that controlling prices and the economy is in fact a way of controlling human beings. I believe in the men and women of this country, in the free market and in individual freedom.

That is why having yet another body to control people or the economy would not be useful. The Competition Bureau is already doing its work very well. It has proven so in the past through actions which have been beneficial for everyone. I am confident that its future actions will be just as beneficial.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. There are few issues that Canadians care about as much as the price of gas, except, perhaps, the weather. Whether it is at the office or at the local eatery, everyone talks about it. Everyone has a theory on why the price of gas is so high. Governments are blamed, both Canadian and foreign, and oil companies are also accused.

Canadians are entitled to ask themselves questions and to be upset. After all, these high prices hit everyone of us where it hurts the most, that is in our wallet.

The new Government of Canada is committed to helping Canadians reduce their gas consumption, and thus save money and protect the environment. We think it is possible to achieve real progress regarding the environment, without jeopardizing our growth.

However, that is not the Bloc Québécois' way of doing things. It cannot do anything constructive. In fact, the Bloc Québécois voted for a plan that will increase gas prices, a plan that will add to the tax burden of Canadian families. According to leading economists, the Liberal plan would trigger a 50% increase in hydro costs. As for the costs of heating homes with natural gas, they would basically double from what they are right now.

However, the debate must go beyond laying blame and throwing accusations. Increasingly, Canadians have the desire and the determination to act individually to fight price increases, and our government is helping them make informed energy choices.

The public is receptive. In a survey conducted last fall, three out of four respondents said they were very or quite interested in receiving information on how to reduce their energy consumption at home or on the road. We can do many things to reduce the impact of the price increase. The government is also taking many initiatives, and this is what I want to stress today.

The price of gas is not the only factor that has an impact on our energy costs; there is also the way we drive. The government has published on the Internet a whole range of useful tips on buying, driving and maintaining a vehicle, tips that can help Canadians save money and gas while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These tips include respecting the speed limit since driving at 100 kilometres an hour instead of 120 kilometres an hour increases fuel efficiency by 20%; planning one's travel; using public transit as much as possible; avoiding idling; and ensuring that tires are properly inflated.

Our energy efficiency programs help people save energy and reduce their costs as well as their greenhouse gas emissions. These programs can also reduce air pollution and make Canadian businesses and industries more competitive. They also contribute to the safety and reliability of our energy network by reducing the demand for energy.

Our energy efficiency programs target all sectors of our economy: real estate, industry, transportation and people. They are based on partnerships, which means that we get more value for the money invested by the federal government when we work with other partners. These programs also provide tools and networks to which the provinces, territories and public utilities can add value or which they can use to meet the objectives of their own regional energy efficiency programs.

We are using various approaches to offer our energy efficiency programs to Canadians. Our information programs advise energy consumers about the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy. They help people familiarize themselves with and accept the technologies and related practices, which leads to their use. Our voluntary action programs support efforts made by individuals to consume energy more efficiently by inviting flagship businesses in the private sector to show leadership and by encouraging them to set and meet energy efficiency targets.

We are using regulations that set minimum performance standards in order to eliminate less energy efficient products from the market. Through better management of our fleet and strategic purchasing that draws on green energy, we are teaching by example and showing Canadians that we can demonstrate leadership on the energy efficiency front. Significant improvements in energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy are directly attributable to our programs.

Canada has more products subject to the Energy Efficiency Regulations than any other country. The last amendment to those regulations alone is expected to enable consumers to achieve net benefits totalling $47 million by the year 2010. Refrigerators that need only 25% of the energy consumed by a refrigerator in the 1970s are currently available on the market.

We support the construction of new ethanol production facilities, and this calls for major financial commitments by the private sector. This initiative will assist in expanding the production and use of ethanol fuel in Canada.

We are working with industry so that it can improve the energy performance of its activities, under the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation, a unique industry-government partnership.

One day, that performance will play a key role in the concrete measures to be taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that we all enjoy clean air, uncontaminated land, clean water and clean energy. Concrete results lie at the heart of what our government is committed to delivering.

It is important that Canadians conserve energy by improving energy efficiency in everything they do, whether in operating a business, driving a car or building a house. Improved energy performance makes absolute sense in both economic and environmental terms.

Energy conservation and performance are important components of any realistic and effective Canadian solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a sensible way for all Canadians. To accomplish this, we must coordinate our efforts. All levels of government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, must be involved, and industry and communities must fall into step.

Although we know where the limits to our powers lie, we also know that by working together we can achieve much greater success than by working alone, each of us in our own corner. I hope that the House will agree with me that a new era of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments on natural resource policies will provide Canadians with unprecedented prosperity.

The development of new technologies is one of the primary areas where we can join forces. Innovative and ground-breaking technologies are the key to Canada's future when it comes to natural resources. The natural resources industry is a high tech industry, and it is Canada's technologies and know-how that have made Canadian business so competitive on the world market. The truth of this can be seen in the resource exploitation technologies that Canada supplies to the rest of the world.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary.

Today we are talking about outrageous prices and the fact that the oil and gas companies are gouging and ripping off Canadians. Given that during the most recent campaign the new Conservative Party promised to uphold the Kelowna accord, the Atlantic accord, the income trust file and the Canada Ontario infrastructure deal, all of which it reneged on, I have one simple question.

The Conservatives also made a commitment during the campaign that if gasoline prices went out of control, they would eliminate the GST on anything above 85¢ per litre.

Could the Conservatives at least hold to that promise simply because today gasoline prices have risen an average of 40¢ per litre since the new government took over, which is $1.60 per gallon, gouging beyond words? These oil and gas companies, in my view and on behalf of my constituents, are not acting as good corporate citizens, unfortunately, but that is a different story.

Would the Conservatives at least keep one of the promises they made during the campaign which is that no GST would be charged on gas above 85¢ per litre? Will they at least keep that one promise?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer the question asked by my hon. friend.

The proof is also in the new technologies that have been developed to use resources in a more efficient and a more environmentally friendly way. For example, green coal technologies will allow Canada to fully mine its immense coal reserves. Finally, everything that relates to alternative energy sources is proof of what I say.

Our government recently announced that it will adopt regulations requiring that by 2010 gas sold in Canada contain 5% renewable fuel, such as ethanol. More than 2 billion litres of renewable fuel will be added to the Canadian gas reserve to meet the new requirement. Our strategy is based not only on the increased use of renewable energy in our transport industry, but also on the domestic production of those fuels, the impact on our agriculture sector, and even on the potential of forest residues for the production of fuel for transportation.

Our government is taking concrete measures on several fronts to address the rising price of energy. While the Bloc ant the other opposition parties are making proposals that would cause a dramatic increase in gas prices, our government is acting to protect our environment and our economy.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about the price of gas and the member answered a question by speaking about energy efficiency programs. That could be an excellent answer if they were true energy programs. However, they are not. What the Conservative government gave Canadians were symbolic measures. For example, we hear about intensity targets for the exploitation of tar sands, we hear about increased ethanol use, we hear about an agricultural subsidy. The Conservative government has started talking with the Americans about doubling our oil exports to the United States.

When will the Conservative government introduce a real energy policy to clean energy and make it affordable for all Canadians?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to my colleague. Our balanced approach for producing new fuels will help the fuel industry become more competitive. Prices will thus be allowed to decrease. A balanced approach is very important to secure the energy resources of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion from the Bloc Québécois. I will share my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, with whom I am very pleased to work.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

An amendment was also added to create a price monitoring agency.

I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to speak since I heard the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, explain to us the position of his government. He is telling us that consumers must change their driving habits, refrain from idling their cars, inflate their tires properly and stay within speed limits. We have even been told about a program to change refrigerators and about the need for municipalities to do their share. That is anything but answering the question raised today by the Bloc Québécois with its motion about controlling the price of gasoline.

Last week, the refining margin of oil companies was 23¢ a litre, that is four times the reasonable margin. It has always been calculated—this has never been challenged by experts—that, to make a reasonable profit, refineries should take between 4¢ and 7¢ a litre. This is the international standard. It has been recognized and no one has ever challenged that amount. However, in March and April of last year, their margin was 15¢ a litre. Thus, theoretically, it was twice the reasonable profit that they should have taken for refining. Once again, last week, it was 23¢ a litre.

Thus, it is not surprising that declared profits and shareholders' dividends are constantly going up. For the eight big oil companies doing business in Canada, we are talking about $12 billion in profits, profits as high as the surplus of the Government of Canada. This is the reality. They are no longer playing in the small leagues. The government has chosen to favour a class of citizens, shareholders of big oil companies, at the expense of consumers. This is the hard reality, and it is what the Bloc Québécois wants to stop. Through all kinds of measures, the government is encouraging oil companies to rake in profits in a totally irresponsible way. It is profit at any cost, at the expense of consumers.

I am quite astounded that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources would tell us that consumers must change their driving habits. I agree, but perhaps companies should change their habits of making profits at the expense of consumers. The federal government has a role to play there.

There were investigations by the Competition Bureau in the past even though the current commissioner and her predecessors in recent years have all told us repeatedly that they could not investigate. In response to the questions they were asked, the companies said that there was no collusion. No one believes that anymore as gas prices go up almost automatically on the eve of every long weekend or summer vacation. Nobody is fooled by what is going on in the industry.

What we are saying today is that oil companies are acting irresponsibly with regard to refining margins in Canada. Refining is done regionally. Refineries located across Canada have downsized. These industries do the refining for their own competitors regionally. In fact, there is no competition. It is not like the supermarket system that can guarantee real competition by lowering prices to attract clients. That is how things work in the food industry, but not in the oil industry, and certainly not in the refining industry. Depending on the region, companies buy their oil from their competitor's refinery. Why? Because the number of refineries has been reduced in Canada. Competition has been tightened to the point where it has lead to scarcity. Refineries became scarce, so now oil has become scarce.

That allows all companies to raise their prices at the same time and also to increase their profit margin on refining. That is where the problem lies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has a problem if he does not see it. Maybe he also has problems with other issues and we could discuss it in due time, but he certainly has a problem if he does not understand how refining works. It is true that provinces are responsible for prices at the pump, but the federal government, through the Competition Act has the responsibility to ensure that there is no unfair competition and no collusion in refining. That is federal jurisdiction.

In simple terms, the Bloc motion asks, and I read it again:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

That is what we are asking the House to do. I cannot understand why the Conservatives do not support this proposal from the Bloc. It is in the interests of society as a whole that we be able to shed light on the unfair profits that end up in the pockets of the few shareholders of oil companies and, quite often, in the pockets of company presidents, who pay themselves generous bonuses at the end of the year because profits have increased. That is totally irresponsible when companies' profits increase every year and when we see, as we did last week, that profits and refining margins have increased fourfold, by 23¢ a litre.

These are not made-up figures, but statistics that are available and are monitored by experts. Last week, all the companies took a refining margin of 23¢ a litre, four times the usual profit margin of 4¢ to 7¢. In March and April, they were taking 15¢ a litre on average, twice the usual margin. It is not right that the companies should be able to play with these values. They took 15¢ on average in March and April and 23¢ last week. This represents an increase of 8¢ per litre of gas, and the only explanation for such a jump is that the companies took advantage of the shortage of refineries and supply to create artificial inflation.

This is what the Bloc Québécois wants to investigate. It wants to toughen the Competition Act to ensure that there is no collusion between these companies. If these investigations prove that there is no collusion, then at least we will have gotten to the bottom of things.

There is a problem when the Commissioner of Competition tells us that she does not have the authority to get to the bottom of things. It is difficult for me to understand some things, particularly that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, would say that there is no question of controlling gas prices and that all he is going to do is tell consumers to change how they drive or buy new refrigerators to combat the energy crisis in another way, or tell the municipalities to do their part.

Of course, everyone will have to do their part, but the oil companies should maybe start by doing their part and being completely transparent, explaining why the prices at the pump go up on the same day all across Quebec. In Montreal, four different companies at an intersection raise their prices at the pump at the same time on the same day. We want to try to find out why.

I see that I have only a minute left, so I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois is clearly the only party in this House that cares about the interests of the public, of Quebeckers. In the federal government's jurisdiction, we are trying to show this government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Natural Resources and all the ministers, including the ones from Quebec, that they do have the power to act in some respects. Once again, the Bloc Québécois has made a good suggestion, and we hope it will receive unanimous approval in this House.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 20th century showed the total failure of socialism and big government as a way of dealing with market problems. The crowd of people who still believe that today is getting very small.

Almost every former communist country has rejected that whole notion, but lo and behold, we still have an entity, the Bloc, that clings to these ideas. France has rejected it and has put Sarkozy in power. There has been a presidential election. People with those archaic ideas have been relegated to the back of the bus.

I have a question for the member. He is proposing to create another government bureaucracy. I would remind him of what Ronald Reagan said about government departments, which was that the closest thing to eternity on this earth is a government department.

The Bloc's proposal is to create more government and have the taxpayers dig down deeper to deal with it without any real argument about how this would affect the market or straighten things out. That is the Bloc's solution. Has the member costed out this bureaucracy that he is proposing? Can he give the House an idea of how much more government the Bloc wants taxpayers in the country to pay for?

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

Mr. Speaker, it always makes me smile when a Conservative member stands up to accuse the Bloc Québécois of socialism. The antithesis is predatory and greedy capitalism, which the member represents only too well.

I want to say that we are not asking for the creation of another level of government. We are only asking that the commissioner of competition be given the authority to initiate investigations on the price of gas and on the increase in refining margins.

The commissioner's position already exists. The competition bureau also exists. All we want is legislation to give it the real power to get to the bottom of this, to ensure that oil companies are not making unreasonable profits at the expense of consumers. This would be a society that is managed in a healthy way, where Quebeckers and Bloc Québécois members want to live.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to bring this issue right down to the folks who live in my riding of Surrey North. In Surrey North, we have many people who drive taxicabs and many who do long haul trucking. How does my colleague think this will affect those particular people who already are having trouble keeping their rigs or cabs on the road? How is this going to make a difference in their lives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

When we want to provide the evidence, as we are doing today, that the refining price has increased by 7¢ a litre in the last week compared to March and April, we can imagine the burden on truckers and taxi drivers who cannot raise their prices. The Conservatives should figure out, at some point, how the business system works in Canada. The taxi driver cannot raise his fare one week and lower it the next. It does not work like that. There are fare control boards. The same goes for trucking. Since rates are pre-set, they cannot be changed constantly or when the refining price goes up.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois motion must be unanimously passed by this House.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

The Liberal Party supports an increase in gas prices. On August 24, 2005, the leader of the official opposition said that an increase in gas prices would benefit Canada in the middle and long term.

My question is for the hon. member. Does the Bloc support an increase in gas prices? The Bloc must answer today. Is it yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will never cease to amaze me.

What the Bloc Québécois is doing is fighting against an increase in gas prices. That means that we do not support such an increase. As for the members of the Liberal Party, they will have to pay the political price of the decisions they have made in the past.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I remind my colleagues who may not know this that oil companies, except Ultramar of Quebec, are in my riding.

Citizens know the difference between oil companies and the price they have to pay to drive, to earn a living, such as taxi drivers and truckers, or simply to drive their children to daycare, to school or to the hockey game.

I want to repeat the motion because it seems to me that this is important for my colleagues opposite, in government.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move an amendment to the Competition Act so that the Commissioner of Competition have the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price.

Could this result in lower prices? It is possible that, realizing that prices are unfair or higher than the outcome of a market mechanism, governments will be able to act. However, this must be determined. That is what the motion says.

Otherwise, we are being told that nothing can be done. However, this is difficult to accept, because prices are skyrocketing. Refining margins are three times too high and, consequently, profits of oil companies are indecent.

Last week, the price at the pump for regular gas was, on average, $1.15 in Quebec and the average refining margin reached 23¢ a litre, a record. That is three times too much when we know—there have been debates on this subject—that a profit of 5¢ to 7¢ is enough for the oil companies to make a reasonable refining profit.

The price of oil products is likely, in any case, to remain high throughout the summer, especially because crude oil is continuing to rise in price for other reasons that we know, given that it is an exchange. It is the oil companies that are filling their pockets. They earned record profits of almost $12 billion in 2006. That is a lot of money. It is an increase of 25% over 2005 and 70% compared to 2004.

Is there collusion? It is impossible to say, but there is a real need to give the Commissioner of Competition the power to investigate on her own initiative, without waiting for complaints from the public. Indeed, that is what the Bloc wants—and I hope the House also wants that—because the oil sector needs to be controlled. It is a sector that we cannot feel sorry for. It is an industry that has made investments, but in light of the enormous profits, we have to ask questions and we need the means to obtain answers.

Yes, the Bloc believes that it is possible, in part at least, to limit the increases in the price of gas and other petroleum products. What has happened in the past few years, with the record profits by the oil companies, is that there has been a transfer of wealth. There are people who are broke and who need gas to earn their living. They are the ones who are being forced to deprive themselves further, to change their buying habits, perhaps even the way they feed their families, because the price of gas is rising and we believe it is increasing unfairly. It is important to investigate that.

All those politicians, the men and women in politics who say they want to act on behalf of families, young people, the needy, should want to know whether this mind-boggling price increase is justified or not.

This is extremely important.

The Bloc is asking for the support of the House concerning this measure that affects everyone. We know that Quebec is not an oil producer; other provinces are. Since Quebec imports all the oil it uses, it is obvious that higher prices are making it poorer. This price increase means that in terms of exports, we had a surplus in 2005 and a deficit of $7 billion in 2006. We went from a trade surplus to a deficit of $7 billion. That is exactly the amount of the increase in the price of oil for the same year, an increase of $7 billion.

This is important, because it means not only that this increase in the price of oil is having an impact on everyone’s wallet but that it is affecting the little man most. It is not only affecting the average person’s pocket book, but it is also affecting the entire economy for a variety of reasons. Since companies are having to buy more oil, there is a significant difference between the previous trade surplus and the current deficit of $7 billion.

In fact, last year, every Quebecker—we know that the averages are wrong, especially in this sector—consumed $1,000 more than he produced. Oil is making us poor. What do we want? We want to redistribute resources—and wealth in a way—so that the oil sector stops impoverishing society. Imposition of a surtax of $500 million on the profits of the oil companies would be one way of doing so. They are certainly capable of paying it. The accelerated capital cost allowance for tar sands must also be stopped when the price of crude goes beyond a threshold of somewhere between $40 and $50.

The government announced this measure, but it does not intend to implement it for three years, while oil production from the tar sands continues to grow. This involves making changes to the tax system applicable to natural resources that enables the oil companies to reduce their payments by another $250 million a year, and having them pay for environmental damage.

This is the bare minimum. We have just learned from the federal government’s latest statement that the government will favour the oil companies. The focus on oil in this country is costing the little people a lot and is making some provinces richer, but quite clearly it is impoverishing Quebec, whose trade surplus fell by the same amount as gas prices rose.

Since I only have a minute left, I will add that I hope that the Bloc will have the support of the House to at least shed some light on this issue. There is not a member in this House who cannot wish to shed some light on this content or this explanation of the oil companies’ price rises, especially in the refining margin, which is three times higher than it should be.