Debates of May 26th, 2008

Price of Petroleum Products

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We have to move on.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity tonight to participate in the debate on gas prices. This provides me with an opportunity to point out some of the clear differences in the House between the Conservative government and the parties opposite.

High gas prices are a huge concern to everyone. This is not the time to be making points for partisan gain. This is a time to be concerned about the residents in each of our ridings, whether they are homemakers, business people, or farmers, and I will talk a bit about that also.

The price of gas is on the minds of Canadians across this country. Constituents have phoned me and emailed me about their concerns, and they have asked me what I am going to do and what can happen.

The Liberal leader recently stated that he wants Canadians to use less of what is bad. I guess the gas is bad and we are to use less of it. He announced that his party would impose a massive gas tax on all Canadian families. This gas tax would take billions of dollars out of the pockets of working families, seniors, those who are not working and already struggling to put food on the table.

As my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources said, if the price of fuel is $1.30 a litre and we added on a 60% hike, the price would rise to around $2.25. This is not going to be good for Canadian families.

My daughter works part time and she drives to work. Her husband has a construction business which runs excavators. He has people on the road all the time. To increase the cost of fuel by another 60% in these days would be unconscionable. Not only would it make it hard for families to afford gas but there is not a doubt in my mind that it would also take away jobs. It would take away businesses because of the high energy cost involved. People also have to heat their homes and the like.

This is not just about raising the gas tax, which the opposition wants to do, but more so about what we as a government have done by reducing taxes over the past two years. We were ridiculed by many at the time for reducing the GST. The GST in my riding for every per cent is $18 million. Some $36 million dollars goes back into the economy of my riding, not unlike the ridings of most members sitting here today. If those members ever get back into power, they will raise the GST back up to 7% plus add a gas tax to it. Canadians would not be able to endure that.

Those members continually talk about raising the gas tax, but we cannot control the price of the product. It is a global commodity. It is on the stock market. It is not just us saying that.

We should listen to some of the other ones, other voices of credit. Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium warned that carbon tax shifts the burden from the richest to the poorest families because most of the energy purchases of low and middle-income families are not discretionary whereas almost half the energy purchased by the wealthy families tends to be discretionary.

Perhaps he should listen to a few of the Liberals who have spoken out against the potential imposition of a new regressive carbon tax on Canadians. Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella recently stated that a carbon tax was unfair to people on fixed incomes such as the elderly, the poor or those who have to heat their homes and buy food too, and it was therefore profoundly not Liberal.

The member for Kings—Hants stated that he was strongly against energy taxes. He said that he would never propose higher taxes in Canada in any area and yet as we talk about how we are going to keep Canadians and our economy strong we have a party that is in the official opposition, the Liberal Party, that continually wants to boost the taxes of the country against the working people.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day when he was putting his crops in. When he pulled up to the fuel tank to fill up his tractor it cost him $1,200. That runs him a little less than between 10 and 11 hours of work.

If it is this much now to fill it up, and that is when we have dropped the taxes, and we allow a government to come in and raise the taxes back up higher than they are now by another 60%, not only is it going to affect the cost of production but it will put the businesses like farming and construction, which are struggling now to make ends meet, at a greater disadvantage.

We talked earlier today about food and fuel, and whether it is food for fuel or growing crops for food. As we start to talk about this whole issue, as we continue to make food more expensive because we would have to add the tax to the production of the food, then again it becomes counterproductive when we start to think about how we are going to keep a strong economy and how we are going to feed nations with food that is costing more to produce.

I think we always have to be careful about whatever we do. That is why the principle of this government has been to work for working families to lower personal taxes, lower the GST, and raise the personal exemption on tax. Quite honestly, when we talked to seniors this year about income splitting, it was incredible, particularly the uptake that was received and the moneys that have been saved by our seniors, just in those tax savings.

That is the difference when we talk about what our government wants to do for families. We want to lower taxes and make things affordable. We do not want to increase them and make them unaffordable.

As we get into the debate on this and as it goes on for a while, I just want to wrap up by saying that we are concerned about high gas taxes but we should always remember that those are global issues. What we can do is keep taxes low, keep the economy strong, and keep our families and businesses in business.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and also to the minister who spoke before him who is from my home province of British Columbia.

When I left my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam this morning, gas prices were over $1.37 a litre. B.C. has one of the highest prices for gasoline in the country. It is 12¢ a litre higher than it is here in Ottawa, but gas prices all over Canada are skyrocketing. The cost of gasoline is becoming an increasing burden on working families.

At the same time as families are being squeezed, the big oil companies are reaping record profits. Actually, Exxon Mobil earned $40.6 billion in profits last year. That works out to over $77,000 every second of every day last year. It is incredible.

I want to ask the member, why does his government not work for ordinary folks, for ordinary Canadians by protecting prices at the pump, by stopping this massive gouging? It is still giving massive subsidies to the big oil companies and $1.5 billion to the tar sands. Why not appoint an oil and gas ombudsman to investigate consumers' complaints about the major oil and gas companies? Why not just do something to help ordinary Canadians?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there is a concern with high gas prices. We know that. I have never understood, quite honestly, why it is $1.37 in B.C. and maybe the same in Alberta where it is actually produced, and less in other parts of the country. Those are globally driven prices.

The question is what are we doing for Canadians? I guess I will just have to re-emphasize that we have lowered the taxes. The taxes are the lowest they have been in about 40 years.

We can talk about our budget. We have reduced the subsidies to the oil sands. We have reduced the taxes. The member talked about gouging. I will go back to the minister's speech. When we reduced those two things, the NDP actually opposed them because that party did not support the budget. I guess I would have to say that the NDP members actually think subsidies to the large oil companies are great. They think that raising taxes is the thing to be doing.

The member talked about gouging, but the bureau has found six times that there is not any. Whether we agree with that or not, that is what the bureau said.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a reality check. I was listening to the minister who spoke just now. The minister said that the price of a barrel of oil had doubled. One need not be a genius to figure that out. The fact that a barrel of oil has doubled in price is one thing, but I have some numbers here that people find really frustrating.

Take Petro-Canada, for example. During the first quarter of 2006, the company made $206 million in profits. During the first quarter of 2007—a year after the Conservatives came to power, it just so happens—the company's profits grew from $206 million to $510 million. During the first quarter of 2008, it made $1.1 billion.

The truth is that profits have been doubling since the Conservatives have been in power. When we left office, the price of gas was about 85¢ per litre. Now, it is $1.40 or more.

Can the member explain why he keeps defending big oil companies? The price of a barrel of oil keeps doubling, but so do big oil companies' profits. That is unacceptable. Why do they keep defending the oil companies by saying that rising prices are caused by the market, that it is what it is, and that there is nothing more to be said?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually it is interesting. I guess what the member may be suggesting is that we bring in price controls. Back in the 1970s when certain price controls were advocated, it did not work that well.

Also, that is coming from a member who is concerned about the price of fuel and he should be concerned about the price of fuel. However, the leader of the member's party is saying that the Liberals want to increase the taxes. They want to jump up the GST at least to 7% and maybe higher. They want to introduce a carbon tax which is better known as a gas tax.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share my time with my colleague, the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

Let me begin by saying that during my time as minister of natural resources, I learned firsthand that energy costs are particularly difficult for lower income Canadian families, who pay a disproportionately large amount of their disposable income on home heating costs and other forms of energy. That, I think, is why so many of us in this House are concerned about the effect of the rising costs of fuel and home heating oil on all Canadians and particularly on lower income Canadians. To date, we have seen little, if any, action by the Conservative government. In fact, what we have seen is that it has taken things that the Liberal government had put in place or set in motion and soon after taking the power of government scrapped those things which would have been helpful to lower income Canadians and helpful for monitoring energy prices or taking action in the case of anti-competitive behaviour.

In October 2005, shortly before I became the minister of natural resources, the previous Liberal government tabled Bill C-66, which included a provision to create the office of petroleum price information. The office's principal responsibility would have been to monitor energy price fluctuations and provide clear current information to Canadians. The bill received royal asset in November, just before the last election.

Unfortunately for Canadians who are eager for the federal government to ensure that gasoline is competitively priced, as soon as it came to power, Canada's new government, so-called, decided to gut the bulk of Bill C-66. I find it somewhat disingenuous that the government now professes such concern for Canadians in this environment of rising energy prices while one of its first acts upon assuming office was to cancel the office of petroleum price information. The reason that office would have made such a difference is it would have provided up to date information to Canadians.

What Canadians see now are oil companies pulling in larger and larger annual profits while the price Canadians pay at the pump goes up and up. They see prices go up between competing gasoline retailers at virtually the same time and wonder if it is collusion.

Another thing that Canadians lost when the Conservatives gutted Bill C-66 was greater power for the Competition Bureau to examine anti-competitive behaviour in the energy sector. Apparently, ensuring strong competition in Canada's marketplace is not a priority for the Conservative government. The minister, when he was in the House, pointed out that a number of investigations into this in the past revealed the absence of collusive behaviour. However, that is no reason not to give the Competition Bureau more powers in the event that those powers are needed to control such behaviour. If such behaviour did not exist, the powers would not be needed. However, if the Competition Bureau is to do its job, it would certainly be better placed were it to have those additional powers.

There were other Bill C-66 casualties after the last election. The Conservatives completely revamped the home energy retrofit program in order to ensure that lower income Canadians would largely be excluded from the program. The essential principle of the program was to reduce your home heating costs by identifying possible energy savings through an energy audit. The government would pay for half the costs of the audit and then pay for half of the costs of renovations to make your home more energy efficient. The Conservative government, however, decided that paying half the costs of the energy audit was not an effective use of taxpayer dollars.

The big problem with this is that lower income families simply do not have the money to pay for these energy audits on their own. That means they cannot qualify for the retrofit program and they cannot make their homes more energy efficient. They cannot realize the savings and they cannot help the environment by using less home heating oil or natural gas, for example. However, that is not what Canadians got from the Conservative government.

I want to really emphasize this point about the energy audit because I think this was one of the most reprehensible acts of the government. On the one hand, it is common knowledge that lower income families pay a much higher fraction of their income on energy, so they, of all people, need access to energy audits and more energy efficient home heating.

When the government says it will no longer pay for the audit and thereby excludes lower income Canadians, that is a meanspirited and reprehensible action because it excludes those who need this help most. I cannot accept the argument that audit costs are administrative costs and the government did this to save on administrative costs. Audit costs are absolutely essential to help lower income Canadians pay for the audits which they otherwise would not be able to afford.

The Prime Minister, while in opposition, used to talk about axing the tax on tax, that is to say, to ensure that the GST was not levied on the 10¢ per litre excise tax. In fact, as recently as four months before the last election, the Prime Minister pledged to eliminate all GST on fuel sold for over 85¢ a litre. That, however, was when the Conservatives were in opposition. Once they assumed power, they quickly discovered that Canadians really did not need those tax savings quite as much as what has become Canada's biggest spending government in history. I will concede that it does take an awful lot of tax dollars to increase government spending by $35 billion in just three years.

Now what we hear from the Prime Minister is “the ability of governments to affect the price of gasoline per se is so small that it is not worth doing”. He might be the only leader of a political party to ever profess to have less power to do something after becoming Prime Minister than the power he thought he had before.

These broken promises are simply a part of a larger pattern. Just before and during the last election, the Conservatives used to say, “We will axe the tax on tax and fix high gas prices. We will not tax income trusts. We will honour the Kelowna accord. Do not worry, the Atlantic accords are safe with us”. After the election, every single one of these promises turned out to have been made in bad faith with the Canadian people.

What Canadians need is more money dedicated toward building efficient systems of public transportation so that they have a real option to take public transportation in cities and towns of even modest size. We need to strengthen the Competition Bureau to ensure that it has all the powers it needs to investigate any suspicious pricing in the energy sector. It needs also to have the power to administer appropriate penalties to deter such behaviour.

What we also need to understand is that the demand for oil is not going to lessen on its own. Rapidly growing economies all over the world, especially India, China and other Asian countries, are going to be buying more and more of the world's oil supplies to meet the demands of their growing industries and middle classes.

The Canadian government needs to take a leadership position, something the government should try to understand. It has to take a leadership position, not an obstructionist position, and help our economy transform itself into an energy that relies less on fossil fuels to drive it. We need to invest in the development of technologies that will help to make Canada a global leader in alternative forms of energy not only for the sake of our environment but also for our standard of living and the standard of living of our children.

At a very minimum, if the government is not able to take a leadership position in this important area, it should at least explain to the people of Canada why, on coming to power, it cancelled three important and positive measures in the area of energy. Why did it cancel the creation of an office to monitor prices? Why did it cancel the proposal to give the Competition Bureau more powers in this area? Why did it deprive the most vulnerable of Canadians from the help they needed in carrying out an energy audit in order to produce more energy efficient housing? I would like the government to answer those three questions, at a minimum.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member to address remarks to the Chair and not directly to other members. I thought I heard him use the second person.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to respond to the hon. colleague from the Liberal Party. His analysis of what went wrong with the government early on is interesting. He talked about measures, after 13 years of Liberal governments, which were not that strong in dealing with the economy.

In the face of the rapidly increasing petroleum product costs this year, with the large, substantial profits being made, does the member think there is some room in the country for windfall taxes on profits, which are extremely high and going higher all the time, yet Canadians are stuck with the bill? With some kind of tax redress for the huge energy costs that we face, we could see a better situation for Canadians. We could see more dollars available for energy efficiency programs, about which the member talked. We could put that money back to work and make a difference for Canadians.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot announce a Liberal platform tonight in terms of this subject. However, some of the measures that we proposed and that the current government removed would have made a significant difference in the lives of Canadians. I cannot say at this time whether these will be part of a future Liberal platform, but many Canadians would benefit from government assistance in acquiring more energy efficient heating. I think my colleague would agree that the lower income Canadians are the ones most in need and they are the most deprived by the government. I think he would agree that people in the north have special needs in this area as well.

I do not accept the charge that these were minor measures. It is possible that we would come back with measures such as this in this area and in other areas to assist all Canadians in various ways, especially Canadians of lower income who are really hit the hardest by these higher oil prices, to adapt to the higher oil prices and to give them assistance to improve the energy efficiency of their heating and of other ways of life.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member's remarks were interesting.

I have a simple question for him. Canada's economy is increasingly based on natural resources. The hon. member himself said that now that it is cost-effective to extract oil from the tar sands, given the price of crude, emerging countries will consume more and more oil. That is not hard to understand.

A question springs to mind: why could Canadians not get preferential rates on gasoline, as we see in Quebec when it comes to the hydroelectricity we use?

It is absurd for very large companies to make substantial profits and for consumers not to get their fair share of all the country's wealth.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I agree with her that the highly inflated price of petroleum products is causing many problems for Canadians, especially low-income Canadians.

In my opinion, we must learn from the past. The hon. member may recall that we tried to have a set price in Canada in the 1970s. The national energy policy was in effect at the time and this prompted, and rightfully so, huge demonstrations in Alberta. This policy is still an extremely controversial issue in Alberta, given that we have learned that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this very important matter as a follow up to my colleague from Markham—Unionville.

The issue of gas prices is very important to Canadians. Many of my colleagues, from all parties, have indicated that a lot of Canadians have asked questions of parliamentarians, of other politicians and of other political leaders about the situation with the rising gas prices.

It is certainly having an impact on our economy, the income of Canadians and their financial obligations. It is important to have this discussion and debate, so I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the issue because it is vital to my constituents and to other Canadians.

What is needed is an honest and frank debate so we can have a discussion about the real situation and what we can do. As leaders of our country, what is our role as legislators and what is the role government to find a solution to the increasing pressure on Canadian families? It was quite disappointing and disheartening when we witnessed the Conservative offering nothing for Canadians, nothing on the subject and nothing on the substance of the debate.

As I walked in tonight, I was joking with the Minister of Natural Resources. I pre-empted him. I asked him if he would accuse us of raising gas prices. That is exactly what happened. The Minister of Natural Resources debated this issue for 10 minutes. What did he talk about? All he did was accuse the future Liberal government of raising gas prices, falsely.

Let me be very clear. The Liberal Party has no plans to raise gas taxes, just like the Liberal Party has no plan to raise the GST. The Conservatives have offered nothing but rhetoric and pandering rather than discuss this issue on its merits and its substance.

What is going on right now? Oil prices will continue to rise. They have been rising for the last couple of years. I do not know why the Minister of Natural Resources bragged about the fact that gas prices had doubled under his mandate and he could nothing about it.

I disagree. A lot of things could be done about it. Perhaps the initial instinct would be to control the price. It would be our primal instinct to do that. However, that is not the solution. If we really want to offer a genuine solution out of this dilemma for Canadians, we cannot fool Canadians into believing a short term imposition or fixing of prices will fix the problem or resolve the issue.

Several provinces tried to control gas prices and ended up causing an increase of gas prices. A lot of market controls may appear to have some short term impact, but eventually the long term impact is negative and Canadians will end up paying in consequence.

What is important is there has to be a recognition that our dependence on fossil fuels is not sustainable, obviously, for environmental reasons. We know the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. That is indisputable. We also now know the negative impact on our economy of this dependence on oil prices. As oil prices continue to rise, our economic activity will stagnate.

We see what is happening to our traditional manufacturing sector, to farming and to transportation. A lot of these industries are being impacted by gas prices. We need to find a way to transition our economy and prepare it for the 21st century.

The 21st century economy is going to be less dependent on fossil fuels. A competent CEO would foresee the future of the market and position his or her company to benefit for the patterns and the potential growth in the market. He or she would invest and work in the areas where the growth is and divest from areas where there is very little growth predicted. That is what a government should be doing in managing our economy.

We need to see the signs. If we do not act now, we will be sleepwalking into economic irrelevance, not to mention negatively impacting our environment and leaving a bad legacy for future generations.

What the leader of the Liberal Party is proposing is that it is high time we shift our economy and transition our economic activity from activities that could be perhaps in their dying or stagnant days to activities of future growth, jobs, investment and green technology. We also need economic activity that would be beneficial to our environment, that would punish pollution and reward investment and creativity. That is the real answer to this dilemma.

To look the other way and eschew that there is nothing that can be done is nothing but pure incompetency and neglect of the duties that Canadians expect of their government.

What our Liberal leader has been proposing is that it is time we drafted a new policy for the 21st century economy. It is time we reward good behaviour, such as income, investment, green technology, the creation of jobs. It is time we shifted that tax burden on to things that we want less of, such as pollution, greenhouse gases, waste.

This is simple yet brilliant. This is what Canadians want. This is what Canadian expect of political leaders. We can disagree on the substance. I welcome this debate and I am sure we will be have it in the future weeks and months. The one thing no one can disagree with is that the leader of the Liberal Party is working on behalf of Canadians. He is being creative and presenting ideas and taking his responsibilities seriously.

What have the Conservatives offered? They have offered nothing but pandering, fearmongering and misleading Canadians. They are doing that because they are panicking. They know the Liberal Party, under its current leadership, is presenting Canadians with a real alternative, with thoughtful ideas and a bold vision that will position Canada to be a leader in the world for job creation, for environmentally sustainable strategies, for improving our social inequity. That is why the Conservatives are attacking us in a ridiculous fashion and making up false stories. They know they cannot really have an alternative to the policy that our leader has presented.

This is a serious issue and Canadians are expecting us, as political representatives in Ottawa, to debate it, to show some enthusiasm and some zeal for the protection of the interests of Canadians, for drafting the future of our economy and for the betterment of our environment. This is what we plan on doing in the next election.

I know the Conservatives will have nothing to say except explain why gas prices have more than doubled under their watch. They have offered nothing to solve the environment crisis or to help our economy. Jobs are being lost, the environment is continuing to deteriorate, but the government has no vision except to fabricate, and I do not want to say words that are unparliamentary, but makeup untrue facts.

This is really a reflection of the Conservative Party. It has nothing to offer Canadians except to be in opposition, and that is where they belong.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of minutes of his speech, the member talked about fabrications. I want to ask him about a couple of comments he made.

Earlier in the House, when the minister came in, I think the member hollered across, “Minister, are you going to raise gas prices or are you going to leave that to us?” I think he might even comment on that and just let us know whether he was serious about that.

The other thing that concerned me was when he said that his leader had not suggested a GST hike. I do not know if he is misinformed or if he is actually fabricating some things himself because his finance critic has said clearly that a GST hike was an option. He said, “It's an option. All I can say is that it is consistent with our approach”.

The Liberal leader himself said, “We will consider that” in terms of raising the GST. He also said that a Liberal government would consider rescinding the Tory government cuts to the goods and services tax. When he was asked several times whether he would reverse the tax cuts, he repeated the same answer in both official languages, “We will consider that”.

I was concerned when I heard him accusing others of fabricating things when it seems apparent that either he does not understand his own party's policies or he has been trying to mislead Canadians.

I would like to come back to this whole idea of the Liberals' carbon tax, which he has not talked about over the last 10 minutes because he does not want to, but I can come to that later. I understand he needs a chance to respond so we will talk later about how they are going to raise taxes in so many other areas. However, we understand they have intentions of raising the GST. I would like his comments on that.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary had the opportunity to speak because he really made my case.

I really do not have to highlight for Canadians the fact that he had nothing to offer. All he could come up with was something that I already pre-empted in my speech. I already pre-empted the fact that they have nothing to do except claim that we are going to impose new taxes.

By the way, I did not say this in the House but he would not know the Liberal policy. He needs to know that it is wrong to make things up and it is wrong to mislead Canadians. I know why he is doing it. It is because he has nothing to offer, his minister has nothing to offer and his Prime Minister has nothing to offer. They are out of ideas. They are running on fumes.

I am willing to debate the parliamentary secretary and the minister and to compare our policy to his. I spoke about our tax shifting policies. Perhaps he did not want to hear it but I will be happy to debate it with him later.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Mississauga—Erindale a question. He talked about the opposition party's new strategy, and I can understand that he hopes the Liberals will return to power.

I would like the member to tell us how this strategy will really reduce our dependence on oil.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member works hard for her constituents and I thank her for the question.

I talked about the broader idea of our policy and I encourage her to stay tuned for the details, but I want to repeat what I said. The idea is that we want to less tax on the things that we want, such as income, investment and jobs, and we want to tax things that we do not want, such as pollution, greenhouse gases and waste.

The details, I am confident, will please her just like they will please her constituents. Stay tuned.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my pleasure to debate such a terrible issue for Canadians. I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West.

In my time in Parliament, I have spent a lot of time talking about energy issues, ways we can reduce costs for Canadians and ways we can move from our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy, many of the good things that are possible in this world.

However, I have yet to see this Parliament take hold of the energy issues in any meaningful way. In some respects, it goes back to the Liberal government of the past, since 2000, that worked very hard to establish a continental energy plan with the United States under the aegis of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and then it carried on with the Conservatives afterwards who were pleased to continue the work of a continental energy plan for Canada. We are now so linked into that in their minds that we cannot make the kind of moves in Canada that could ultimately lead us to much lower energy costs and a better situation for Canadians as a whole.

Having said that and having laid that out as part of the problem that we have in Canada, I would like to move on to more of a national perspective, which is the energy problem. We are talking about the cost of petroleum products. I would first like to say that in the situation we are in, with the Conservatives standing and talking over and over again about the reduction in the GST, we are talking about very little. It is only 2¢ off the enormous cost increases that we have seen in the price of oil and gasoline. Those things will not be impacted by that 2¢ reduction in the GST.

Problems with natural gas have been around since 2003 when Natural Resources Canada indicated that we were in a position of running short of natural gas. The November 2007 outlook shows that we will have a serious problem by 2015 and that by 2020 we will have nothing left to export. We will be importing natural gas to heat our homes. This problem, however, seems to be of little concern to both the Liberals and the Conservatives in their times in office. We have yet to see the Department of Natural Resources, under either of those parties' direction, actually put some effort into understanding what is required for Canadians.

Probably what is required for Canadians is to go back to the old days where we insisted on maintaining large reserves of gas for Canadian use.

One of the great solutions that the Conservatives have thrown up, which we have debated in Parliament extensively, is biofuels. Biofuels, ethanol, will not reduce the cost of gasoline in our system. In fact, what we have seen over the last months in the ethanol business is that many plants that were setting up shop, because of the high cost of food, have realized that there is no profit left, even with the subsidies that are being applied to ethanol, to go into the business. We are seeing more and more ethanol plants across North America shutting down. The cost of feed is too high and the huge subsidy that is being offered up by the Americans is not enough to make up the difference. Therefore, biofuels will not solve the cost of energy in Canada.

Cellulosic ethanol, that kind of dream that we have, the dream of the future, of turning waste into ethanol and driving our vehicles around, is actually even more costly. Study after study has shown that we will not see a lowering of our energy bills through the use of cellulosic ethanol.

Where are we talking this country right now with energy? Are we just aimlessly stumbling along in a free market haze, in a free market ideological funk toward what most of the other countries in the world have given up on? Most countries have established national oil companies and have driven their energy policies by themselves, for themselves, while Canada has this ideological haze surrounding it. We are simply buying into the free market idea and moving ahead with it.

When we talk about oil, oil is a product in Canada. As the minister said, oil is a product of the world and 86 million barrels a day are used. It cannot last forever. However, and members can check with Natural Resources Canada, the government has never done an assessment of the world oil supply for Canadian policy making. It has never looked at the situation of peak oil. Has the United States done it? Yes, it has. The U.S. military and Congress did it in the United States. What happens in Canada? There is no analysis.

I held a forum on Parliament Hill in February on the peak oil situation. What can we say about peak oil in the world? We can definitely say that peak oil production is very near. We should remember that. There is a lot of oil in this world but it is getting harder to find and harder to deliver. It takes larger amounts of capital, manpower and equipment to bring it forward. We are replacing oil as if we only had to stick a straw in the ground and oil would shoot out. Now we need to hunt for it and then put an enormous amount of effort into getting it out of the ground. We cannot replace the conventional oil in the world with unconventional oil fast enough anymore. Therefore, we are at a point of peak oil production.

Do members know what Exxon's biggest investment was in the last couple of years? It invested $30 billion into buying its own shares back off the public market because it realized that cheap oil that had already been found was probably the best way to make a profit. Shell did the same thing.

The recognition of the state of the world oil industy is something we must take very seriously. Yes, the speculative nature of the free market system has driven up the price of oil very rapidly in the last year and we are all gagging on it, but in reality we will be out of cheap oil and we will be stuck with very expensive oil products in the future.

For the people I represent in northern Canada, in the Northwest Territories, this year we will see for our consumer and government expenditures a 10% increase put toward oil and petroleum products. That means that out of our whole economy we will lose 10% next year; 10% of the expenditures for governments, businesses, employees. Everyone will suffer. The burden that northern Canada bears because we have not made the progress on changing is enormous.

As well, my government in the Northwest Territories is trying to change. It is investing in solid bioenergy. It is converting buildings to biofuels and that is working. It is talking about large hydroelectric projects. It is talking about things that it can do.

This country needs to develop a very strong program that will talk about energy and provide people across the country with the answers. That is what this party is after.

We worked very hard on Bill C-30. There is a wonderful opportunity in Bill C-30 to develop a national retrofit program using the cap and trade system that was designed and supported by the Liberals and the Bloc. This is the type of thing we need in Canada: good sensible work and good sensible policies supported by all of us that we can move ahead with. We tried to do that with Bill C-30 and we were fairly successful. Why can the government not understand that we need those things in this country?

I know my time is running short, but this debate is very important to Canadians and I hope that we all take this very seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, mention was made of Bill C-66, which was introduced during the last Parliament and sought to improve how the Competition Bureau functioned and to put in place stricter rules to keep Canadians informed about gasoline price fluctuations.

When the Conservative government took power in January 2006, it decided to scrap that. Earlier, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Competition Bureau had already conducted studies or investigations to analyze the situation. But the reality is clear. The Competition Bureau is currently saying that it is Canadians' responsibility to prove that there is collusion on the part of the oil companies. When the price of gasoline suddenly goes up by 10¢ a litre and all the oil companies raise their prices by 10¢ a litre as if by coincidence, this is not collusion, and it is still up to us to prove that they are getting together to increase the price of gasoline.

When we look at these things and this reality—and I would like to know what the member thinks about this—I feel that it would be much simpler and more effective to make changes to the Competition Bureau and bring in new, stricter rules to make sure people are treated fairly. In that way, people could be sure that at least the price they are paying is fair and reasonable. When we look at the situation today, and I mentioned this earlier, the companies are making huge profits, but the public is paying the price.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, competition is failing us in Canada on energy issues because energy, by and large, is run by the international market, by very large companies that set their price as the market will bear within the context of the larger world price.

With either of the approaches that the other parties have, the chances we have of really accomplishing something with the Competition Act are unlikely. If we put our hope in possibly changing the price at the gas pump, that might work to some extent, but it still leaves us short of the larger problem which is that energy prices are escalating, that the world supply is being chased by more customers, and we need to make a stronger effort to reduce energy use.

The Japanese economy is smiling because incredible energy efficiency work has been done there over the last 20 years. The price of oil has gone up, yet their products are now much more competitive in the world marketplace because they depend less on fossil fuels.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak about this important subject matter.

An important thing to note in this debate is that we all agree there has to be a multitude of energy solutions for Canadians. Wind, solar, and a whole series of different proposals have been put out there and there is going to be added capacity to the market. However, there can be no doubt that we are still going to be living in a modern society that is going to be dependent upon oil and gasoline products for the foreseeable future.

As we bring new elements to the grid, we really need to debate how we are going to deal with the rapid escalation of an essential commodity that feeds our industries, heats our homes, and is required for daily living in Canada.

Coming from an automotive town, I have long been advocating for a change in the revolutionization of that industry to higher standards of fuel efficiency and less pollution. It has been very difficult to get some companies on board. Some have and some are now paying the consequences because of it. This debate today about energy pricing cannot be done without the contextual lens of what we are going to do with this commodity in our civil society.

The New Democratic Party has been calling for a public inquiry on this issue for over a year and it is consistent with what has been done in Parliament over the last number of years. Back in 2002, I was part of a panel on the industry committee that reviewed gasoline prices. It would have been good to have the industry minister speak tonight. I do not know if he is scheduled later on. Even back in 2002, there was a series of excuses that could be used for profiteering in the system and the speculative market, which costs Canadians, had no factual basis even on the price of gasoline.

When the price went up in 2002, and there was a concern, Parliament reconvened after it had recessed. The industry itself presented a series of arguments and people might remember these moments because they heard these excuses later on. At that time, the rapid escalation of prices was blamed on speculation in oil due to a looming war in Iraq. It was blamed on labour unrest in Venezuela, on the political crisis in Nigeria, on usually cold weather in northeastern North America, and on low inventory levels in North America.

There has been discussion about the bill that was changed with the Competition Act, but at that time there was a recommendation for a petroleum monitoring agency. Ironically, even to this day, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute does not have a problem with having a petroleum monitoring agency. We wanted to shed light on the issue so that consumers felt more empowered and there would be a direct accountability of a government resource as opposed to relying on the industry itself to gather data and information.

We never saw that come to fruition. A change in the Competition Act was proposed. It came far too late in the process. We could have had it up and running at that time. Unfortunately, it did not pan out and there are some consequences.

If we fast forward to today, we hear some of the same excuses. They have come back again. I have a chart. When we reviewed this again in the industry committee, we had another kick at the can and looked at refining and market margins. It is interesting because the market operating margin is fairly consistent over a period of time with a few jumps.

What we have is refining operating margins significantly spiking with a series of events. If we look at the events: it is the Iraq invasion, the blackout, tight gasoline supplies in the U.S., hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and tighter gasoline supplies in the U.S. again.

What we exposed at that time was the lack of refining capacity, which is really interesting because the Competition Bureau said it could not find collusion in the industry but the industry does not necessarily need that. Because of the vertical integration between the companies, there does not even need to be an orchestrated plan. Things basically level out for themselves. There would be a lack of competition and, hence, a lack of accountability.

I will point to one of the most interesting cases seen in this country. In my opinion, it was when Petro-Canada closed down its Oakville operations. When it closed the Oakville operations, it could have reinvested in that refining capacity and kept more refinement of gasoline products in Canada. It is important that we recognize that this is not only for the industry in terms of driving a vehicle and so forth, it is also important for our plastics and a whole series of industrial usages.

At any rate, when it decided not to invest in that particular operation, it decided to ship into Canada gasoline from Esso from Europe. There is no real competition in that situation. When we go to Petro-Canada and we are getting gasoline that has been refined from Esso, there is no real impetus for competition.

The big change that we have seen is a continuous speculation and a whole series of stock market surges that have cost Canadians and the price has gone up. But what we have also seen is the usage of the substance, in terms of oil and gasoline, by other countries that has actually drive up the requirements. What that has resulted in, which is important to the debate here tonight, is that it has put a petro-dollar impact on the Canadian currency.

We have seen this industry's growth move really at a lightning pace, in many respects. It has moved further and faster, and we have seen the need required more elsewhere. The casualty has been on the manufacturing sector as we are basically entering into this fast-paced exportation that has driven our Canadian dollar up significantly.

What has that meant? Since January of this year, we have lost 60,000 manufacturing jobs. In the last three years, we have lost around 250,000 manufacturing jobs. That is because the dollar, which was down around 60¢ and was probably a bit too low and maybe should have been around 70¢, has been driven to over a dollar in the U.S. right now. It is a myth for us to say that all the jobs in manufacturing are moving to Mexico, China, India, or some other place without paying due attention.

I can tell members right now that I am losing jobs consistently in my community to the United States, and it is not just the wage issue, which is thrown out as an excuse from time to time. It is the fact that the dollar and our manufacturing strategy have been undermined so rapidly right now that there has not been the adjustment period necessary.

What we have is cases like we heard about today on Radio-Canada where in New Brunswick a trucking industry has decided that it is actually going to have to close down. It has 35 trucks with which it provides goods and services across New Brunswick and other parts of the east coast, and it can no longer afford to fuel its vehicles. Before, the gas companies would give it a longer period of time to recoup its operational expenses. Now they have limited it to seven days and that has cost the industry. If the trucking industry tries to get a line of credit at a bank, it cannot get it because the bank says that with the volatility of gas prices, it is not going to lend the money.

What does that mean? That means that this industry is now folding. Ironically, I am sure that the Irving empire is going to be very happy because the fact of the matter is that it will have more of a monopolistic venture because it has a trucking industry. So, we have lost out on competition, as well.

That is why we are calling for a public inquiry. We are calling for other things too, like an ombudsman office, to start things, a clearing house, so that, for example, Canadians can actually receive some accountability.

Just recently Measurement Canada actually had a study, which had to be released through a freedom of information request, that said that 5% of the pumps failed across this country and they failed across this country 75% of the time in favour of the companies. How is it possible that Measurement Canada would not even come out with that information and table it in the House of Commons for Canadians? There is no accountability whatsoever.

We do not even know if anyone has been charged because of all those pumps that were actually misleading Canadians. Interestingly, it was also identified that many of those pumps have actually not even been tested in the last seven to eight years, and these are things that are used routinely every single day.

We have an industry with record profits, as a result of a windfall from this government in terms of actually getting funds out of a budget to 2015, that cannot even keep in order the mechanisms that actually distribute its product. It is hosing Canadians, literally.

I say it is time for accountability on a couple of fronts. Let consumers get the support they need through an independent government institution and, at the same time, let us debate what we are doing with regard to our national commodity here because this is Canada's national commodity and it is costing other types of industry. We cannot pretend to ignore that. We cannot pretend this is going to go away because we are losing good value-added jobs when we do not have to.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Windsor West brought back a lot of memories because the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology did a lot of work on the gas price issue.

Let us not forget that the recommendation to set up a mechanism to monitor petroleum products, which the Liberals finally inserted into a bill a few months before losing power, was initially made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. At the time, only Alliance members opposed it.

Today we are coming to realize the most important part of this whole discussion: this is not inevitable; there are ways to do something and take action.

Does my colleague realize that the greatest obstacle we are facing right now is the Conservative government's hands-off attitude and its belief that market forces will regulate everything eventually? With respect to the price of gas, the point is not to impose price controls. We need a comprehensive strategy that will enable us to deal with the situation and significantly reduce our oil dependency over the next few years.

Does my colleague believe that it is time this sustained effort came to fruition and that a real strategy to reduce oil dependency is possible?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember those days with my colleague as we went around this issue. He is absolutely correct. What really needs to be understood is that Canada is unique in saying that this is about market forces and there is nothing we can do. We are one of the few countries in the world that actually says and does that.

Even the United States has a system in place that President Bush has utilized to put more oil on the market to intervene directly and do what he wants, which is to lower the price of gasoline for consumers. Even in the capitalist United States, the president is willing to intervene to try to lower prices in the free market commodity system.

He does that with the knowledge that many people in the communities he represents are facing high prices. It is a very temporal thing, but at least they have a reserve system. My colleague from Western Arctic also mentioned Canada not having any of that capacity, but those tools are there and are being exercised by other nations. Whether they are weak or strong is another debate, but they are there.

We are unique in basically throwing up our hands and saying that we are sorry but we cannot help because it is too complicated, we do not understand it, and we do not care. The reality here is that the government does not want to deal with the real issue. It is an easy way to run an economy right now: to take stuff up, send it out and ship it out. The hard work happens when Canadians go to school to learn skilled trades, like they do in my riding for tool and die and mould making, but then cannot compete when the dollar has risen so fast that the plants are closing down and moving elsewhere. Canadians have done their part. It is time for the government to do its part.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today during this emergency debate on the price of gas. I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Obviously the high price of gas is of concern to all Canadians and all members of this House. We all know that rising gas prices are having an effect on the economy and on Canadians, both individuals and businesses. Motorists, truck drivers, taxi drivers—everyone is affected by gas prices. No one wants to pay more for gas, or anything else, for that matter. But as parliamentarians, we need to be clear about what we can and cannot do about this.

First, I would like to note that the federal government does not directly regulate retail gas prices, except in the case of a national emergency. The provinces have the power to regulate gas prices. As I am sure everyone knows, four provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have decided to limit retail gas prices. At the same time, Quebec has chosen to set a minimum gas price.

In addition to not wanting to interfere in a provincial jurisdiction, our government believes in competition and the market forces that have allowed our economy to prosper. Competition leads to innovation and economic growth. Canada has achieved sustained economic success thanks to privatization, free trade and deregulation. By relying on competition and market forces, our economy has grown.

Our government is determined to create the type of competitive environment that will make Canadians more prosperous. Nonetheless, we know full well that governments are not the source of prosperity. In our opinion, it is our government's job to create the conditions that will allow for innovation and entrepreneurship. Within such a framework, it is the private sector that will innovate, take risks and create wealth for the good of all Canadians.

Our government is fully committed to ensuring economic leadership for a prosperous future. To achieve that, we have developed our long-term economic plan, Advantage Canada, and other initiatives such as our science and technology strategy.

As we indicated in our recent economic statement, we will build on this by introducing important new measures that will help Canadian companies remain competitive, attract new investment to Canada, increase productivity and create more and better paying jobs for Canadians.

I also wish to point out that in July 2007 our government announced the creation of the Competition Policy Review Panel. This group's mandate is to examine two Canadian laws, the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act. The panel must submit its report by the end of June 2008. We look forward to receiving their recommendations, which I am sure will help us ensure the effectiveness of Canada's policies on competition and investment and allow us to promote even more foreign investment and create more and better paying jobs for Canadians.

I just mentioned the Competition Act. Every time we talk about the price of gas in Canada, the Competition Act and the role of the Competition Bureau inevitably are mentioned. Since their roles continue to be misunderstood, I think it would help to take a moment to explain what the Competition Bureau is.

The Competition Bureau is an independent agency that contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting market competition, and allowing consumers to make informed choices. Led by the Commissioner of Competition, the bureau investigates anti-competitive practices and ensures compliance with the laws under its jurisdiction. The commissioner is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act. The act contains criminal and civil provisions that deal with mergers and abusive behaviour by those in a dominant position, for example.

With regard to gas, the Competition Bureau examines wholesale and retail gasoline prices to determine whether those prices are the result of market forces, especially during times of major fluctuations in prices. With respect to the petroleum industry, or any other industry for that matter, the bureau tries to determine whether the Competition Act has been violated. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the act has been violated, the bureau investigates and takes the appropriate action.

Over the years, the Competition Bureau has undertaken six major studies on the gasoline industry. The Bureau's investigations resulted in 13 criminal trials linked to gasoline and heating oil prices. Eight of these trials led to convictions.

In other words, the Competition Bureau intervenes when a factor other than market forces influences the price of a product such as gasoline. In general, by allowing supply and demand to determine prices, we obtain optimal resource distribution, which sends the right messages to producers and consumers. Higher prices indicate supply restrictions, encouraging producers to produce more and consumers to consume less.

Regulating prices or setting other restrictions would cloud these indicators and thus lead to poor resource allocation, which ends up hurting all consumers.

I would like to speak briefly about a Bloc Québécois private member's bill that is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Bill C-454 proposes a number of amendments to the Competition Act.

The Bloc has made a clear link between Bill C-454 and the issue of high gasoline prices. In addition, the Bloc has stated that adopting Bill C-454 would solve the issue of high gasoline prices. That is not the case. None of the current amendments contained in Bill C-454 would impact gasoline prices as the Bloc has said.

Allow me to quickly give an example. At this time, with prices rising, the Competition Bureau often receives complaints from consumers who feel exploited by prices they feel are too high. Businesses are usually free to set their prices based on what the market will bear. Just because prices are rising does not mean that there has been an offence under the Competition Act or that someone must intervene to regulate prices.

High prices concern the bureau when they result from anti-competitive conduct contrary to the Competition Act, such as a conspiracy to increase prices. As I indicated earlier, when the Competition Bureau finds evidence of violations of the Competition Act, it takes the appropriate action. The Bloc included a provision in Bill C-454 to deal with price gouging. The Bloc indicated that this was needed to deal with gasoline prices that are considered too high, regardless of the reason for their increase. As we all know, there are various domestic and international factors that affect the price of gasoline.

Despite everything, the Bloc decided that there should be regulation of the gasoline sector with respect to prices and profit margins. The provision put forward in Bill C-454 would effectively mean that the federal government would be responsible for the regulation of gasoline prices.

As I said at the outset, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the direct regulation of retail gasoline prices except in the event of a national emergency. The provision in Bill C-454 would mean that the Competition Bureau would have to determine every day whether the price of gasoline was fair or too high.

As well, under Bill C-454, the Competition Bureau would have to make the same determination for practically every other product on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like a really effective solution to you?

As for the Liberals' suggestion to bring in a carbon tax, all that would do is drive up the price at the pump.

Although I believe that some members of the House would like the price of gasoline to be lower, we must be very careful that the proposals put forward do not have unforeseen consequences by opening huge sectors of the economy to price regulation by the federal government.

In conclusion, in contrast to the Bloc, I would like to make a helpful suggestion to Canadians. The Competition Bureau website contains information to help consumers understand the gasoline market. For additional information, I recommend Natural Resources Canada's website, Fuel Focus. This site provides clear, timely information about fuel prices and markets and ways to manage energy costs. Current, factual information on changing prices will help Canadians understand how world oil markets affect their lives.