Reed Elley

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to join in today's debate on the official opposition supply day motion. I believe that the motion is a pertinent one for people living in all parts of Canada, whether they are located on one of our coasts, on the Prairies, or here in central Canada itself.

Every Canadian wants value for their money, whether it is the purchase of a new product or the use of their tax dollars. Although most Canadians would be surprised to come to this realization, the Liberals have not been investing federal gas tax dollars in our country's roads.

I find it ironic that the past finance minister and now the alleged prime minister in waiting, the member for LaSalle--Émard, could have implemented gas tax reforms long ago; unfortunately he only let Canadians down and did not bring in these changes when he could have.

How much money are we actually talking about? What is the real financial impact of the motion? According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, in the year 2001-02 Canadian motorists paid $6.95 billion in gas taxes and GST on gas. The federal gas tax combined with the GST cost the average Canadian $220.66 last year. This equates to 35% to 45% of a consumer's total at the pump. Conversely, U.S. gas taxes in total are roughly 25% of pump price.

Of all the gasoline taxes the federal government collects, only 2.51% is invested back into roads, roads that the businesses of my riding and every other riding in this country depend on. Roads affect us all, every business, every tourist and every commuter, and yet for all the wear and tear that is borne by the road system the federal government chooses to rip off the consumer and ignore this depleting resource.

I believe that a larger portion of the collected gas tax should be used to support this kind of infrastructure. While Ottawa spends a mere pittance of the gasoline taxes that it collects on road infrastructure, 91.6% of all provincially collected fuel taxes is invested into transport related infrastructure projects. In comparison to our neighbours to the south, 84% of the U.S. federal fuel taxes is earmarked for specific highway improvements.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about what my constituents of Nanaimo--Cowichan have clearly told me on this issue. Their concern over the feeling of being ripped off by paying too much in gas taxes and seeing little or no return into the infrastructure is becoming almost too much to bear.

Let me explain this a bit further. During the month of April, I noted the range of gas prices across Canada and specifically on Vancouver Island. I had heard from many of my constituents from Nanaimo--Cowichan who were as baffled as I was over the wide range of gas prices all across this country, this during a time when some of the big oil companies were posting record-setting profits for the first quarter of 2003 and the federal and provincial governments were reaping enormous tax windfalls. All hon. members need to remember who is paying for these corporate profits and the government windfall. All of these moneys are coming from the same pocket, the pockets of the consumers, our constituents.

Gas prices all across Canada vary a great deal. Although there is a wide range in each province, during April when I was specifically following this issue consumers in Ontario were paying as little as 60.7¢ per litre, in Alberta they were paying as low a price as 61.2¢, and on the B.C. lower mainland 65.7¢. This is the average price. Members may be surprised to learn that my constituents, the people living on Vancouver Island, in that time period were forced to pay from 77.9¢ to over $1 per litre.

Given all the excuses for this price range that consumers have heard in the past, none of the reasons really ring true. I believe there is a very serious price discrepancy that is affecting each one of us every time we fill up our gas tank.

This government has been boasting about the Kyoto protocol. I note that the Minister of the Environment still has not produced a comprehensive plan for all Canadians to review, and this is several months after the signing of that protocol.

While the government is taking the vast majority of gas taxes and using it for virtually everything but infrastructure, I note that most people on Vancouver Island do not have easy access to convenient transit and rely heavily on their vehicles. In spite of this, they are paying among the highest prices in Canada for fuel and therefore paying an extraordinary amount in taxes, yet they are being forced to drive their vehicles on a deteriorating infrastructure. Something is not right here.

I have taken the time to write to all of the CEOs of the major petroleum companies in Canada. I have asked them to explain and justify from their perspective their company's position specific to the gas prices that my constituents have been forced to endure through no fault of their own. I believe that these CEOs need to explain the rationale of why the prices in one region of the country are so disproportionate to prices in another. I must say that, after months, to date I have not yet had the pleasure of one reply from any CEO.

In turn, I feel that the same question I have asked is equally applicable to the federal government. The federal government must account for its share of the price of gasoline through its taxes.

Frankly, my constituents are very upset about this matter. It is easy for the government to talk about transparency and accountability, but to date we have not really seen it. It would be nice to see the government walk the talk once in a while.

My colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, as well as members from other opposition parties, have noted many different facts in their presentations here today on this opposition supply day motion. Here are just a few that I would like to add to the debate.

Fact number one: Ottawa spends only a very small portion of its shared gas tax revenues on Canada's roads. Fact number two: in the last 10 years, and in spite of the influence that the prime minister in waiting has had over the federal budget, the federal excise tax on fuel has increased by 33%. Fact number three: Canadian gas taxes are twice the rate of the U.S. gas taxes.

These and many other facts are indisputable. It is undeniable that while huge sums of money have been raised from federal gas taxes, little goes toward the upkeep and maintenance of these roads. It has been estimated that Canada's roads require $17 billion in infrastructure repairs.

Canadian Alliance policy states:

We will ensure that taxes which are imposed for a specific purpose should be used for that purpose alone, should be removed once no longer required, and not be allowed to be put toward general revenue.

Mr. Speaker, does that not make simple common sense to you?

In keeping with this policy, there is a Canadian Alliance solution. The Leader of the Official Opposition recently stated:

What we are proposing instead is that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax--say three to five cents a litre--and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue. In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, the transfer of these revenues to provinces and on to municipalities would be conditional on signed agreements that these resources would be used for infrastructure.

Some of our colleagues, indeed my last colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke, indicated that somehow this policy would be divisive across the country, that it would not be conducive to bringing the country together, that somehow the Canadian Alliance was a regional party that has no interest in the whole country. May I suggest that he is totally wrong and that he needs a little lesson in history? Unlike the Bloc Québécois, which came to the House with the idea of tearing the country apart, the slogan of the Reform Party, the predecessor of this party, was “the west wants in” and it wants in to this country to make it better. We believe that the sharing of revenues across the country from a tax that should be dedicated from gasoline taxes to repair infrastructure across the highways of the country is a way of keeping the country together and not tearing it apart.

Canadians are paying too much for gas, largely because of the excessive federal taxes the government has imposed on all consumers. The solution is simple: reduce gasoline taxes and strike an agreement with the provinces for the creation of a fund to be used by provincial and municipal jurisdictions for infrastructure and the repairing of the roads across our country.

[Petitions, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-250 and are asking that Parliament take a good look at the legislation and halt the passage of Bill C-250 to ensure that religious freedom remains unfettered in Canada.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this topic is very important for Canadians across the country. My hon. colleague has done a good deal of research into this area. He is very eloquent and articulate about sharing this information with Canadians.

I would like him to comment on the Liberal government and the previous Conservative administration taking dedicated taxes and using them for the purposes that they said they would use them for when they imposed the taxes on Canadians. It is a dismal record. Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on that.

[Softwood Lumber, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I have with this government is that it will not make decisions until it is absolutely necessary.

We remember the last minute intervention of the Prime Minister during the Quebec referendum. Only when it looked like the referendum was all but lost did the government take any real action. Then the government promised to replace the Sea King helicopters. The Prime Minister's handling of the issue cost taxpayers $500 million and today we are still without replacements. During the Iraqi crisis, the Prime Minister waited until the eleventh hour to make any decision, then, aided by hateful comments from his caucus, he alienated our neighbours to the south.

Now there is softwood lumber. It has devastated my riding and home province of British Columbia. The government knew that this agreement was expiring. For five years it did nothing to ensure its continuance in favour of our Canadian industry.

Sadly, the Minister for International Trade cannot tell us what the plan is so that this kind of situation does not occur every five years, putting the softwood lumber industry in peril. My constituents and Canadians alike deserve and expect better.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the wrong member of this party that question. He says that I supported the United States position in the war against Iraq. Indeed, I was one of two members of this party who did not support my party's position on it. We have the freedom in this party to go against the wishes of our party if we can prove that our constituents are indeed against something. In fact, that was my position.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question the hon. member should be asking is not what the United States feels about this issue but indeed what Canada feels about it. This is the Canadian Parliament. We represent the Canadian people. We have the opportunity to make some kind of decision that could be a world leader in this. Indeed, maybe my hon. colleague should consult his own constituents on this and vote perhaps more with the wishes of his constituents.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that of course the United States has had a benevolent relationship with the Taiwanese people for a long time. It has been supportive of Taiwan's position in the world and indeed has come to its rescue a number of times in terms of military aid and that sort of thing. I think in a sense the United States acts as a protector for Taiwan in the world in the face of some of the concerns vis-à-vis China. So my understanding is that the United States' position is in favour of this.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate. I support the motion and believe it is an issue that should be coming before all members of the House for both debate and support.

The world that we live in has changed in many ways in recent years. Indeed in recent months we have heard many references to the world since 9/11. Without a doubt there are many things that have changed even since that time. We are more aware of course of both our personal and our country's security. We hear terms such as biological warfare and recognize that it could now happen here and not just in some far-off place.

There have been many other changes in recent years as well. Our world has become much smaller. When Lord Grey was the Governor General of Canada in the early 1900s, he had a summer home. That does not sound unusual today, except that his summer home was located in south central B.C., I believe in the riding of the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. To reach his summer home, the Governor General rode the train for days in a cross-country adventure and arrived in Banff, Alberta in order to begin several more days of horseback riding.

By way of comparison, many of us will be on a plane later this week and will arrive in British Columbia in hours, not days. Our offices are filled with computers that send and receive e-mails to virtually anywhere in the world instantly. We can communicate with our constituents from all parts of Canada through cell phones, video conferencing and faxes.

My point for raising this is simply that we no longer live in isolation. No country lives in isolation any more. From a global perspective, distance has become less and less relevant. We can no longer view world issues with an isolationist perspective.

In recent weeks the world has watched and grappled with severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS. As we already know, this infectious disease has infected people around the world, killing many in the process. The problem is we simply do not fully understand all aspects of the disease, how it started, how it is transmitted. At present we have no cure or vaccine to prevent the spread of SARS.

In the past there have been many devastating epidemics of influenza that have swept the globe. Surely learning the lessons of history we must do everything in our power to ensure that this does not happen again. Disease does not recognize borders or lines on a map. Disease travels where infected people travel and travel is an integral part of our business and vacation world today. As we have witnessed in recent weeks, a disease like SARS has the capability of travelling great distances before we even know it exists.

What are we able to do? We must share information openly. It is simply not enough to expect that each individual country can devise its own preventive methods or cure solely on its own.

The case of Taiwan is clearly not in keeping with this. As my colleague the member for Kootenay—Columbia so ably outlined in his opening address of this debate today, there are very clear and compelling reasons for supporting Taiwan's application as an observer to the World Health Organization. This debate should not involve international or internal politics. It does involve world health and that is clearly where the debate should remain centred.

From the information that I have read, Taiwan has requested observer status to the World Health Organization in the past. Unfortunately to date, this request has fallen on deaf ears as well as outright obstruction from the People's Republic of China. The time has come to move beyond idle words and to real action on this matter. The most recent outbreak of SARS gives impetus to resolving this issue.

Taiwan, with a population of over 22 million living in a geographic region a little larger than the size of Vancouver Island where I live, has all the health amenities that the citizens of a developed country have come to expect.

Among other things, Taiwan has contributed to medical research and to health issues that have helped people from around the world. The Taiwanese people deserve the same access and level of health care that everyone in this room has come to expect when it comes to world epidemics like SARS.

It is imperative that we focus on the health of people, not on politics. Earlier today the secretary of state felt that we should not lose focus on this issue. On this I agree with him. However, it is my belief that his government has already lost focus on this important issue itself.

It is my belief that Taiwan must be viewed as a health entity. The Taiwanese government and people face health difficulties regardless of any political claim. The health needs of the people of the island of Taiwan must be viewed in a progressive, not regressive, manner.

The world around us today relies on expanded trade. When the Asian economy sneezes, the world economy catches a cold. So it is when the Asian population contracts a new illness: the health of the whole world suffers.

We can take steps to resolve this and Canada can be shown to be a leader in this matter, a compassionate, caring leader. Along with world trade of commodities, there must be world trade in all forms of information, including, and especially perhaps, health information.

The world has watched as SARS took root in China and how China misreported the now deadly effects of this mysterious outbreak. Now China is attempting to withhold Taiwan's entry as an observer to the World Health Organization. I do not find this an acceptable practice and I must voice my opposition to it on health and humanitarian grounds.

I note that while the secretary of state mentioned UN recognized countries that are not formally a part of the World Health Organization, he failed to mention that according to The Globe and Mail on May 20, 2003, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Rotary International Club have observer status with the World Health Organization. Somehow the believability of the hon. member's argument does not stand up, then, to greater scrutiny in the face of these statistics.

In considering this debate I have reflected on the roles that Canada has played in many other international situations. Canadians have been involved internationally through the federal government, NGOs, charitable organizations and various other methods in order to ensure that the world has clean drinking water, fresh food and the like. Now, when we can support the Taiwanese in a practical manner, the federal government has an opportunity to step up and be counted on the world stage. Unfortunately, from what I have seen today the government is going to continue to follow a hypocritical pattern.

Let me just repeat some of the opening statements from the constitution of the World Health Organization:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being...health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being, without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition...the promotion and protection of health is of value to all...Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples, which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.

In fact, I note that nowhere in the constitution of the World Health Organization is there direct reference to any one country. There are, however, many references to the needs of people and the promotion of physical, mental and social health, but no references to countries. I believe this is an important distinction.

Although the World Health Organization is an arm of the United Nations, which obviously is made up of countries, everyone is deserving of good health. Taiwan is not asking for additional consideration of the World Health Organization for full or associate membership. Taiwan is not asking the World Health Organization to make, therefore, a political decision. Taiwan is asking to have observer status in order to receive and offer health information in the most efficient manner possible. Furthermore, the United States, the European Union and Japan are now all in favour of granting Taiwan observer status with the World Health Organization.

Why should Canada be out of step? A country that has had a compassionate record in terms of countries in need, we should not be hypocritical now in our stand on Taiwan. I fully support the motion and I urge all good members of the House to do likewise.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. If the government is against the motion, why is it against the motion?

[Petitions, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the second petition I wish to present today is signed by 764 constituents from around my riding. The petitioners are concerned and urge the Government of Canada to stand firmly for peace, to refuse all military and other involvement in support of the war in Iraq, and to use all of its influence to bring about a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle East.