Dick Proctor

[Competition Act, May 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge on this bill and for the opportunity to say a few words about the subject of gas pricing in Ottawa.

As the hon. member noted in his opening remarks, Bill C-235 is directed at ending predatory pricing practices of the oil companies which also own refineries and retail outlets, the so-called vertically integrated companies. We think particularly of near monopolistic practices such as the Irvings in the Atlantic region.

I note a recent letter from David Collins who is with the Wilson Fuel Company Limited to our caucus to support the upcoming introduction of this bill or amendments to the Competition Act. About these amendments he says in part:

—amendments provide some much-needed definition to the concept of predatory pricing. As local independent marketers of petroleum products, we have found ourselves singled out to face retail prices which are below those made available at wholesale. The result has been to discipline our company into retail price conformance. (This) bill would provide firms such as ours some form of legal recourse to remedy such a situation.

Mr. Collins goes on to say:

It is interesting to note that the U.S. market is far more “regulated” when it comes to the marketing of petroleum products than it is in Canada. The Americans also enjoy lower prices on average.

He concludes by saying:

(The) bill goes only part of the way toward bringing Canada's regulations in harmony with those afforded to the U.S. consumers.

I also recognize and applaud the work of some folk in Atlantic Canada who have been fighting this stranglehold on the market to which I referred a moment ago. I will particularly single out Elizabeth Weir, the leader of our party in the province of New Brunswick, and John Holm, the house leader in Nova Scotia, for the work they have done in the recent past on the whole matter of predatory pricing.

The bill that is before us would provide for the enforcement of fair pricing between a manufacturer that sells a product at retail either directly or through an affiliate and supplies a product to a customer that competes with the supplier at the retail level. This provides a supplier's customer with a fair opportunity to make a similar profit as the supplier at the retail level in a given market area.

I note in passing that we have a member in our caucus, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, who has also done a lot of work on the unfair pricing of gasoline in Canada generally but specifically in the province of Saskatchewan. He has been arguing for some time that what we need is a commission to regulate the wholesale and retail prices of gasoline, taking into account both the public interest in having reasonable and consistent pricing and the need for manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers to have reasonable costs covered. The commission could also conduct hearings on competition in the oil industry referred to it by the competition tribunal.

In Canada we accept that some prices of goods or services which are central to our well-being and to the economy in general and often controlled by monopolies or near monopolies should be regulated in the public interest. I am thinking, for example, of telephone and cable television costs.

Naturally the oil companies do not agree. They recently launched an ad campaign, as I understand it, in Ontario and in eastern Canada to explain some of the things that drive Canadians crazy on an annual basis about the oil and pricing regime as it has existed ever since I can remember.

I will give three examples. Why do prices go up just before seeding season or the harvest season in my part of the world on the prairies? Why do they go up across the country just before summer long weekends? Why, when Saskatchewan is clearly a net exporter of oil products, do we end up paying a higher price than we do in Ottawa when the tax regime is exactly the same in both provinces? Today in Regina the price at the pump is 56.9 cents as compared with 49.9 cents in Ottawa.

It is interesting to note that these ads that are running in eastern Canada are not running in the west. I would offer it is because the oil companies simply cannot answer that last one, that Saskatchewan is a net exporter yet ends up paying 7 cents a litre higher than is currently being paid in Ottawa.

As the agriculture critic for our caucus one of the things that is a real bugaboo for people on the prairies, especially at this time of the year—and it is nice to see some of the other members of the standing committee on agriculture here tonight—is the high input costs being paid out as we speak, as farmers are out on the land putting their crops in the ground. Among the highest are the costs for fossil fuels.

We in this caucus believe that the bill introduced by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is a good bill. It is worthy of support. We commend him for the work he has done and for encouraging us as a parliament to continue to work on this very important issue.

[Criminal Records Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-284 introduced by the member for Calgary Centre.

As we look at the bill we believe the purpose of its enactment is to provide for a specific instance where the public interest in a limited disclosure of the record of a conviction that has been pardoned supersedes the right to privacy of the pardoned person. The instance referred to is where the conviction was for a sexual offence against a child and the person convicted applied for a position of trust with respect to a child or children.

The disclosure would be made only to those with responsibility for the child or children who are considering the application. Unauthorized disclosure by them would be an offence as we understand the motion before us.

The bill also amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that job requirement and hiring practice for child trust positions that discriminate against a person on the ground of a pardoned sexual offence against a child are not discriminatory practices giving rise to an offence under the act.

The bill addresses serious safety concerns for children in our communities. The bill strikes a sufficient balance between the rights of the individual and the safety concerns of society. We are in support of it.

The bill provides safeguards and limitations for the release of personal information regarding a person who has been pardoned. The bill ensures that information can only be requested by a prospective employer in relation to an employment application. In other words, it cannot be indiscriminately given out or requested from anyone. There is a clear protocol for the release of information about the individual concerned and serious penalties for wrongful disclosure of the information.

These measures adequately protect individuals from the misuse of personal information of the limited group of individuals we are talking about this afternoon. It is important, however, to recognize that when a pardon is granted it is recognition the offender has demonstrated real progress, restitution and rehabilitation and the powers the bill would bring into play are not exercised lightly.

The release of any information about an individual by the state must be undertaken with the greatest of discretion and caution, and all appropriate safeguards must be respected.

One improvement to the bill with regard to privacy concerns would be a provision for the notification of the individual that a request has been made for the disclosure of the individual's criminal record and pardon. This would give the individual the opportunity to withdraw an application for employment prior to the disclosure of the individual's personal information as opposed to being notified upon disclosure.

Overall the bill addresses a very serious concern for the safety of our children, communities and society as a whole. The bill could prevent future tragedies in our communities. If even one child can be spared it is worth pursuing.

[David Levine, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a witch hunt going on in the national capital. Some are calling for the resignation of David Levine, the new director of the Ottawa Hospital, because of his political beliefs.

All the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had to say about it was that it is deplorable, but understandable. Indeed, it violates the charter of rights and freedoms.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize the damage caused to Canadian unity by the narrow-minded attitude of his colleague?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton says that he has asked people. There are votes, there are secret votes, there are hand ballots, there is hand raising and the whole thing. If the government was serious about this it would consider this option.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

How is that known? Has there been a vote?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, again I simply do not agree that there was any leadership demonstrated in this whole area.

If they did not want professionals to look at the situation and resolve it, why would they not simply let the Canadian military have the right to join a union as some other countries do and negotiate pay and rations with the government? Why not sit down and do it that way?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon.

As someone who served for a brief period on the defence committee and to elaborate on the last question asked about why we were not more visible at those public hearings, I remember that the first swing the committee took was in late January. Our caucus had a meeting and a subsequent meeting the following weekend so I was only able to get to one of them.

I must respond to the question of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton regarding whether it demonstrates great political leadership and wisdom to convene the committee to hear frankly from military men and women about pay and rations.

Calling a committee meeting probably demonstrates the absence of political leadership. The easiest thing anybody can do is to have a committee to discuss an issue. As I said in committee, and I feel very comfortable standing in my place and saying it here today, a lot of this was about busy work. It was to keep the defence committee travelling around. It was also demeaning to hear people admit that they used food banks.

In the meeting I attended in Moose Jaw in late January, Mr. Cory Robinson, a second lieutenant at CFB Moose Jaw, indicated he had to go to the local town and country mall to moonlight there for $5.75 an hour to properly feed, house and clothe his family. It must have been extremely difficult for Cory Robinson and hundreds of other people who attended those meetings. They all came out because they are concerned but I am sure it was not easy for them.

I remember saying at a committee meeting last fall that I did not run for parliament to determine what was an appropriate pay and ration for men and women who serve in the military forces. I am aware that there are professional people who do this on a permanent basis.

There are standards. There are groups that are at the lower end of the pay scale and others at the upper end that are doing relatively the same kind of work such as police officers and firefighters. If we look to the United States, the United Kingdom or other appropriate countries we can find their levels of pay and benefits for military men and women.

I do not accept that it is showing great political leadership to have directed the defence and veterans affairs committee to travel around the country to meet with people to discuss this issue.

It was probably a way of keeping the defence committee from looking at other things that would be more relevant. Obviously we do need an effective well paid military, but if we wanted to look at the helicopter issue or submarine issue in a more in depth basis we could not do it because we were travelling to look at pay and benefits. I do not accept at all the premise I have heard earlier this afternoon.

My colleague from Halifax West also talked about alternate service delivery. That has been a major concern in the Palliser riding which has 15 Wing Moose Jaw. I will read into the record a recent letter from Mervin Ernest who said:

My co-workers and myself have been in limbo awaiting decisions on contract finalization and most of all, job offers from—Bombardier—.This whole privatization process has dragged on far too long. This has been an extremely stressful time for all the employees and their families. I have seen many manifestations in my co-workers including stress illnesses and all the personal problems it can cause.

It's very clear that with everyday that passes, current Departure Incentives, Alteration and Relocation options that have been available to us will very soon cease to exist—.

As an employee of DND, I have only two burning questions. Do we have a job or not and if not, will there be financial assistance (Early Departure Incentive—) for those being terminated?

In bold face he wrote:

Please, we just want to get on with our lives!

That is the kind of lack of esprit de corps that the committee has seen and heard about over recent months at both the military and the non-military levels.

At this point in time the Canadian government has not decided what it is that the department of defence could and should be. It is trying to be all things to all people. It has not decided whether its primary role is to be a peacekeeping role or whether it is to be a full military role.

Because it has been unable to decide that, it is stretched very thin. Its equipment, as we all know, is relatively seriously outdated. It is stretching badly the pay, rations and benefits of the men and women who serve in the armed forces or the civilians working in the armed forces.

Until the government demonstrates the leadership to determine what in effect it will be when it grows up, these problems will continue to be there with the poor quality of housing and the lack of other amenities which come with that territory.

I have not seen any lack of leadership. I would agree wholeheartedly with the recommendation before us:

That the House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.

I hope we put an end to this charade of travelling around and forcing people to demean themselves by telling their personal stories, of their trips to the food bank and their moonlighting jobs at a minimum wage, and get on with the job of paying our Canadian men and women who work in the armed services a decent and fair salary.

[Agriculture, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture will know that there is a very dry spring under way on the western prairies that is beginning to look increasingly like a drought. The timing could not be worse with an already sharp drop in farm income forecast and the sharp cuts in the department of agriculture.

Would the minister of agriculture please inform the House what contingency plans will be available in the event that this dry spring turns into a full-fledged drought?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

moved:

That this House urge the government to press for the invitation of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Health Ministers in order to provide advice on how to address the financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis C from the federally-regulated blood system.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unexpected and an unanticipated honour for me to be the lead speaker in this important debate, but an honour nonetheless. I will be sharing my time with our leader, the member for Halifax.

We in this Chamber have been at this issue now for more than a month, 39 days to be precise, and all of us on this side of the House have been trying to ensure that social justice be provided to all hepatitis C victims on this sad and tragic issue.

A week ago today we voted on a motion that would have extended some measure of justice, dignity and compassion to all who contracted hepatitis C regardless of the date they became infected.

The government refused and in the ensuing vote the government position was upheld narrowly. The federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health stood shoulder to shoulder behind the agreement they had made in Toronto. The agreement was that governments would compensate only some of those infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood.

The Prime Minister insisted that last week's motion to extend compassion to those on the outside looking in on the agreement be treated as a motion of confidence in the government. It worked to some extent. The government won that confidence vote by 155 to 140. It won the confidence vote in the House of Commons, but in the process it lost the confidence of the nation.

The federal Minister of Health said that the file on compensation was closed, but this file would not stay closed because this deal would not and could not survive public scrutiny. It would not stay closed because it is a deal that draws a line in the sand and says that if a person became infected with hepatitis C after January 1, 1986 they will receive compensation, but if they were infected before December 31, 1985, the governments are sorry but they are unable to extend benefits.

We have listened day after day to the Minister of Health as he has tried to justify this sordid deal. When he talked about the class action suit Canadians contrasted those words with the classless inaction they were witnessing from this government.

The most moving moment in my short tenure as a member of parliament occurred after the vote last week when victims of hepatitis C and their family members stood in the visitors' gallery to applaud opposition members for their support even though that support fell slightly short.

What governments have been trying to do for the past 39 days against tens of thousands of Canadians is not the Canadian way. When calamity or disaster strikes it is not the Canadian way to draw a line in the sand. When the flood in Quebec's Saguenay region occurred two years ago relief went out to all, not only to some who were affected. It was the same last year with the Red River flood in Manitoba. When the ice storm struck eastern Ontario and Quebec this past January provisions were made in the emergency relief program to ensure that small farmers working off the farm were also protected. That is the Canadian way.

Why did our health minister think he could get away with something so thoroughly un-Canadian as this hepatitis C deal? I believe part of the answer lies in the current lack of resources extended to our provincial and territorial governments for the provision of health care by the federal government.

Five years after medicare was introduced at the national level, a gift from the Government of Saskatchewan introduced by Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd, the Pearson government made it attractive and saleable to the other provinces by providing 50:50 funding, 50-cent dollars. The federal government would match every 50 cents put up by the provincial and territorial governments. Today those 50-cent dollars have been whittled down to less than 13 cents.

I believe Saskatchewan is the only province that has backfilled every penny of health care money which the federal government has taken out in recent years. It has not been easy for Saskatchewan to continue with the important health funding that is necessary in an era of transition. Thanks to this government pharmaceutical costs have been going through the roof. The Saskatchewan government and other governments have been managing as best they can.

Tommy Douglas is recognized as the father of medicare in Canada. As I said a minute ago, medicare was Saskatchewan's gift to Canada. Tommy had a great way with people and with words, as those who had the privilege to know him will attest. One of his phrases goes like this: “When someone tells you that it's not the money, it's the principle, you can be almost certain it's the money”. That is what we have been witnessing in the House over the past 39 days. This has not been about principle, it has been about getting away with it as cheaply as possible and not doing the right thing, not doing the Canadian thing.

The original deal pleased no one because the victims were not present to make their case or to counter misinformation at the negotiating table. No one knows the hepatitis C issue better than those who live with the disease. They must be at the table for the next round, as this motion indicates.

Canadians expect us to act in the best interests of the victims of this blood tragedy. Let the victims now have their say on how to address their financial needs.

We do not often have a second chance either in life or in this House. In this Chamber we tend to deal with a topic and move on. However, this is one time that Canadians, by their words and actions, have forced all governments to revisit an important issue.

We should celebrate this opportunity to do the right thing, finally, for all the victims of hepatitis C. Let us celebrate the fact that we have been given a second chance to make amends and offer compensation fully and fairly. That is the Canadian way.

We have been given a second chance to do the right thing. This file is open once again. Let us not blow it this time. We call on all members of the House of every political stripe to support this motion.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of my constituency in the Regina area asking that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention that will set a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.