Dave Chatters

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-4 and to speak to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I will start by repeating my position that the bill has real merit. If the government sees fit to support my amendment in Group No. 3, we may yet have a chance as a party to support the bill at third reading.

Motions Nos. 3 and 4 are a credible effort by the member for South Shore to tighten up the bill, at least to some degree. Even if he were to achieve what he is suggesting in the motions, the bill would still leave a lot to be desired, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. We would be willing to support those two motions.

The whole bill has been created like a sieve, and I suspect that was deliberate on the part of the minister and the government. When the minister was before committee he suggested that some of the vagueness and loose wording in the bill was put there to allow maximum flexibility in the application of the principles of the bill.

That was admirable, but I think it is incumbent upon us, as an opposition to the government and in representing the concerns of Canadians, to demand some checks and balances in the bill that would protect value for money when we are spending taxpayer dollars. The issue of this particular group around the membership of the foundation and the directors of the foundation is one of the areas of concern.

The government refers to reasonable expenses and reasonable costs. To some degree it addresses the issue of remuneration for directors. It specifically leaves out any mention of remuneration for the chairman who is appointed by the governor in council or by the Prime Minister. This is reason to be concerned.

When we last visited the bill some days ago some members presented a number of examples of extravagant or ridiculous use of taxpayer dollars in government operations, boards, foundations and departments. Some of those examples were a bit extreme but they did point out why we should be concerned.

The example I would use concerns Mr. Ted Weatherill who was a government bureaucrat. He was under the same guidelines of reasonable expenses and reasonable remuneration. He turned in a bill to taxpayers for $21,000 in three years for his travel expenses. These things actually happen. It is not a figment of anybody's imagination. The concern is legitimate when we are dealing with this matter.

We could fix the bill. We could make it a bill that we could support in the interests of cleaner air and a cleaner environment. However we cannot support it because it is custom made for the abuse of tax dollars. It would not take an awful lot to fix it.

When we were last debating the bill the minister said that the criteria and the funding agreement would be tabled in due course and that if we or other members of the House had a problem with it we would have an opportunity to bring it forward and discuss it.

That is quite true, but if there is one thing I have learned in the seven years I have been here, it is that a member can bring things to the House and discuss them until he suffers from premature failure of his vocal chords and nothing will happen. The fact that we can discuss issues in the House does not mean that the concerns are ever addressed.

It would be much more prudent to fix the bill before we passed it and to address our concerns so that we could then support the bill.

We support this group of motions. They are well intended and move in the right direction, although they fall far short of fixing the bill. At least it is an honest effort in the right direction. When it comes time to vote we will be supporting the motions.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on the first group of motions, Motions Nos. 1 and 10, we would support Motion No. 10 and reject Motion No. 1. Motion No. 1 in the name of the Bloc member just adds further confusion and vagueness to the whole bill.

The intent of the bill and what it hopes to achieve are certainly honourable, and our party wanted very much to support the bill. However when we look at the bill and analyse it, it is so vague that it appears deliberately designed to allow huge discretion in not only the criteria of the projects, but also the people who receive funding to undertake the projects.

The criteria that apply to those people is wide open. There does not seem to be any kind of criteria. As the auditor general noted in his last report to the House, there are serious deficiencies in the quality of government appointments to some of the boards and a lack of expertise. The bill is very vague and loose on who might qualify as a member of the foundation, a member of the board or the chair of the board.

The bill needs tightening up and cleaning up. One example of that need is the fact that the minister and the government have amended the bill four or five times in committee and now in the report stage. That is quite extraordinary. The minister presents a bill to the House and then, before the bill even finishes the process, sees flaws and amends the bill in a number of areas. It is very loosely worded.

I will return to Motion No. 1. I have huge problems with the idea of the Bloc including the provincial environment minister in establishing criteria for the project or group to be funded. We would have a piece of legislation with different criteria in all 10 provinces. I cannot see how that could possibly work. If there is one thing we need here it is more clarity and consistency, not less.

However I think Motion No. 10 is perfectly valid. In an effort to tighten up the bill, at least to some degree, we in the Progressive Conservative Party ask that the eligibility criteria be included. Then we could all assess it here in the House, have a look at it and make amendments and recommendations on how the criteria could be better applied. I think that is a perfectly valid suggestion. We certainly will support Motion No. 10.

I will speak further on the other groups as we get to them.

[Lumber Industry, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it may have been a problem with my hearing but Peter O'Neil in the Ottawa Citizen heard the same as I did, that the Prime Minister suggested there were would be a linkage.

Who is speaking for the government? Is it the trade minister? Is it the natural resources minister? Is it the Prime Minister? Will they use Canada's energy resources as a linkage?

[Lumber Industry, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister suggested that the government would use President Bush's desire for a continental energy policy as leverage in the softwood lumber agreement negotiations.

Both the trade minister and the natural resources minister have stated previously that the government would not use Canada's energy resources as a bargaining chip. If there is one thing investors hate it is uncertainty.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will his government use access to the energy resources as leverage in Canada's softwood lumber agreement?

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, February 22nd, 2001]

Health Canada said they did.

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting presentation by the hon. member. As he suggested, we have been around and around this debate for many years in the House. He has not changed his mind and I have not changed my mind. Certainly the bitterness that he expresses over the length of time he gets to debate the issue, his grievance is not with the opposition, our party, but with his own government.

We came back to this place, presented proposals and advocated change to the parliamentary rules that govern this place. We presented proposals to change how this place works and how it could be more democratic so that members like himself could have more say in what goes on around here and have a better chance to debate ideas from the backbenches.

However, at the same time, I do not see the hon. member, who did the complaining a minute ago, standing and voting against his government to help that process change. It is disappointing that did not happen.

Aside from that, I will now go to the bill at hand. I have a problem with a couple of issues in the bill, one being the MMT issue and the other being oxygenation. I essentially agree with what the member said. If we could oxygenate to the levels he suggested, the octane enhancing additive would not be necessary. However, to do that it would require an enhanced refining process, thereby adding to the cost of refining a litre of gasoline.

We have not built any refineries for many years but the demand for gasoline has increased tremendously. We are at a point where the balance between demand and supply is very tight. If the demand rises much more, or we enhance the refining process and slow down the time it takes to put a barrel of crude oil through a refinery and the production of gasoline at the other end is extended, then we will have domestic shortages in supply of gasoline. That has to be a concern. The idea sounds viable and has merit but we have to look at the supply and demand side of the situation too.

On the whole issue of MMT, the member opposite and I have argued on this many times before. I do not necessarily disagree with his point of view that it would be a good thing to remove the additive MMT from gasoline because of the potential harm that manganese could do to human beings. I have a far greater concern with his position than to argue the merits of manganese in gasoline.

The point I argued when we had this debate before was that Health Canada researched the issue and reported back that the amounts of MMT or manganese that is added to gasoline to enhance octane has no harmful effect on human health. Yet he and other members of his caucus have argued that it is deadly dangerous stuff, that it is killing people or has the potential to kill people and that we should ban it.

We should ban it, of course, on the precautionary principle, but Health Canada said that it looked at it from the precautionary principle and that it rejected banning it simply because it could not see that it was harmful to human health.

If members of the government are saying that Health Canada is not protecting the health of Canadians, that it is not ruling wisely and using precautionary measures to ban this substance, as the members seem to be intimating, then I think we are in really big trouble. If Health Canada is not protecting the health of Canadians on this issue, how many other issues is it not protecting the health of Canadians on?

Let us not stand here and rave about the evils of MMT. Let us fix the system so that Health Canada will be able to do the job that everyone hopes it is doing in order to protect Canadians. When it does a study and reports that a product is not harmful to our health, then members, such as the one who just spoke, can have confidence and be comfortable that in fact is the case. I have to believe it is. I cannot stand here and think that Health Canada would endanger all of us, for whatever reason, from incompetence or influence by Ethyl Corporation or any of the other things that have been suggested.

The issue is much bigger than what the member suggests. He is a member of the government that has been in power now for some seven years. He had better work on his government to fix the problems, not only with how private members' bills are debated, but on how government agencies like Health Canada work to protect Canadians. Those are such important issues that he needs to argue with his ministries and his government, not with the opposition.

On the issue of ethanol, he indicated how other parts of the world, particularly the United States, were so far ahead of us in the use and production of ethanol. I do not argue that ethanol is a much cleaner burning fuel. It would be a good idea if we had more ethanol, but Canadians have to know that without an 8 cent excise subsidy on ethanol production it is not economical in Canada. Without the 8 cent subsidy, we simply would not have that industry.

I have real concerns because the Minister of Natural Resources suggested in the House today that the government's position is to greatly increase the production of ethanol and to enjoy all the benefits that come with it. Creating an industry that cannot exist without that level of subsidization is not good economic policy. Somewhere the house of cards will come crashing down and we will pay the price. Whether it is the government through the use of taxpayer dollars that pays the price or whether it is the consuming public at the pump, somebody has to pay the price and will do so.

In spite of all the rhetoric around climate change, the horror stories about what might or might not happen because of climate change around the world, Canadians generally have not shown a real willingness to pay the price.

A few moments ago I came from a briefing with the Conference Board of Canada where the government commissioned a study on the price of gasoline. There were some members of the government at the briefing. I have heard them a number of times raging about the rip-off in the gasoline market and in gasoline prices. There was huge outrage last summer when gasoline prices in parts of Canada were spiking at 90 cents a litre.

If the member is suggesting that Canadians are willing to pay the price, be it 8 cents a litre for more ethanol or be it for more intensive refining to reduce tailpipe emissions, the government has a big job ahead of it to convince Canadians that it needs to be done and they should be willing to do it.

As I listened in my riding and elsewhere all across the country, Canadians were outraged and members of the House seemed to be outraged at the level of gasoline prices last summer. If we do the things the member wants to do then we had better get used to those gasoline prices. We will again see even higher gasoline prices this summer than we saw last summer. Some would suggest that gas will spike at $1.28 a litre when we hit the peak driving season this summer in some parts of Canada. Again we will hear that outcry from one side of the country to the other.

If we are really serious and if we think we should do what the member suggests then we have a big selling job. I do not have a big selling job. His party is the government. It has a big selling job to do in Canada. The government better get started on it right away if it is going to win that argument.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been all party consultations and I request that you seek unanimous consent to allow our first speaker on Bill C-9, the member for Lanark—Carleton, to split his time with the member for Edmonton North.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4. Certainly the minister paints a fine picture and I would not disagree with much of what he said.

However, as the critic for the Canadian Alliance Party, I begin the debate quite frankly undecided as to what position to take on the bill, because it is generally quite vague and lacks a lot of specific detail. Certainly in his presentation the minister did little to add any of that detail.

In the seven years I have been in the House, many as the critic for natural resources and for this particular minister, I have found that he has always been a master of words and is able to get around specifics while presenting a very encouraging picture. However, I need to understand some of the details around the bill and specifically why we need to create this new bureaucracy to achieve the goals the minister spoke about.

Since the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and Canada's commitment at that conference, the government seems to have been in a constant search for that silver bullet the minister referred to and seems to be shooting bullets in every direction rather than focusing on any particular strategy.

Certainly the billion dollars the minister referred to that has been put in place to help us to reach the objective has been scattered around in so many directions that it is quite frankly hard to keep track of. There have been a number of programs: the climate change early action fund, $150 million; the $60 million for renewable energy initiatives; $15 million for the procurement of green power; $125 million for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to support environmentally friendly technologies; $100 million for international capacity building; and the list goes on.

What I was hoping to learn from the minister's presentation was why there is a need for the new bureaucracy and specifically what it would achieve in enhancing our chances of reaching the Kyoto protocol, the possible achievement of which seems to be quickly evaporating in regard to the government and Canada. In spite of how many times we read the government's action plan on climate change, which was introduced before the election, it just does not cut it in regard to the possibility of achieving the Kyoto protocol targets. By my calculations, at least, if all of the objectives under action plan 2000 were achieved we would only be one third of the way to the Kyoto commitment, so we are certainly not there.

The other concern I have is in regard to the minister speaking about how our survival depends on our ability to innovate. I suggest that there is some truth to that, but I certainly would also suggest that our survival depends very much on our ability to afford and to implement those innovations as they come along. Of course that has been part of the problem with this whole climate change initiative and where we are going.

The technologies that are emerging and will emerge and become available generally, at least in the timeframe of the Kyoto protocol, are totally unaffordable for the average Canadian who would use this technology. I refer to the Ballard power cell and the development of prototype power cell vehicles and electric cars and those kinds of things, and to the government's own initiative in investment in green power. These cars are three times the price of standard cars on the market today and are certainly far out of reach of the average citizen who drives to work every day.

Also, the government's investment in green power comes at a price at least double that of even today's marketplace electricity rates, so again it is a wonderful idea but unaffordable in general society.

Our challenge is not only to develop these innovative ideas and technologies but to make them affordable so that we can put them to work in society. If we cannot achieve that, the development of these things has little impact on or benefit for mainstream Canadians.

Having said that, I have to spend a little time on the bill itself because I have some real concerns with how it is put together and what it is advocating.

Again I ask why we need the bill. Why could these funds not be delivered through existing mechanisms that are already in place under the climate change envelope, through the Business Development Bank, through some regional development agencies that a lot of government dollars are funnelled through? As well, why could they not be delivered through some of the grassroots community development associations that fund the development of new technologies, new ideas and new projects? One has to wonder why the government is choosing to go with this format. I did not hear any indication as to why in the minister's speech. I am really concerned simply because it is the creation of another 30 bureaucratic positions, albeit 15 of them are not in a true sense paid bureaucrats and the establishment of the foundation is a good idea.

On the other hand, long ago the minister established all kinds of these bodies to help him understand his portfolio and to advise him on all kinds of issues that fall within that portfolio. They are called ministerial advisory committees. All kinds of very knowledgeable and pretty sharp people sit on these advisory committees at no cost to the people of Canada other than the cost of their expenses, as would be the case for this foundation. I do not think we need to create this foundation to get the services of these people from industry and from society at large in order to achieve what we want. Of course the board of directors is another story because the directors will be paid.

The foundation itself will set the terms and conditions, the salaries, the job descriptions and all of the rest of those things that do not exist in the bill. The bill gives broad powers to the foundation itself to set up all of those things. As the minister suggested in his speech, the specific funding agreement between the foundation and the government will come at some time after the creation of the bill. Based on the government's record of accountability and transparency and its record on the appointment of people favourable to the government for these kinds of positions, this is cause for concern for most Canadians. If the government is just going to use this as another source for patronage appointments to reward those loyal to the government, I do not think we need more of them. We have more than enough already. The government, or the governor in council as it is called, has abused that power in the past. We do not need to create more of those positions.

Having said that, we need only to look at other crown corporations that the government has created in the past to deliver funding in partnership with the private sector and for good causes.

The creation of the foundation generally sounds like a good idea, particularly when the minister presents it. Why will this be different from, for example, what happened to the president of the Business Development Bank when he chose to turn down a project in the Prime Minister's riding favourable to the Prime Minister? It did not take long for him to change his mind and it did not take long to find somebody else to replace the president of the Business Development Bank.

My concern is whether the foundation, its president and board of directors will be treated any differently by the government than those other organizations. That is totally unacceptable.

It is difficult to determine exactly what this arm's length organization, as the minister put it, will be. It appears to me that it is in fact a crown corporation created by the government to move the disbursement of funds away from the government, away from direct responsibility of the minister and to remove it from scrutiny by the Auditor General of Canada. That is one of my biggest concerns with this whole foundation.

The bill deals a fair bit with the creation of an auditor who would be hired and directed by the foundation itself. However, it would be accountable only through its financial statement once a year to parliament. I do not think that is sufficient scrutiny or sufficient transparency to satisfy most Canadians.

The auditor general must have access to this thing. It must be more than simply an effort to move the whole idea of funding the development of new technologies away from the government so that the government can deflect a lot of the criticism for the failure of these projects. Of course the government always accepts the accolades for the success of the projects. Essentially if it moves away from the department as it exists now to this crown corporation, then the crown corporation is a shield for the minister and for the government for any undesirable results that might in fact happen.

That has to be addressed and hopefully we can talk about that. I will be introducing some amendments in the process to hopefully achieve some of that transparency and some of that accountability for those things.

Essentially, it could be a good tool for the government to use to move and to help create this development of new technologies. However, it is very hard to determine just exactly how this foundation and its board of directors will achieve the goals that are laid out for them. Clause 19(1) of the bill states:

From its funds, the Foundation may provide funding to eligible recipients to be used by them solely for the purposes of eligible projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the Foundation in respect of funding—

Again, this is okay expect that nobody knows what those terms and conditions will be or what the agreement between the government and the foundation will be. Hopefully we will have some clarification of that as we go through the process.

However, what concerns me is that it states:

—including terms and conditions as to repayment of the funding, intellectual property rights and the maximum amount and proportion of funding for eligible projects to be provided by the Foundation.

It is difficult to understand whether the foundation is simply seeking out projects that show potential and helping to provide funding in those projects or whether its role is to provide loans to these projects. It does not appear that the foundation has the ability to actually have any ownership in these projects. It says:

—the Foundation shall not acquire any interest, whether through the acquisition of share capital, a partnership interest or otherwise, in any research infrastructure acquired by the eligible recipient for the project.

It is a little hard to understand what the objective is, whether it is for the foundation simply to cast around and pick winners and losers and when it thinks it has a winner to heap money on to the project in the hopes that it will be successful or whether it is something else.

Both provincial and federal governments certainly do not have a good track record when it comes to picking winners and losers in business. I do not think that should really be the role of government. At any rate, the government's role is to provide an environment where business can flourish, be successful and develop these kinds of technologies. Government interference through the use of tax dollars into business and into the development of business can make winners if enough is invested. If we invest enough money we can grow bananas at the North Pole.

The reality is that it distorts the marketplace. It distorts market forces of competition and innovation. I do not know that that should be the government's role. In fact, I do not think it is. Say we have a promising private sector company in one part of the country and a similar private sector company in another part of the country, both with some interesting projects that show potential. We have this foundation of people generally appointed by the government and favourable to the government. Again, if we look at the history with the Business Development Bank, which is vulnerable to political pressure and political interference by the government, it is easy to see how choices can be made to influence the success or failure of a particular project. Depending on where the company is located in the country and how favourable that particular organization is, or perhaps even how large a donation it has made recently to a particular political party, could have an effect.

I hate to be so skeptical. However, after the years that I have been here it just seems to happen over and over again. I have no reason to expect that this particular venture will be any different from the ones in the past.

We have learned some things already from the government's efforts on greenhouse gas emission reduction. It is worthy to note that the government has already made some serious mistakes in this rush to reduce emissions, to clean up our environment and to create sustainable technologies.

Right from the very beginning of the conference of the parties in Buenos Aires, I believe it was, and as we move forward, the environmental side of the equation has always presented the theory that we had to force, either through taxation or through market forces, the cost of fossil fuel energy higher. It was too cheap in North America and we had to do something to force energy prices higher, much higher than those in Europe. We had to force energy conservation which would help us achieve our objective of reduced emissions because we have used less fossil fuel and less energy, thereby fewer emissions.

If there is anything to have been learned in the last year with the energy crisis that we are facing with spiralling energy costs in electricity, in natural gas in particular and gasoline, it is that higher energy prices are not the answer for conservation.

Fossil fuel intense projects like greenhouses, transportation, commercial and residential heating are switching back to technologies less favourable to the environment instead of simply using conservation measures to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

With organizations like the Pembina Institute, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the others that had this idea, it is becoming clearer that there were other agendas at play other than just energy conservation through higher prices for energy.

We have to look at that, learn from it and understand that the development of new technologies will be the answer and will be our saviour. They will reduce emissions and use less energy. The fact is that the average citizens out there would love to be more environmentally conscious and would love to do their part in the reduction of emissions and saving the environment.

What has the government actually done to help them do that? To my knowledge the only thing under this climate change initiative the government presented was an offer of $100 to pay half the cost of an energy audit for one's home, so that a new industry, energy auditors, could be created and could go around telling people how they can be more efficient and save money on their energy costs.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that once the energy auditor presents recommendations, the real cost in that initiative is going to be the implementation of those recommendations. The upgrading of residential and commercial buildings and all of things that go with it can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

At some point the government is going to have to look at a program to help Canadians take hold of the new technologies which have been developed and implement them. That would not only be in residential situations but also in transportation and all kinds of sectors. There are some terrific ideas that will come forward and that are already coming forward. However, the cost of implementing them cannot be borne by the individual or by the corporate sector that will be expected to use them.

Imagine what would happen to the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables if the cost of transportation continues to rise as it has done in the last year? We clearly have to find better and newer technologies to implement in the transportation sector. Because that sector operates on such a fine margin, there has to be some kind of program and thought put into just how that sector could implement those technologies and still be able to provide a service to Canadians that is affordable and reasonable.

I have not seen any indication from the government that it would do that. The only thing it has done so far is the recent energy rebate which has turned into the biggest boondoggle we have seen in a long time. People in penitentiaries, dead people and people who never paid an energy bill in their lives are receiving rebates, while those who are responsible for those costs are not getting anything.

Just this morning I had a call from a lady not too far from Ottawa. She was wondering what the longer term plan of the government might be and what we could suggest to the government that might help Canadians next winter and the winter after that. It is inevitable that energy costs will continue to rise, hopefully not at the rate they did this winter. It is a finite resource and the cost of energy will continue to rise either because of the depleting resource or because of the implementation of these new technologies of which the minister spoke.

I was hard-pressed to give the lady a lot of assurance that there was anything on the drawing board that would help her in particular. However I did suggest, as we have suggested to the government on a number of occasions, that by just simply designating home heating fuels as an essential commodity and removing excise tax and GST from those commodities would be a step in the right direction. Gas bills having now reached a point where in many cases they are higher than mortgage payments, I think the removal of those taxes would go a long way toward showing some compassion for the hardship created by those energy prices.

I look forward to the bill getting into committee so we can hear witnesses and hear an explanation of all these things. At that time we will make up our mind whether to support the bill at third reading stage. There needs to be a lot of discussion and a lot of answers from the government side on exactly what we are trying to achieve, how we will get there and how we will assure Canadian taxpayers that this foundation is a good use of their tax dollars. Canadians need assurance that their dollars are not being squandered and abused as so often is the case.

I look forward to the debate and discussion in committee. We will speak further to the bill at third reading stage and go from there.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on Bill C-2. Before I get into the bill, I would like to take the opportunity, this being my first time to speak in the new parliament, to thank my constituents of Athabasca for returning me to the House of Commons for the third time.

It certainly was a very emotional, hurtful and difficult election campaign. Some unwarranted accusations flew around both in the national campaign and in the local campaign in my riding. I was very pleased that my constituents saw through that and chose to return me in spite of the rhetoric. I am very humbled to come back and serve them in the House once more.

The debate this morning and the action of the government to invoke closure or time allocation on the bill certainly disappointing. I came here some seven and a half years ago, perhaps overly idealistic about what parliament was all about, how it worked and how I could serve my country and be part of the institution that makes laws and governs and guides the country.

Certainly after seven years I think most of us, not only on this side of the House but a good number on the other side, share the opinion expressed by my former colleague, Lee Morrison, who served in the House for seven years. In a very blunt article yesterday or the day before in the National Post , he expressed total disillusionment and extreme disappointment with the relevancy of the House Commons and how it works.

I do not discount any of the accusations or comments he made, and I think many of my colleagues would agree with them. Perhaps those of us who are here live in the eternal hope that something might change somewhere along the line and we might actually have some reform in this place to make it relevant and give us some real input and influence in the way things happen. I think that would be a huge step forward. However, after the government's actions this morning I would not hold my breath. In spite of what seems to be a desire on all sides for change, it does not seem likely to happen. It could, however, happen easily.

There were accusations from a member of the other place that the quality of legislation being passed in this place was failing or dropping. I am sure the comments made by the member of the other place were self-serving and meant to justify the Senate's very existence, to some degree. On the other hand, there is probably some truth in what he said because over the last seven years this government has continually moved to consolidate power in the hands of the very few at the centre.

The quality of legislation would be better if there were any hope that when a bill entered this place and went through the process, it would emerge amended and improved. If so, some of the flaws that could show up down the road, pointed out no doubt by the courts, could be corrected before the bill was finished.

However, the government seems to have the attitude that once it introduces a bill it will lose face if an opposition or committee member amends a fundamental part of it. The government feels that would be a loss of face, and it just cannot allow that to happen. The government therefore uses its majority in the House and on committees at every stage, and the bill proceeds through as a matter of principle and of saving face rather than out of a real concern to produce the best possible bill at the end of the process.

There is no reason why the very drafting of the bill or the amendment could not be given to the all party parliamentary committees for input from all parties involved from the very beginning. Perhaps we could lessen the degree of ownership by the government in the bill. Everybody could have somewhat of a stake in the content of the bill, perhaps would be better able to support it, and feel that they are actually having some input and making some changes to the bill.

I am disappointed. It seems it just goes on and nothing ever changes. In spite of an express desire for change across the country, it does not change and I do not expect it ever will change to any great degree.

Bill C-2 is an effort to amend the Employment Insurance Act. The intention of the bill is truly misguided. We went down this road many years ago. I think we were making some progress in reform of employment insurance, which used to be unemployment insurance. Incentives were provided for people to find employment rather than incentives to remain unemployed. The bill seems to be returning to those times, especially in economically depressed regions of the country, when the EI program, or the UI program as it used to be known, was an incentive not to work rather than an incentive to work.

I heard some discussion earlier in the House about whether or not EI had become a social program rather than an insurance program. Clearly this is a move back toward becoming a social program and away from becoming an insurance program. I think that is supported simply by the fact that all kinds of sections or parts of the EI program are inarguably social programs. I am thinking of maternity and parental leave, which has recently become a much larger part of the employment insurance program. It is clearly a social program.

We moved away from that some years back in that employment insurance became harder and harder to obtain. One had to fulfil certain obligations to remain and to receive employment insurance wherever one lived. This is a move back toward seasonal employment coverage where people in economically depressed areas with seasonal employment went on the program. They seemed to be able to stay on the program for an extended period of time without actually having to show that they were actively job searching, without having to produce a number of job searches per week. In my view that is a social program because it tides workers over from a season of employment to an unemployment season and back to employment. That to me is not an insurance program.

Another kind of perverse incentive that seems to be inherent is that the ease of getting into the program and receiving employment insurance seems to go up the higher unemployment is in the area. The more depressed the area is, the easier it is to get employment insurance. That does not seem to be very productive.

Communities and industries in my part of Canada are crying out in huge numbers for workers and simply cannot get them. I get a dozen requests a week from companies applying to the foreign workers union to bring workers into Canada because they cannot find local people to work at the jobs. Yet we have this program that pays seasonal workers in parts of Canada to remain unemployed and remain where they are rather than provide some incentive to move to a part of Canada like my part of Canada where there is a need for those workers and where they could be gainfully employed.

There are a lot of other elements of the program that need amending. We need to change and go back to what was started some five or six years ago by this government. I hope the government will listen to some suggestions from the opposition and other members in committee so we might make this a better bill.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-39. We in the Canadian Alliance support the objective of the bill and will be supporting it when it comes time to vote on second reading.

I am certainly not about to let the government off the hook on the issues in the bill simply because the issue that the bill addresses should have been addressed a long time ago. In some respects the government still does not go as far as it should in allowing the flexibility of the two companies to compete in a global economic environment. Only a Liberal in a Liberal government could stand in the House and say he or she is proud of the Liberal record when it comes to energy management.

The two acts originally placed restrictions on individual and foreign ownership when Petro-Canada and Cameco were first privatized. In my view the restrictions placed on these two companies were too restrictive, more restrictive than necessary. The government some time ago should have made the move that is being made today.

The intent of the bill is to increase the companies' access to domestic and foreign capital and enable greater flexibility in using share exchanges and asset pooling to make acquisitions and strategic alliances. Of course, if the government would do something about our pathetic Canadian dollar, we would not need this legislation even to the degree that still remains to protect these Canadian companies from international takeover. However that is another issue and a topic for debate on another day.

Having said that, I cannot help but wonder if the bill is to finally pave the way for the government to sell off its remaining 18% ownership, or 49.4 million shares of Petro-Canada. Certainly that is what appears to be going on here. Far be it from me to be suspect of the government's motives, but I suspect that is the intent of the bill.

The bill does a number of things to make room for the sale of Petro-Canada. It raises the limit on individual ownership of shares from 10% to 20%. The 25% limit on shares that can be owned collectively by non-residents is removed. It also provides the company with greater flexibility to manage its assets portfolio while maintaining a check against the company winding up its activities through an outright sale of all of its assets. What does all that mean?

Petro-Canada was created in 1975 as one of the mechanisms of the national energy program. The feelings of western Canada and those of us who represent ridings in that region are well documented when it comes to the national energy program. We never did buy the Liberal line that the national energy program was a vehicle for nationalist dreams and a ticket to energy self-sufficiency.

At the time Canadians were told that we had less than 20 years worth of recoverable oil reserves and that a high gasoline tax burden was justifiable to guarantee our future energy needs. When we look at where the oil industry in Canada currently stands, obviously our skepticism was appropriate. Twenty-five years later we know that those empty threats were little more than Liberal hogwash and a simple money grab and a flagrant breach of the principles of confederation by the federal government, a Liberal federal government.

We now have proven oil reserves that will supply Canada's energy needs well into the future. In fact, there is almost 400 years of recoverable reserves at current usage levels in the tar sands of northern Alberta alone. The Liberal government might have thought that it had fooled Canadians but we knew it was the federal government poking its rather large and unwelcome nose into the oil and gas industry, an intrusion that was totally unasked for, unappreciated and unnecessary.

Although the national energy program was eventually dismantled, Petro-Canada lived on, fed by taxpayer dollars without taxpayer approval. I might say that even today in this Liberal government so many years later, the concept of a made in Canada energy policy still exists. We heard reference to it just the other day on the debate on the reduction of gasoline taxes in Canada.

At one time perhaps it was of primary interest only in western Canada. I would urge Canadians on the Atlantic coast and in Canada's Arctic today to be just as wary of that kind of discussion.

The Liberals' presentation of the principle of a made in Canada energy policy perhaps had some validity when we look at the total context of Canada and its energy needs, but the folly and downfall of the program was that it was based simply on the resources of one or two provinces and took some $60 billion out of the economy of those provinces and gave nothing back in return.

In my opinion that is not the way to run a country. If we are going to depend on one part of the country for our resources and if we are going to take those resources in the interests of the whole country, then it behooves us to give back to the particular province or region something in return to equalize the contributions of the province or region. Certainly that did not happen.

Anger was a result of that program. The injustice of the program has resulted now in a commitment in the North American Free Trade Agreement which does not allow Canada in any sense to set its own energy policy independent of the North American market. I think it could have been handled much better and in the interest of the entire country, not just a small part of it.

It was not until after a federal election and the Liberals were defeated and the Tory government came to power that the national energy program was abandoned. Of course by that time it did not matter anymore because oil prices had collapsed and the idea of western Canada selling its oil resources below international prices was not an issue. It did not matter. Finally the concept of a made in Canada energy policy was abandoned.

Petro-Canada lived on after the national energy program and continues to live on today. It continues to remind us of just how foolish and inept the government was in setting up the program. Petro-Canada ended up as an oil company much like any other oil company in Canada, except that the taxpayers still own 18% of the company and are the single largest holder of stock in the company. No one but the government could own more than 10% of the company.

In 1994 I questioned why the government would not sell off its national oil company while the industry was strong and recoup some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that were used to create Petro-Canada in the first place. Even in 1994 I asked the government why it would not do something significant and use the revenue from the sale of Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt burden. That debt burden was in part because of the creation of Petro-Canada and the money that the government took from taxpayers to buy Petrofina and create Petro-Canada.

In 1995 the Liberal budget promised to totally privatize Petro-Canada, and we can see today how reliable Liberal budget promises are. Certainly this is no different than in many other areas. Indeed it is something we should consider over the coming weeks.

The fact remains that Petro-Canada cost Canadians over $5 billion to create. Petro-Canada has never provided any benefit to Canadians that could not have been provided by the private sector. When it was finally privatized, Petro-Canada started making a profit and competed effectively. Until the company was privatized, it continued to be a drain on the taxpayers' purse and never did make a profit until it was privatized, even with the restrictions that have continued to be placed on the company.

Governments, since Petro-Canada was established, have never had the courage to admit to Canadians that they will only be able to recover less than $2 billion of the original cost of $5 billion for the creation of Petro-Canada. If this bill is indeed the first step in the process of the government to sell off its remaining shares of Petro-Canada, my first response would be it is about time.

I am curious though about the timing of the bill. On Bay Street investors have driven up Petro-Canada's share prices in anticipation of a move by Ottawa to sell its shares. Today Petro-Canada shares are selling at $32.75 each. That is over a 46% gain just this year and there is potential for the price to go even higher. Bill C-39 will remove foreign ownership restrictions, allowing for an expanded market and certainly the potential of increased share prices.

Should the government sell its shares? It could optimistically find itself receiving $1.6 billion. That is $3.4 billion less than what Canadians originally paid for Petro-Canada, a business transaction anyone could identify as being a disaster, let alone standing and saying they were proud of their record. How could anyone be proud of a record like that?

However, the government could find itself in possession of $1.6 billion. What I would like to know is what it is going to do with the money? Since it was originally taxpayers' dollars that paid for Petro-Canada, I believe that the funds should be returned to the taxpayers in a direct fashion, rather than being dumped into the general revenue fund that the Liberal cronies can dip into whenever they feel inclined, whether it is for vote buying schemes in some parts of the country or for huge new national social programs that it commits to then later backs away from and leaves the provinces stuck with them. No, I would like to see the money going to debt reduction, again to reduce the debt that the creation of Petro-Canada had a role in making in the first place.

Perhaps it could be put into transportation improvements or maybe we could really be revolutionary and put the money toward lowering gas taxes. Lowering gas taxes, what an original idea. However, we must remember that these Liberals just two days ago voted against such a notion so I do not suppose they would be interested in returning taxpayer dollars directly to the taxpayers. No, in fact, that is far to clear-cut, simple, direct and responsible for this government to recognize.

Bill C-39 does a number of things that we support. Referring to Petro-Canada, it moves toward opening up ownership of the company to both national and international interests, while still ensuring that the majority of the company is still Canadian. The legislation clearly states that resident Canadians must still make up the majority of the board of directors. It also stipulates that the head office of the company must remain in Calgary. That is a curious feature of a number of bills which privatized crown corporations. I have always wonder why that was necessary.

It would only make sense for the head office of Petro-Canada to remain in Calgary because that is the centre of their operation. As the House may recall, when CN was privatized the head office had to remain in a certain particular city. When Air Canada was privatized the head office also had to stay in a particular city. I have trouble understanding what the motivation for that is, except it has to be politically motivated. I tend to be a bit cynical after awhile.

The Canadian Alliance supports the removal of restrictions upon Canadian businesses to allow for both domestic and foreign investing. We expect to see that Petro-Canada, once it is no longer manipulated by government, will continue to show profits and growth.

Of course, Bill C-39 does not only address issues surrounding Petro-Canada, although that is where my primary interest is, as members might have noticed. It also addresses relating to the sale of shares in Cameco, Canada's biggest uranium producer. Canada's Kyoto commitments have increased the need for Canada to find green energy and certainly nuclear energy is one of the options that is being considered. Our Prime Minister speaks of it often.

I do not wish to get into the debate at this point on the merits or lack thereof of nuclear energy, but the fact remains that uranium is a resource that should nuclear energy be a factor in the world's efforts to reduce CO2 levels will become a very important resource.

The bill raises foreign and individual ownership limits for Cameco. Individual non-resident ownership will increase from 5% to 15% and the limit on the total amount of non-resident ownership of shares will increase from 20% to 25%. I am pleased to see that the legislation still is mindful of the possible consequences of high levels of foreign ownership of uranium resources. In fact, the lower limits on Cameco shares reflect across the board government restrictions on foreign activity in uranium mining. While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian businesses having all the opportunities to succeed, we must also be conscious of the need to keep such potentially volatile resources within Canadian control.

In effect, the bill allows for greater flexibility in the selling of shares in Canadian companies and I can certainly support that effort. It allows those companies the freedom to raise capital and to prosper and grow to the maximum that their ability and their resource will allow.

As I have already stated, if this legislation leads to the government finally selling off its remaining shares of Petro-Canada, it would be legislation that is long overdue.

I guess we will just have to wait and see if the sale of Petro-Canada becomes another pre-election goodie, and if so, exactly how much the Liberals think Canadians have forgotten regarding the original purpose of Petro-Canada and the amount of taxpayers' dollars that went into establishing the company which were never and will never be recovered from the sale.

As I said, essentially we will be supporting the bill. It is a step in the right direction. It is the right thing to do. It is better late than never. We will be voting in favour of the bill as it moves through the House of Commons.