Dave Chatters

[Petitions, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition this morning on behalf of Kay Malmas, a constituent of mine in Westlock, who happens to be the mother of Barbara Denelesko who was senselessly murdered by three young offenders. These three young offenders are currently back on the street, only two years after the murder of Barbara Denelesko, which disturbs and outrages not only Mrs. Malmas but many other of my constituents.

I would like to present this petition demanding tougher penalties under the Young Offenders Act on behalf of Mrs. Malmas.

[Nuclear Amendment Act, 1998, October 20th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Nuclear Energy Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, my bill attempts to correct a longstanding and I think outrageous conflict of interest in that the same minister of the government responsible for protecting public interest and public safety is also responsible for the sale of nuclear technology around the word.

I do not believe it is possible for the same minister to fulfil both of those roles without being in conflict of interest, so we are attempting to correct that situation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Apec Summit, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the 1994 privy council code of conduct, which all members of the front bench opposite claim to respect, states public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

The Prime Minister and the solicitor general are making a mockery out of these principles and embarrassing this whole House in front of all Canadians. When will the Prime Minister ask the solicitor general to resign?

[Government Spending, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to express my disgust over this government's continued mismanagement of Canadian tax dollars.

While ministers of this government spend their time on vendetta politics, Canadians are left to suffer. This government has wasted $500 million cancelling the EH-101 helicopters that are obviously desperately needed. There was $260 million wasted on Pearson airport and $3.4 million wasted on Airbus. And just this summer $20 million was wasted on compensating Ethyl Corporation for banning MMT without just cause or sound evidence. This waste alone totals $765.4 million. If the government had stopped playing politics it could have used this revenue to compensate every hepatitis C victim.

I demand the government to show Canadians the same courtesy given to Ethyl, apologize to Canadians for mishandling these events and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.

[Competition Act, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this private members' bill.

I believe this bill was well intended. The bill proposes to change the Competition Act which would prevent unfair pricing practices by vertically integrated suppliers, especially in the oil and gas industry.

I can understand the hon. member's reasons for bringing forth this legislation. In my five years as a member of parliament I have received countless letters, phone calls and petitions from Canadians living both within and outside my riding, all concerning gas prices and competition between retailers.

Both independent retailers and individual consumers have expressed concern over what they believe to be unfair pricing practices. I believe it is the concerns of the first group, the independent retailers, that the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge wished to address. Unfortunately I have serious concerns about the bill as it may not be effective in serving the intended purpose.

The proposed changes to the Competition Act are intended to prevent vertically integrated suppliers from practising below cost selling when their own gas stations are competing with the independent retailers they also supply. This is very important to ensure fair competition. However, the Competition Act already prohibits this.

Section 78(a) of the Competition Act specifically prohibits anti-competitive acts including “squeezing by a vertically integrated supplier of the margin available to an unintegrated customer who competes with the supplier for the purpose of impeding or preventing the customer's entry into or expansion in a market”.

The Competition Act also prohibits selling articles at a price lower than the acquisition cost for the purpose of discipline or eliminating a competitor. Section 50 of the Competition Act outlines severe consequences for those companies guilty of anti-competitive acts.

Like the hon. member, I am strongly opposed to predatory pricing. However, I believe the Competition Act already addresses this issue as is. The problem does not rest with the provisions or wording of the Competition Act but with the lack of vigour and enthusiasm with which it is enforced by the government and its regulators. If large oil companies are in fact engaging in unfair pricing practices, a fact of which I am not convinced, then the fault lies with the federal government for not being more vigorous in enforcing existing legislation.

As I have stated before, I believe the hon. member had good intentions in bringing Bill C-235 to the House. When the committee began looking at this issue it wanted to unveil unfair practices including price fixing and collusion, which was a noble goal. However, when the hon. member found no evidence of this, he switched his focus to protecting the interests of a small group of independent retailers, some 20% of the retail market.

Somewhere in this process the interests of individual consumers, the very group that the hon. member set out to represent, were forgotten. Therefore, believing the hon. member to be an individual of good conscience, I encourage him to be vigilant, especially with regard to the bill's potential impact on individual consumers. I would implore him to give greater consideration to the millions of Canadians who will suffer as a result of government intervention and excessive regulation.

I am a firm believer in fair competition in the marketplace. However, I am also a firm believer in the market system whereby market values are determined by supply, demand and corner competition.

I am concerned that this bill if passed would result in the abandonment of the market system and the adoption of a floor price that would hinder rather than strengthen competition among retailers.

Canadian gasoline prices are among the lowest in the world and have been falling for two decades. Conversely, taxes on gasoline have been rising, now accounting for more than 50% of pump prices. This in itself is one very good reason why independent retailers are suffering

Both refiners and marketers of gasoline have seen their profit margins shrink as a result of normal competition in the marketplace but have also suffered the burden of government tax grabbing.

When gasoline prices are considered in isolation from taxation, however, it is abundantly clear that the individual consumer benefits from the current competition among retailers. Pretax prices are lower than they have been in two decades. The market system is working exceptionally well for the consumers in this way. Not only have gasoline prices fallen, but gasoline retailers have found it necessary to improve services in order to remain competitive.

Vertically integrated suppliers and independent retailers alike have diversified operations by building car washes, convenience stores and restaurants on site. These benefits to consumers are on top of low gasoline prices as determined by the market forces.

I believe this bill would protect the most vulnerable, the independent retailer, but I fear that it would also establish a floor price for gasoline much higher than the price determined by market forces.

Currently the province of Quebec is considering establishing a floor price for gasoline in that province. Quebec Professor Alain Lapointe has been studying the issue of gas pricing and estimates that the floor price would cost Quebec consumers anywhere from $140 million to $280 million.

So far I have discussed the negative implications of this bill. In fairness to the bill and to the hon. member from Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, however, I think it is equally as important to consider the long term impacts should independent retailers be forced out of the market. This is one of the hon. member's concerns and I share that concern.

Even so, I am concerned about the effects the proposed legislation will have on other industries. To this point, changes to the Competition Act have been discussed almost exclusively in terms of their impact on gasoline prices. This is primarily because the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has targeted major oil companies in his argument. However, if accepted by the members of this House, the changes proposed by this legislation would reach much further in their application.

This means Canadians would not only face higher prices for gasoline but could face higher prices for electronic equipment, cars and a multitude of other products. Canadians would also face the inefficiencies of further government intervention and control in their lives. The successful operation of the market requires that market forces be allowed to run their course. The successful operation of the market also requires fair competition whereby predatory pricing and abuse of dominant position are prohibited by law and this law is vigorously enforced. The market system has operated well thus far, resulting in the declining pretax gasoline price for consumers.

The Competition Act explicitly prohibits predatory pricing below cost selling and abuse of dominant position. By my estimates this means that the conditions necessary for successful operation of the market should already be in place. Unfortunately, it appears as though the market is not operating successfully.

I encourage the hon. member opposite to take a hard look at the influence of his own party on market prices. Federal and provincial taxes average 28.6 cents per litre which is more than 50% of the pump price. That is 28.6 cents per litre less for the retailer. The lower the retailer's profit margin, the greater the difficulty to survive.

If the government is truly committed to protecting the independent retailer taxes should be reduced. With lower taxes and greater profit margins the independent retailers would be better positioned to compete with the large oil companies and to diversify their operations in order to meet the ever changing needs of their consumer base.

I conclude by commending the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his efforts. I appreciate his vigour and determination. I encourage him to continue his struggle, albeit in a somewhat different direction. Instead of pursuing a solution that would potentially hurt the consumer, I suggest he try to encourage his Liberal colleagues for more vigorous enforcement of existing laws and clearer definitions within those laws.

Although I have concerns with this bill I see the merit in highlighting this issue and hope that in the future the hon. member and I will be able to study this issue from the same side of the fence.

To this effect, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act, not be read a second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

[Income Tax Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I expected the response that I received from the government. Nonetheless, I am still very disappointed with it. We can always find ways around the issue. We can always find flaws in the bill. My intention was to raise the issue of fairness and equality.

I would encourage the government, as imperfect as my bill is, to address the issue and to make an effort, through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Finance, or whomever would be appropriate, to bring some fairness to the issue so that those livestock producers who have to sell off livestock the same as they would in a drought or in a flood situation would be able to retain that income in the following year to replace that livestock.

In that spirit I would like to move that Bill C-227 be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Income Tax Act, June 11th, 1998]

The hon. member could not have said it better.

However, if members on the opposite side of the House think I am being unduly critical of their performance I would like to remind them that the changes proposed by this bill present the perfect opportunity for the government to show that it does care about the needs of farmers.

Certainly farmers in my riding and presumably farmers across Canada would be pleased to see the changes I am proposing. I would therefore implore all members of the House, but especially those members opposite, to give serious consideration to this bill. Although not votable by choice of the committee responsible to make that decision, it is my hope that this discussion has highlighted the gaps in the existing legislation.

It is also my hope that the government will take advantage of this excellent opportunity to pursue greater fairness not only for the flood victims in my riding but for all farmers across this country forced to sell or destroy livestock as a result of disease or natural disaster.

[Income Tax Act, June 11th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-227, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (income deferral from forced destruction of livestock or natural disaster), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present my private members' bill. It would appear it is the last private members' bill of this spring session of parliament.

It is actually quite a simple issue. It is an attempt to correct a strange anomaly in the Income Tax Act. I would have real trouble understanding how any members of this House could reasonably object to it.

Certainly in recent years Canadians across this country have suffered devastating emotional, psychological and financial impacts of natural disasters with huge costs and losses of both property and peace of mind.

Farmers who are individuals with the most intimate professional and personal ties to the land oftentimes compose the group that is most severely affected by these natural disasters. Over the past three years, farmers across the country have suffered serious losses due to the disastrous flooding of major river systems.

Extensive national media coverage familiarized most Canadians with the Saguenay flood in Quebec and the Red River flood in Manitoba. However, fewer Canadians were aware of the flooding that took place in northern Alberta and certainly in my riding.

During these periods of flooding my constituency office was bombarded with calls from distressed farmers in dire need of assistance. Many have been forced to sell their cattle as they were unable to feed them due to destruction of their feed crops. These same constituents were concerned that they would be unable to make ends meet that year let alone make enough headway to be back on their feet by the following year. The constituents' calls I received are what gave rise to this bill being discussed here today.

This bill would allow farmers to defer for one year all income from the sale or destruction of livestock given that the sale was necessitated by a shortage of feed due to a natural disaster. This bill would also allow farmers to defer income from compensation they receive from Agriculture Canada in the case of forced destruction of livestock because of infectious disease such as anthrax. This deferment of income tax would lessen the immediate financial burden on farmers, giving them time to repair damage to their farms or to rebuild their stock of farm animals.

Unfortunately Bill C-227 is non-votable. However, I am hoping that the discussion today will raise awareness in this House of the positive changes that could and should be made to aid those farmers adversely affected by natural occurrences beyond their control.

Through this bill I am not asking that the government introduce an entirely new element to the Income Tax Act. Currently the act does allow for deferment of income from the sale of livestock but for some curious reason only in the event of drought.

This bill simply aims to remove the inequity by extending that same consideration to all farmers forced to sell or destroy livestock due to natural disasters, infection or disease. Therefore acceptance of the principles of this bill would simply mean recognition of the need to close the gaps in existing legislation.

Frankly, I am appalled that such gaps were allowed to exist in the first place. Surely if insufficient moisture preventing the growth of crops to feed livestock is sufficient reason to defer income from the sale of the animals, then excessive moisture that destroys the crops needed to feed the animals is also sufficient reason to defer income from the sale of animals.

In both cases the farmers are forced to sell their livestock because of natural occurrences beyond their control. In one case the natural occurrence is drought, while in the other it is flooding. In both cases the farmers would benefit from income tax deferral which would give them time to recover from whatever disaster has occurred.

In addition to the many phone calls I received both during and after the northern Alberta floods, I also received an abundance of letters. One letter written by a constituent on behalf of the farmers in the Kinuso area detailed the financial minefield faced by farmers on flooded lands. This constituent described their situation as a vicious circle of high cost and low returns.

During the northern Alberta floods the vicious circle went something like this. Excessive moisture due to heavy rains and excessive flooding drastically reduced the amount of hay that farmers were able to bale and what they were able to bale was in very poor condition. If any crop was harvested at all or if any hay was baled, it was only enough to supplement the feed that had to be brought in from elsewhere.

At the time farmers were faced with exorbitantly high prices for feed because of the shortage of feed in the area and unusually low prices for cattle simply because there was an excess of cattle forced onto the market by the forced sell off. The constituent's letter describes the situation as a triple whammy: no local feed, high prices for imported feed and very low cattle prices.

Many farmers were faced with a situation in which they could not afford to feed their livestock, but if they sold it, they would receive such low prices that they would not be able to replace their livestock for the same price at a later date. Of course, a substantial amount of that income that they received from the sale of livestock would then be claimed by the tax man, leaving them even less to replace the cattle with in another year after the natural disaster had passed.

When the farmers were taxed on the pittance they received for the sale of their livestock, the additional financial burden of taxation was unbearable to many.

All farmers are affected by natural disasters but it is the young farmers who are financially destroyed. Unlike the more established farmers, they do not have something to fall back on. Oftentimes they have invested all that they have into a small farming business, only to see it swept away by some merciless flood.

Immediately taxing these young farmers on their income from the forced sale of livestock is unduly harsh when they do not have a financial safety net to fall back on. The immediate spike of income that is generated through the forced sale of livestock in many cases makes the same young farmers ineligible for existing safety nets that are there for financial disasters.

The principles of this bill would be especially helpful to those farmers who are just beginning and who are desperately struggling to make ends meet.

I am hopeful that all members of this House will see the value of this bill, although I am uncertain of the response from the opposite side of the House, given their horrendous track record in regard to meeting western farmers' needs.

If any other economic group in this country were to suffer the level of discrimination that the western Canadian farmers have had to suffer over the last number of decades in this country, there would simply be blood in the streets. That may be a harsh statement, but that is not an exaggeration. One only has to look back in Canadian history to the Winnipeg strike or some of the protests by the aboriginal community. When other groups found themselves backed into a corner, they took drastic action to right that wrong.

When one looks at the record, the western Canadian farmers certainly have suffered some real injustices in this country. If we look back at the Crow rate, the subsidized freight rate that was introduced in this country, it was not to help the western Canadian farmers, but to help the central Canadian feedlot operators to move feed grain from the plains of western Canada to southern Ontario to feed cattle. At the same time, the western Canadian farmers had to simply turn around and pay the full rate for manufactured goods returning west from central Ontario. If that is not discrimination I do not know what is.

We can think of many other examples. We have been debating the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board in this House for some months. It was not created to benefit the western Canadian farmer. It was created originally to produce wheat to ship to Britain to help the war effort. Western Canadian farmers were again asked to contribute billions of dollars to the war effort, more than what the manufacturing workers of central Canada were asked to contribute. I could go on and on with different examples where that discrimination exists.

In recognition of the unfairness of some of these things the government could move quickly to deal with this issue and bring some fairness. I am not terribly optimistic that will happen. In conjunction with the issue of the flooding in northern Alberta I asked this House through private member's Motion No. 11 to provide the same kind of disaster relief for the farmers whose property and farms were destroyed in the flooding simply to give those farmers the same level of disaster relief that farmers in Ontario and Quebec were granted because of the ice storm and the flooding. I think the reaction from the other side of the House was an insult. A simple request for some fairness and equality was simply turned down without even a moment's consideration.

My motion would have guaranteed that the part time farmers who intended to become full time farmers but who were forced to seek off farm employment to build farm equity financial assistance in the event of a natural disaster. It is unfortunate that after the motion was debated, the government quickly and with very little thoughtful consideration voted it down.

I experienced additional disappointment earlier this year when I received a phone call from a constituent who was faced with extreme financial hardship and simply felt he had no place to turn. Through no fault of his own because of heavy flooding and heavy rains over the last couple of years in our part of northern Alberta this farmer had been forced to go two consecutive years without being able to harvest a crop. This put the farmer in real financial hardship. He was unable to meet his commitment to the Farm Credit Corporation.

One would think that under those circumstances a crown corporation like the Farm Credit Corporation could show this individual some compassion and some consideration. But no, that was not possible. It simply evicted this man and his family and they were out on the street. It is the height of cruelty in such a situation to treat him like that after he had faced that kind of hardship and psychological bombardment while at the same time not two miles away, Alberta Pacific Pulp Mill was unable to meet its obligations under a contract with the Alberta government and it turned around and negotiated a settlement to forgive some $250 million worth of interest on the debt.

Surely if this government can afford things like the $1.5 billion subsidized loan to China to buy Candu reactors or the several hundred million dollars in farm aid to Indonesia, it should certainly be able to show some compassion for these western Canadian farmers who through no fault of their own have found themselves in financial trouble. It simply does not happen.

This individual not only lost his farm but his home. He was dealt with very callously by representatives of the Farm Credit Corporation. In spite of appeals I made to the minister and to farm credit head offices, they had no time to look at the situation.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after that interruption I will try to resume where I left off.

I regret that the issue we are now debating is tied into redefining the word spouse in law. If we go as far back as when Mr. Trudeau, the icon of Liberal ideology, introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada he specifically and quite clearly chose to leave out of the charter the whole subject of sexual orientation. The intent of the law that he introduced was extremely clear. On top of that, on a number of occasions parliament chose to support the existing definitions of spouse and marriage.

The intent of parliament when it comes to the law was extremely clear. The former minister of justice and the current minister of justice have clearly expressed their support for the existing definition of spouse.

That is why we chose this case on which to raise the issue of judicial activism. While I support and respect the wisdom of the courts and the wisdom of the judges, that is the exact role given to them when the charter was introduced. They were to examine very carefully every issue that came before them in light of the charter and to make recommendations to parliament if in their view the issue before them did not comply with the charter.

Nowhere—and I have heard this over and over again in the debate today—was the court given the mandate or the instruction to write into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues that were clearly contrary to the will of parliament. That is the basis of what we are debating today.

All kinds of strawmen have been thrown up over the issue to try to deflect the argument away from what we are talking about and to try to imply some ulterior motive which does not exist.

I was amazed at the outrageous comments the member for Mississauga West made, suggesting somehow that it would be truly dangerous to the country and to our system of democracy to give the supreme power to the elected parliament in this country. That amazes me. How can it be dangerous to invest the supreme power in an elected body that is accountable to the people every four or five years but yet it is not dangerous to allow that power to exist in an unelected, unaccountable small group of individuals? I simply do not understand the reasoning there at all.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left to engage in the debate, but there are a couple of comments I would like to add to the debate that has been going on in the House.

From my point of view it is unfortunate that the subject of judicial activism and how the supreme court is writing things into Canada's laws has to be tied to the subject of redefinition of spouse. Probably that was inevitable, simply because that area of judicial activism is the most blatant example of the courts—