House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 50% of the vote.
Fuel Price Posting Act February 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will admit that the member did table a motion dating back to Monday only, so he could not have won the draw for that motion. In fact, it would have been impossible for him to table the motion I was talking about.
Fuel Price Posting Act February 21st, 2001
I thank my colleague. I am glad to see I have so much support from the Liberals, although it is kind of strange.
What is important is the real price we have to pay, and that is a different debate in itself. Should we always post the price with tax? Consumers know full well that they are going to have to pay the GST, the PST and the excise tax. They might not always know the exact amount of tax they are going to pay, but they know the goods they are buying are taxed. The excise tax comes to 10 cents a litre and the provincial tax varies in Quebec between 10 and 15.5 cents depending on the region.
Taxes are high, but we already know that. Consumers are more interested in finding out what improvements can be made to the business practices in the oil industry. How can we improve the situation in the short, medium and long term?
In the short term, we could give consumers a break by reducing or suspending the excise tax for a while. We are being realistic and we know that oil products are under the control of countries which are big producers and which were therefore able to reduce the oil supply so that the price of a barrel of oil is very high. This is part of the explanation for the increase. We know that and we are being realistic.
However one thing still puzzles us. Why is it that, when the price of gasoline at the pump increases, it is suddenly increasing everywhere instantly? There could be three or four different stations at an intersection, and they all suddenly show the same new price. As far as prices are concerned, there is incredible harmony among people who should be fierce competitors.
I studied economics. I try to understand how this is possible without some form of collusion. Of course, this is very difficult to prove. But it is something to consider. Should we not change the Competition Act to make the burden of proof less demanding in cases of anticompetitive behaviour? Oil companies should be held accountable.
There is an area where we could do something. A very interesting study was made a few years ago by Liberal members. It suggested that the average price of gas in Canada was about 4 to 5 cents higher because there is not enough competition in the industry. Why was there no follow-up on this report, why is it gathering dust on the shelves? The government is just playing for time by referring the issue to the conference board in the hope that the problem will just go away. It will not.
Every time the oil companies publish their quarterly results, we realize that record profits are piling up. Their production activities have much to do in that regard but I am convinced they do not lose much in retail marketing. Logically, the oil companies should have a hard time in retailing when prices go up, but they do not, because they control the process from refining to retail marketing.
We go even further than that by looking at what is being done in six American states. They have decided that companies will not be allowed to be refiner, distributor and retail marketer all at once. I will very candidly admit that this was first brought to my attention by a working paper prepared by Liberal members describing this situation. They wrote that in the United States, some states have a legislation called a divorce act, to keep companies from being involved both in retail marketing and in refining. We have checked and there are six of them.
This is an interesting notion which prevents too great a concentration within the industry. I believe it is a way to improve competition in the industry, and we should look into it.
Also, we should not lose track of another element, namely the long term. We must invest massively in the research and development of alternative energies. The way we use gasoline today has consequences for the environment. It is in our best interest to invest massively in the development of alternative energies.
The oil industry has no interest in doing so because it stands to profit from the current situation. Governments will therefore have to be major players in supporting and developing alternative energies.
Before I conclude, I would like to get back to the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. I know he goes around the regions pretending to care about gas prices. It was his choice to have this motion debated today.
There is another motion in his name, requesting that the government considerably lower its taxes on gas. He could have chosen that one because it is not his motion that was drawn, but his name. He is the one who decided which motion would be debated. He chose this one even though he had another one asking for lower taxes, which could have been votable. He cannot say whatever he likes. If he really wants lower taxes, he should say so and act accordingly and introduce real motions.
In conclusion I will say that this bill does not deal with the problem. Posting the price, before or after taxes, does not matter. What matters is the price we pay. We must look for real solutions to the real problems consumers are facing, and that is what we are doing.
We will have the opportunity to get back to this in the next few days when the Conference Board's study is made public. We will put forward our solutions once again.
Fuel Price Posting Act February 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, things are crystal clear. Members on the government side refused to make this bill a votable item. So now everybody knows who wants to make it votable and who does not.
Let us put this debate into perspective. What is the situation on the fuel market? Over the last year or year and a half, there has been an exceptional increase of prices causing hardship to consumers. It creates inflation. Truck drivers, farmers, consumers and people using heating oil are affected. This crisis is ongoing and is costly for consumers.
At the same time, we have an industry making record profits and governments raking in huge amounts of taxes, especially the federal government, which collects taxes not only on fuel but also on oil companies' profits.
Let me add that the federal government will collect more than $5 billion thanks to the excise tax and will only reinvest 6% in the highway system. This is an incredible cash cow for the government; the high prices of gasoline, petroleum products and petroleum-based products is not a problem for the government since they generate additional revenues. However, for consumers, they represent a real loss of their purchasing power, and consumers are really feeling it.
Therefore, the issue is an important one. How did the government address the problem? It did two things. First, last spring it asked the Conference Board to review the situation. We have not yet seen the study; we will have it tomorrow.
I am announcing, and it is a scoop,that members will learn that, according to the conference board, the oil industry is doing fine. According to the versions of the report that are in circulation at this time, and of which we have a copy, we can see that it contains no criticism of the oil industry. Members should not expect great miracles tomorrow or they will be disappointed. In fact, this is not surprising since oil companies happen to be members of the conference board.
The second thing the government did was just before the election. What did it do? It decided to free up $1.4 billion so it could send $125 or $250 cheques to individuals or families to help them deal with the high cost of energy products, or so it said. One has to look at how the government did that. It decided to send a cheque to all those who receive a GST tax credit.
However, some people do not have an oil heating system, they have electric heating. Some do not necessarily use a car, they use public transit, and so on. This measure was strictly meant to help members opposite during the election campaign because I am sure people badgered them on this issue.
Members just had to say, “Look, we will mail you a cheque in January, we will help you”. We are talking about a $125 cheque for someone who has an oil heating system and who has seen his heating bills doubled. For some families, the increase can be as much as $1,000 with a long winter that started early in December and that seems to be dragging on longer than last year. That makes for incredibly high costs. These timid measures were not aimed at the people who really needed help.
Let us go back to the bill now before the House. What is the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik suggesting to solve the problem? It is a bill that says: “Here is our solution. We are going to ask the oil companies to post the prices before tax”.
I listened carefully to the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to try to understand how his logic works. The price I am interested in is the price I have to pay. Even if the price before tax is posted, when I go fill up, I am still going to have to pay the same price if nothing is done to change the business practices in the industry and the fuel tax policy. The total price is going to be the same. Consumers want to know the price they are going to pay, not the price that will be posted. I do not see what good it would do to post a lower price.
Fuel Price Posting Act February 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has finally found somebody to second his bill. It took a while.
In the same vein, and before getting to the substance of the issue, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik accused the opposition parties of not agreeing, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to make his bill a votable item.
For the sake of transparency, I request unanimous consent, and offer our total co-operation, to make this bill a votable item. Therefore, before getting to my speech, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a votable item.
Government Spending February 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is so obsessed by visibility that it has spent $500 million—half a billion dollars—in Quebec alone on propaganda since 1995.
Three-quarters of Quebecers would prefer it to do its part in funding health services.
Can the minister explain to Quebecers why his government has placed priority on propagandizing instead of transferring this money which could meet Quebecers' true priorities: health and education?
Government Spending February 16th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, while the government is busy implementing its tax strangulation policy toward Quebec, it is at the same time continuing its costly and pointless duplication.
Since 1997, the Liberal government has spent $15 billion in areas that fall under Quebec jurisdiction.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to Quebecers why he would rather spend $15 billion on duplication than merely transfer that money to Quebec, particularly in the areas of health and education?
Petroleum Product Prices February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Minister of Industry did not seem to know it was his department that asked the conference board to conduct an investigation into the oil industry. The preliminary version of that report has been circulating since October.
Does the minister have the final report of the Conference Board?
Cost Of Petroleum Products February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a preliminary copy of this report has been circulating since last October, and the government was supposed to receive the final copy in December.
Is the delay in releasing this report not a sign of the lack of political will of this government which, throughout this whole business, has done nothing but try to buy time, on the theory that the crisis would fade away on its own, when in fact it has not?
Cost Of Petroleum Products February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, by agreeing to send out rebate cheques to Canadians to offset the large increase in the cost of heating oil, the Minister of Finance admitted that there really was a problem with the cost of petroleum products.
Will the Minister of Industry give us a progress report on the investigation into the cost of petroleum products which he commissioned from the Conference Board of Canada, a board on which, I remind the House, the major oil companies sit?
An Act To Incorporate The Western Canada Telephone Company October 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state briefly the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill S-26, whose aim is to treat Telus the same as the other companies. This company is governed by the Act to incorporate the Western Canada Telephone Company, which dates from 1916.
The objective of this very short bill is to not subject it to a specific law, but to treat it like the other companies and have it governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act, which will enable it to continue its activities throughout Canada on the same footing as the other companies.
It is not a matter of not governing this company any longer, but of affording it equal treatment. Accordingly, we will not debate this at length, since everyone is in agreement to pass this bill as quickly as possible.
Since this bill does not involve any contentious issues, we will co-operate in passing it quickly at second reading, at report stage and at third reading today. We will support Bill S-26.