Pierre Brien

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

I am very pleased that we have the opportunity today to debate, and eventually to express ourselves formally in a vote, on a matter of concern to many: the price of gasoline, which has reached a record high.

This is a crisis that has gone on for several months, and the federal government has still done nothing, hoping that time would be on its side and the crisis would eventually just evaporate. The only action the federal government has taken so far, moreover, in connection with fuel prices, has been to commission a study from the Conference Board, the findings of which will be known early next year.

We know very well that when they want to do nothing, this is the best approach. They commission a study with findings to come out a long way into the future. Until such time, the answer can be given “We are looking into the matter”.

I am going to read the text of the motion so that there will be a clear understanding of what we are discussing. It reads as follows:

That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary deficit elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998 recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on gasoline pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.

I would like to say immediately that we in the Bloc Quebecois will support this motion. We will vote in favour of it. It will give consumers a bit of a break. However, we would like more than that. I will indicate the action we want taken, but at least this is a step in the right direction. This is why we will support the motion.

We would have liked the government to suspend the excise tax of ten cents a litre entirely because of the exceptional nature of the current crisis.

The proposal on the table will permanently reduce the cost of gasoline by three or four cents, according to the cost of gasoline per barrel. This is one of its strong points. We would like the cost to be reduced immediately by ten cents a litre to make it substantial and to enable consumers to say the next morning “Listen, we are paying ten cents less”.

I know that the Liberals will hide behind another approach saying “We are not sure the consumers will really benefit” and the like. If that is so, when they say they are not going to lower the tax by two or three cents because the consumer will not benefit, they are admitting that healthy competition does not exist in the industry. If there were healthy competition, it would be advantageous for one of the competitors to lower his price right away in order to get part of the market. If that player and all the players do not do it collectively, if there is no collusion in that industry, there are at least serious flaws from in terms of competition.

We are saying that this is perhaps a possibility and we are convinced that there are flaws in terms of competition. This is why we want a more substantial reduction than 3 cents per litre. But the motion is all about a permanent measure. The motion of the Canadian Alliance Party reads “including”. That does not exclude other measures. We are still in favour of suspending the excise tax until the price of the barrel of oil gets back to a much more acceptable level, and until the price of gasoline gets back to a more affordable level.

Why are we talking about a temporary reduction? It is of course because there are all sorts of issues related to this question, including environmental issues and, also, our taxation level compared to levels elsewhere. We are not ignoring that, but we want to send a clear message to consumers that we will help them, that it is not true that all the tax reductions granted to them in the last budgets will all be absorbed by the increase in energy prices.

Gasoline is one thing. What is less obvious but even more dramatic is the situation of all those who use fuel to heat their homes. Last winter, heating bills doubled. This winter, things will not get any better. It is often low or middle income people who use such heating systems and they are hit hard. To have to pay twice as much in heating costs in January and February when one is already on a very tight budget is a real nightmare. It is definitely not easy. There should also be special measures to help these people out so that the present crisis does not hit them too hard.

We on this side have four proposals. Obviously, we want a temporary suspension of the 10 cent a litre excise tax immediately. That is very important.

Second, we want to talk about the industry's practices. I will elaborate on this—I will come back to it and develop it further—to show that there should be special measures to improve competitive practices in this industry.

We also want to see investment in alternative energies. We should not find ourselves with every successive crisis—this is not the first time there has been a fuel crisis, and at some point we will have to learn—back in the same situation.

We are very dependent on petroleum products. There are areas in which alternatives are emerging. But the power of the petroleum industry, which has no interest in seeing alternatives developed, makes funding research difficult in these sectors. Without public funding to develop alternative energies, the obstacles to their becoming a reality and benefiting consumers are obviously considerable.

I would like to come back to competition. The federal government is responsible for this issue. There is competition legislation. It is in the government's court. The government does not have to wait for Tom, Dick or Harry, the provinces, its neighbour or the international community. It has responsibility for the competition laws.

I have here a report produced in 1998 by a committee of the Liberal Party that looked at the gasoline issue. We are not talking prehistory.

This report pointed out repeatedly that there were many shortcomings in the competitive practices of this industry. It even said at one point that the Canadian market is a bonanza for petroleum producers. A very well done study also showed that our average gas price before taxes is 4 or 5 cents higher than in comparable markets in the United States.

Why is it that we always pay more here for our petroleum products, yet the federal government does nothing but sit on its hands? Competition issues were indeed looked at a little, but no measures with any clout have ever been forthcoming to remedy what is going on.

How, for example, can it be possible for three companies, which are refiners, distributors and retailers all at the same time, to control 75% of wholesale sales? The market is dominated by only a few players, who control the situation. They have a huge ability to influence prices. Successful operation is not easy when the station across the street buys its gas from the same supplier.

To take an example, and I do not want to name anyone in particular, we have an independent right across the street from an Esso, and they both buy from the same refinery. It is understandable that it is not easy to do business when you have the people who sell you your gas operating right across the street.

The Liberal's recommendations contained some very interesting points. For example, might it not be worthwhile to separate refining and retail sales, so that one company could not do both?

There is nothing socialistic about this. It is already in place in several of the American states. It is designed to ensure competition at both levels: refinery and sales. The best way to do so is to not allow companies to be so vertically integrated and to control virtually the entire market, including sales to their competitors, that such a situation can result.

This fascinates me. I have studied economics and if I go back to school, I will study the oil companies. Why is the price always the same at the retailers? Why is the price always the same at Esso, Ultramar and Petro Canada? Why does one of the businesses not take a little initiative and edge out the others by one or two cents for a few months as the result of discovering better technology or coming up with a better marketing strategy? Why does no company ever stand out from the others?

This is a mystery to me. Why, in a competitive market, does no company ever take the lead, other than temporarily? Why does no company make the necessary adjustments and finally lower its price? This indicates clearly that there is no healthy competition in the industry.

It is a good thing to lower taxes, but it is a temporary and exceptional measure. We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that there are problems in this industry.

I know that some members on the other side of the House agree with this. I am looking forward to seeing how they will vote when the time comes. I know that on the other side of the House, if they stick by their recommendations, there will have to be amendments so that a few players will no longer have such sway over the Canadian petroleum market. This is an element of competition the government can work on.

I wish we would act quickly, and not wait for the Conference Board study, but to have a very clear debate or have the minister refer the whole matter immediately to committee in order to consider the appropriateness of separating the activities of retailing and refining.

This does not mean that refiners could no longer retail their products, but they could have, for example, a limited percentage of shares.

If Imperial Oil wants to retail its products, it could perhaps hold a certain percentage of shares, up to a limit of, say, 15%, 20% or 25%. This is already done in other areas. It is done in the banking sector. It is done elsewhere to avoid having some people control the market. It could also be done in the gasoline industry.

A refiner marketer could be allowed to have a limited interest. It could also be prohibited from getting into the retail business. Other players would then take over, thus creating greater competition.

I want to be clear. We are not saying that people who own or manage a gas station in their community are not doing their best to be competitive. However, given the price they pay refiners for gasoline, they have little leeway. Very often, they are told what price to sell their gasoline; they get a call, saying “Starting this morning, this is what the price will be”. This is how it works.

These people are not very vocal, because they are in business. But when we talk to people who used to be in business but no longer are, we realize that some very dubious practices exist in some cases. These practices do not comply with the spirit of the Competition Act, which seeks to protect consumers.

Some interesting possibilities were raised by the Liberals themselves—again, and I am not afraid to say so—in a good report that was released. The problem is not the quality of the report, but the will to implement it. A lot of good work has gone into it.

A large part of the study took place in Ontario. Not much time was spent in Quebec. It would have been nice if they had spent some time in Quebec, but the situation is very similar. The dynamics are the same. Now, the government's knee-jerk reaction is to say that this is an international issue.

We are not interested in demagoguery. We know that the price of a barrel of oil dropped to $10 or $12 and has just soared to $35 or $37, or thereabouts, in recent days. We are all aware of this. We know that this accounts for much of the price hike.

But I would like someone to explain something to me. Normally, when you have a business and the price of whatever you sell keeps going up—as we have seen with gasoline—consumers try to cut back a bit, and the business is forced to lower its profits to protect its share of the market. This is not the right context in which to go after greater profits. How is it then that, at the same time as such a serious crisis, with consumers ultra-sensitive to prices, we see the oil companies making record profits? This is very disturbing.

I realize that some companies are involved in direct activities, meaning that they make more money if the price per barrel goes up, but I would like to know where this money comes from. What were the retail profits compared to the preceding quarter or the last one or two years?

These are comprehensive and very complex financial statements. It is not possible to determine how they made this money. Is it just the increase in a barrel of oil? Is it more than that? Are we not still paying a few cents a litre too many at the pump?

I support the Canadian Alliance motion, with one exception: it completely ignores the competition angle. I agree that there should be temporary tax relief, but sight should not be lost of the fact that there are ongoing problems in the industry.

The Canadian Alliance's proposal is to permanently lower prices, in a competitive market, by about three cents a litre. Comparing the American market, healthy competition could have the same effect, and permanently. A permanent combination of the two measures in a good competitive market could bring prices down by 7 or 8 cents a litre.

This raises some questions. Do we want to stimulate sales of a product we know has an environmental impact? This raises another issue relating to what I was saying earlier: we must invest in alternative energies, because our dependency on petroleum products must be reduced.

The omission, or what we would have liked to have seen from the Canadian Alliance as far as competition is concerned, is quite understandable. We know where the oil patch is located. It does not take much scrutiny of a map of Canada to realize that Alberta does not have much to complain about as far as the price of a barrel of oil is concerned. This is understandable, for it means money in the pockets of their fellow citizens. Human nature being what it is, we would probably have the same reflex, but a broader perspective is needed.

Some Liberals, but I will not name names, will have to stand and be counted when this motion is put to a vote. People cannot say they are going to vote it down because it is insufficient. We have to start somewhere, and this is a step in the right direction.

One great advantage of lowering taxes will be the very strong pressure that doing so will exert on the government to improve the situation and perhaps recover this money.

We wanted to give it a stronger and temporary character because the government would perhaps say “I suspended my ten cent excise tax. It brings in nearly $400 billion a month. Perhaps if I were to make competition stronger it would be better to set profits at four or five cents a litre and for us to then take four or five cents in excise tax”. That might be a good thing. It would be to the government's advantage in economic and financial terms if it considered this issue with a little greater urgency.

In European countries, there has been much unrest. We must not think the same thing will not happen here too. The price per barrel of oil is very high despite the recent decision by the OPEC countries. There is talk of a threatened traffic tie-up by the Ontario association of truckers tomorrow. The economy is relatively strong. The truckers were busy working this summer.

In the fall, the economy always slows down a bit. When they have a little more time available and they let off a little steam and they try to make their truck payment and so on, some people will, when they are not carrying merchandise, make themselves heard.

There are others too. I am thinking, for example, about farmers over the summer. This is not the best time for demonstrations. The government should not be surprised, though, if the situation gets worse. One simply has to talk to people to realize that the public is greatly concerned by the price of gasoline. People are asking the government to take action at two levels: by lowering the tax and by making the oil industry accountable.

Why is it—there are a lot of unanswered questions but I raise them nevertheless—that last spring we had days where—the figures here are only indicative of the situation, but the differences reflect the facts—gasoline sold at 65.9 cents in the morning, at 72.9 cents in the afternoon, and then at 68.9 cents the next morning? During that time, the price of the barrel of oil remained stable. Why is it that there were such strong fluctuations over such short periods? Why is it that, at a time when market conditions were stable, the price of gasoline sometimes fluctuated by as much as 10% in a single day?

Oil companies must be made accountable. I would like to see them come before us to explain in detail the profits they make at the retail level. They can tell us anything they want, because we cannot check the facts. That is the problem. We should pass a better Competition Act and set up a more effective competition bureau with a special mandate.

We also asked for such a mandate for the competition bureau, with regard to the oil industry. We should dangle a sword of Damocles over the head of the oil industry, we should make it feel some pressure and we should constantly monitor it to keep it in the straight and narrow. It takes exceptional measures to follow up on a regular basis, to examine the financial statements of oil companies, to make them accountable, to not always be the ones bearing the burden of proof but to make them accountable sometimes. I think such measures would help improve the situation.

In conclusion, because my time is running out, we will support this motion which, I hope, will be agreed to. It would be better to suspend collection of the full excise tax, and we continue to ask for such a measure. But the motion of the Canadian Alliance does not exclude that and we will support it.

We want the government to wake up and to assume its responsibilities. There are competition problems within the industry. There comes a time when the government must stop burying its head in the sand and must stop telling itself that all the decisions are made elsewhere, that the international situation is to be blamed or that it is the provinces' fault. The federal government has responsibilities and it has the financial means and the legal authority. Let us see it use them.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-33, the Species at Risk Act.

The public is far more concerned about the environment when the economy is doing a little better. Fortunately this is the case in a number of regions of Quebec and of Canada. This concern ought to be an ongoing one and everyone agrees on that. There must however be effective legislation and measures that have a connection with reality.

First of all, I must admit to not having done an enormous amount of work in this area, but I do have some familiarity with it. My colleague from Jonquière is the one who handled this issue for the Bloc Quebecois. I was extremely surprised, seeing all the material on this issue, that the government has not managed after all this time, for this is not the first time it has tried to get such legislation, to get any more support for a bill which ought normally to respond to some practical objectives.

Protecting endangered species is a worthy cause, but what it has managed to do instead in this case is to unite people against it. A number of provinces—if I remember correctly, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and others I cannot recall, there is a sixth I believe—already have legislation to protect endangered species.

If there is federal intervention, it ought not to have a negative impact on what is already in place, or occupy a space that would make it possible to better protect our environment and our ecosystem and provide all the environmental protection necessary. Like many others, the government of Quebec is not really comfortable about this because it looks like another case of duplication.

All this is not because everyone keeps saying it is less pertinent. For individuals, organizations, all those involved in the field it is not easy to figure out what is going on when there are two different pieces of legislation to deal with. Which one takes precedence? Which addresses which particular aspect? It is not a very simple matter. If the information is simple and understandable, people will be more careful and more informed, and a very healthy pressure will be put in place.

If the federal government also wanted to deal with what is under its jurisdiction, it could do many things in environmental matters. It too could set an example by the way it takes care of the environment. It could be more open in its approach to the citizens.

This brings to mind the MOX that the government tried to transport on the sly: the less people are informed, the better. My colleague and some people in her constituency managed to make the plan public and called for a halt to it. The government was forced to say that it would have to abide by its own principles. If it had not been for the vigilance of a few people this might have been done on the sly. The federal government's behaviour is not exemplary.

Speaking of the environment in the broader sense, people in my region as well as in northeastern Ontario are very concerned by what is coming up. When we talk about Témiscamingue, that is the Quebec side, but there is also Timiskaming on the Ontario side, with a similar name because of Témiscamingue Lake which straddles the border.

Northeast Ontario will have the great honour of hosting the largest dump, or almost, in North America. Out of generosity, the city of Toronto has decided to send its garbage to a former open-pit mine in northern Ontario; three other regional municipalities will do the same, Peel, York and Durham. A minimum of 20 million tons of garbage will be sent to northeastern Ontario, close to rivers flowing directly into Témiscamingue Lake.

For those who do not feel concerned, I mention that Témiscamingue Lake flows into the Ottawa River and eventually into the St. Lawrence River. It is located at the watershed. We live at the north-south divide, in an area where two watersheds meet. This project will be in the southern watershed, just at the very edge of that watershed.

I will explain briefly. They will put the garbage in the mine pit. Sure, they are going to put sand all around to protect the exterior walls of the mine. They will pray that there is no leak in the ground. Then, they will pour into the pit water from the surface and use it to rinse the garbage, pump it back up and treat it. This water will then go back in the rivers. To sum up, they are going to contaminate pure water and treat it afterwards. This, at a time when people worry so much, and rightly so, about drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, this project is an environmental disaster, and so far the federal government has not made a single comment about it. It did not state its position, when its own legislation would allow it to do so, because there are interprovincial considerations involved and the aboriginal people have land claims over the area. It should look after its own jurisdictions instead of always trying to duplicate what is being done elsewhere and to extend the areas where it can step in. It would be nice if it started to use its own powers more efficiently.

Incidentally I am taking this opportunity to raise the awareness of the Liberal members from the Toronto region, because I know that several of them are interested in this idea of shipping all that waste to our area.

When we talk about the environment we must emphasize the notion of recycling. The city of Toronto and three neighbouring communities will get a bonus for having signed a contract with a private contractor. They guaranteed 20 million tons and, if they exceed this amount, they will get a $1.50 rebate for each ton.

Do you think that these municipalities will put pressure on people to recycle? Do you think they will use common sense? They are locked into a 20 year contract with a private contractor who will become a major waste manager.

Southern Ontario sends its refuse to the north and does not care one bit. It gets rid of the bad odours, etcetera.

This also has a major impact. It is related to the whole issue of the protection of species. What would be the consequences on our ecosystem, on our environmental balance, not just on our waters, of having a mega-dump, the biggest dump in North America, in a region like that? I can predict that our region will also end up having the largest concentration of seagulls and pigeons in North America. These birds also travel and contaminate other areas.

People back home are extremely concerned. We are very concerned about the Ontario provincial government, which seems to care little about the environment. We are also concerned about the federal government which has so far remained silent on this project.

When I see a debate like today's, where the government wants to assuage its conscience and pass a bill to protect wildlife species at risk in Canada, when six provinces are present already in this field trying to do the job—it may not be perfect what they are doing, but they are trying to follow the right path—when I see the federal government introducing a bill that does not even satisfy environmental groups that are very attuned to the issue, I say to myself that this is definitely not a step in the right direction.

I will not repeat the arguments made by my colleagues earlier. I would, however, like the government to be a little more realistic. It should pass legislation that is practical, and existing laws, such as the environment law, which allows the federal government to intervene when necessary, should be used too, when there is opposition such as is found in northeastern Ontario and northwestern Quebec, which is back home.

Just to give members a sense of proportion, where I come from, 5,000 people signed a petition. They oppose Toronto's proposal to ship its garbage out. Five thousand people at home represents a third of the population. In Toronto, it would take a million people to make the equivalent. I challenge members to find one million people to support the proposal to ship out waste.

I am happy to see that the government is talking increasingly about the environment. It will eventually also have to talk about real problems, our over-consumption of certain resources. We are not contributing either to maintaining a healthy balance for our environment, and our actions are not helping protect the species needed to protect our ecosystem.

It takes more than the passage of laws of limited scope and considerable confusion rather than positive solutions to go in the right direction.

I conclude by asking the Liberal members to awaken their conscience. They have to take real action. I hope that in the next stages of considering the bill, the government will return to a more realistic approach.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by several hundreds of people who are calling on the federal government to do something about the increase in gasoline prices.

To date, over 5,000 of my constituents have signed this petition calling on the federal government to take action to bring down the price of gasoline.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table two petitions, each signed by 75 people, calling for an improvement in the working conditions of rural letter carriers.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are debating a bill in second reading which concerns MPs' pensions.

There is one thing I would like to clarify right off the bat. It is very true that it is easy to get involved in demagoguery within such a debate, because the people debating it are the ones directly concerned. It is easy to blame other people, or to make political judgements without stepping back from a subject such as this. I do, however, have reservations about the process and about the bill per se, but I shall come back to that.

There is one thing I want to say right away: it is perfectly normal for MPs to have a pension plan like a good many other people do, whether in the public service or in the private sector.

There are also plans in place, such as the Quebec pension plan, to ensure that the greatest possible number of people have a retirement income. Parliamentarians must not be left out, and it is normal that they would have a pension plan. It is also totally normal in that—and it is important to point this out—the MPs who benefit from the plan also contribute to it.

Currently, members who participate in the pension plan contribute 9% of their salary to it. In the months or years that followed the 1993 election, the government decided to change the pension plan so that MPs could no longer start collecting a pension immediately, but only at age 55. Such a change made perfect sense. Indeed, it was totally unacceptable that, for example, a 40 year old MP leaving after sitting six years in parliament would collect a pension until the age of 55, while getting a percentage of his salary.

Under the pre-1995 plan, an MP would accumulate a pension at a rate of 5% per year in office. Therefore, a member with eight years in the House, or two mandates, would get 40% of his salary upon retiring, until his death.

Under the change made, it was no longer possible to collect that pension before 55. So, a person leaving office at 40 cannot receive any pension until age 55. That pension is deferred and paid only at retirement age. That change made sense and it was welcomed by the public, because it made the plan more realistic, more in line with the reality elsewhere, both in the private and the public sector.

At the time, MPs had the option of not participating in the plan. That was my case. I chose not to join in that plan. This means that I do not contribute to the plan, but will not benefit from it either. That was my choice and it still is.

What I do not like about this bill is that as soon as it is passed—and I am convinced it will be, because a majority of members here will support it—I will no longer have that option. I will automatically be covered by the plan, even though I do not wish to be covered, and I have a problem with that.

I was allowed to opt out and now I am being forced back in. I would like members to continue to have the option or, if people are forced to contribute, see the government at least wait until election is a thing of the past and say “From now on, there is a universal system that applies to everyone. It will apply to anyone who is a candidate and who wins the election”.

I opted out. I also told my constituents that I had done so. Now, I will have to tell them that the government has introduced a bill that forces me to opt back in, effective tomorrow morning. I have a lot of trouble with that and that is why I cannot vote in favour of the bill.

Not everyone is familiar with the bill. Why is it being introduced at this particular time? In the amendments to the legislation in 1995, there was an oversight by the government. The result was that members under 55 years of age who had contributed to the pension plan and who ceased to be members, no longer received severance pay, while members who had opted out of the plan, as I had, were entitled to severance pay.

Obviously, this is not fair, because when members finished their term of office, or were defeated in an election, they did not have a few weeks or months of income to give them some breathing space financially speaking. Nor were they covered by EI.

The government therefore wished to correct this oversight. I have no problem with that part of the bill, which gives MPs an allowance for six months after the end of their mandate or after they lose their seat. I do have a problem with the other part, which now requires everyone to belong to the pension plan.

I know also that it is not necessarily the government MPs who are affected by this part. It is mainly a group of Canadian Alliance members. I have trouble with members who get themselves elected by saying “I do not want to belong to the pension plan” and who now will conveniently be able to say “I was forced back into it”. One could well think this provision was put there primarily for their benefit.

That does not work. I have trouble with people who made these noble speeches just to get elected. That was not the only thing they were running on, but it was part of their platform. Now they are sneaking in the back way, claiming that the government forced them to join the pension plan and the government will play along by saying “Let's go ahead and rush this through at the end of a parliamentary session”.

It would have been better to have at least divided the two matters, the first one being to correct the fact that an MP who leaves at the end of a legislature, or after having been defeated in an election, can benefit from the allowance. I believe there is a consensus, or there might be close to unanimity, on this. I have no problem with that part, but I do have one with the second part, which states that, as soon as there has been royal assent, I am going to have to start contributing again to this plan to which I do not want to belong for a variety of reasons.

Members will also be able to buy back past years. They have at least been given this option. There is no requirement to buy them back. Happily, the door has been opened, meaning that I am not forced to join retroactively. But in the future, I will have no option.

I repeat that if it were at least done after an election, after an announcement was made to the effect that there will be a new plan and that members elected in the next Parliament will be subject to such and such conditions, people would be more aware, and the government party would have the leisure to leave things as they are. That would have been clear, transparent and understood by all.

I do not want to talk for hours on this. I have made my point. I think it is too bad that things often happen in an improvised and hasty fashion. Had it been otherwise, it would have meant no need to return a few years later to correct an error, because it was done in haste the previous time. People quickly saw that something was left out in the case of severance pay, but no one wanted politically to take on the dirty job of bringing it all to the table.

It takes ability and courage to defend the things one believes in. I have nothing against those who say “I do not believe in that. I think the plan should be mandatory for everyone”. Such arguments and such an opinion are defensible. At least they should have the courage to do it a little more transparently.

If they had involved a few more people in the discussions at the time, had it not gone on at just one level, had people been more involved, at least forewarned, they would have avoided this sort of error. Except for a few people who were involved in the negotiations—and here again, I would say that that has been limited to people very close to the government House leader—we are hearing about this bill for the first time today, with technical amendments to the plan, with the result that questions are being raised by those who will join the plan retroactively.

I will give an example that concerns me. For the 2000 tax year, I contributed to my own RRSP. I prefer to manage my own affairs and I therefore contribute to an RRSP. With this bill, I am being forced to contribute to the government's pension plan. I will therefore find myself in the situation of having over-contributed for this year. I will have to withdraw contributions from my RRSP, be over-contributed, because I was not aware of this fact. I have a lot of trouble with a plan that operates this way and which, on top of that, forces on me a choice I did not make, when I had been allowed to opt out.

This deserves some thought, and I would have liked members to have a bit more time to examine the bill, and go through first and second reading, committee of the whole, and third reading in 48 or 72 hours. I imagine that the government is worried that people will start being swayed by public opinion, but it should have the courage to say what is going on.

Earlier, the Bloc Quebecois House leader quite rightly said “I too can just imagine what some radio and television commentators will have to say tomorrow about those MPs who voted themselves severance pay”. That may be, but we must also have the courage to say that these people are earning more than most of us here, and than all of us because, except for ministers, all members' salaries are the same.

The sanctimonious elements in our society should take a look at themselves, because they enjoy much better conditions than we do. Meanwhile, we must have the courage to face criticism here and there and say “Listen, we will do this. We will take a little longer to do it properly”.

There is a legitimate debate on this which is related to the whole issue of enhancing the role of members of parliament. I was going to conclude, but this brings another point to mind.

Salaries and pensions are two things that may attract people to political life, but they are not the only ones. If the government is serious when dealing with issues such as salaries and pension plans, if it really wants to enhance the role of members of parliament, it should also take a closer look at the concrete work and real powers given to MPs.

I am convinced that if it improved that role somewhat, if it gave more flexibility to both government members and other members, if the Prime Minister did not control everything from his office, the work of members would be enhanced in such a way that the issue of salaries would become less important. There are elements to consider, but these elements are part of a whole.

It is not true that people enter politics only because of the conditions that relate to their duties. They also do so because they want to change things, to have a say in the decisions made. There is a lot of work to be done in that respect and I am convinced that all members of this House, except for a few ministers and those who hope to become ministers, share my view.

We talk about this a lot among ourselves but, at some point, we will have to take action. Compensation is also an issue. We must have the courage to tell people that, if they want good MPs, they have to accept the fact that these MPs must have a good salary and a good pension plan. I have no problem saying that. Often, the type of people we get depends on what is expected of them. To attract quality people, the whole package must be interesting, including the compensation aspect, the influence aspect, and so on.

There are several factors which motivate someone to go into politics, including the desire to change things and to improve the lot of the people one represents, but also the capacity to do it under reasonable working conditions compared to what one would earn elsewhere in society. All that should be taken into account.

I do not agree with the members of the Canadian Alliance who say that this issue should be left entirely to people from the outside because we must be able to make our own decision on this issue. I have no problem doing it and I would have great difficulty accepting that this decision be left to people who would not be accountable to the public.

In short, I think we must be able to have that debate, even though it might open the door to a demagogic kind of rhetoric. Some may have already gone in that direction, and others will do so, I am sure.

Because of the way it is being put through and because of its content, forcing us back in after we had been allowed to opt out, as I did, I cannot vote in favour of the bill, whether at second or at third reading.

From what I can understand of the motion, there is little possibility either of amendments at the report stage. I would have liked to have seen that possibility provided, so that the possibility for people to opt out if they wish, which had been allowed, could be retained.

In future, after another election, having it apply to new members is not a problem. Those who were allowed to opt out could at least be left with the choice they made in the past, a choice that should be respected. Whether they are now telling us that it is better to belong to it, or not to belong to it, the decision is up to us. Those who made that choice made an informed decision, and I have no problem with that. I can live very comfortably with what I decided. Today, however, I must say that I am not all that thrilled with this bill and my being forced back in the plan.

I am therefore submitting these comments to the House. I hope they will cast some light for certain members and that, between now and when it is passed at third reading, there will at least be a minimum of leeway for some arrangements to ensure that the choice made by individuals to opt out can be retained.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5, which has been around for a while and which deals with the Canadian Tourism Commission. The purpose of this bill is to transform the CTC from a special operating agency into a crown corporation.

I must tell the House from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons, which I will state during my speech.

First of all, we must ask ourselves what are the objectives pursued by the government in passing such a bill. There has been a growing tendency over the last few years within government in general, but even more so within this federal government, to take public funds and put them into an agency of some kind outside the government, an agency which is often run by friends of the government and which, for all intents and purposes, is not accountable directly to parliament.

In the case of the Canadian Tourism Commission, the federal government puts $65 million into that agency each year. The board of directors will be appointed by the minister, who will maintain that power. However, if there is ever a problem or if there is a policy with which parliament as a whole disagrees, we can anticipate what the minister's answer will be when he is questioned about that. He will say “Look, they are independent, they are the ones in charge of managing this Crown corporation”. The government will just wash its hands of all that.

Let us not forget that the money going to this organization comes from the taxpayers and that parliament will essentially lose control over the management of public funds.

What was the reason given for taking such an approach since the beginning of the debate on the Canadian Tourism Commission over a year ago, especially during the last weeks in committee? Flexibility. Commission and government officials say “More partnership with the private sector will be possible. It will be simpler and the rules will be more flexible”. As if it were impossible to figure out why a special section of a department is not able to give itself more flexible and faster rules for partnerships with the private sector.

One example has been given. It was the only one, because concrete examples have been very rare, as if mere mention of a vague principle were enough to make it true. We were told that partnership would be easier and flexible. Oh really, and why? No witness had an answer for that, except for the one who said “For example, selling advertising or soliciting revenue is easier for a crown corporation than for a special service of the government. If, for example, there is an internet site looking for business or selling advertising, that will be easier”.

There is a risk of this happening more and more in future. Why not look at the internal rules that make this partnership complicated to set up? All the other departments might benefit from this. The government as a whole could be made more efficient. We are not required to create a crown corporation in order to do so.

If the federal government wants to be more efficient, let us talk about tourism in its broadest sense. Who is involved in this area? There is the Canadian Tourism Commission, which receives $65 million yearly. There are the economic development agencies. In the case of Quebec, it is Economic Development Canada. There are also other agencies for the other regions.

These too spend money to fund projects locally, whether infrastructure, promotional plans or any other program. In Quebec, Canada Economic Development is spending money. The Canadian Tourism Commission has money to promote Canada in broad terms. That said, part of its budget still goes for promotional purposes within Quebec. We were told it represented 7% of its budget.

I will discuss this a little later in greater detail. There is also Attractions Canada, which spends $4 million annually. Who manages Attractions Canada? The Minister of Public Works, the one managing the CIO and administering another $40 million budget, the federal government's sponsorship budget, whose presence is strongly felt at festivals and tourist events.

This same minister, who might be described as being in charge of patronage, or nearly, has two tourism budgets in his control. If the federal government wanted to be more effective, it could first put this money into a single agency. I am saying this without getting into a debate over whether the provinces would be in a better position, or, in some cases, the municipalities that do this. We would much prefer a Quebec tourism promotion plan, sold under the aegis of Quebec, with our own events, our own festivals and our own label. Our tourism product is sold differently from Canada's.

In case the Liberals forget, even if they are the ones reminding us from time to time, though as little as possible, we are distinct and different. So we do not sell Quebec as they sell Canada internationally. We would prefer to have that money along with our taxes in order to manage it ourselves.

That said, as we know about their obsession with visibility and their desire to manage, let them clean up their own yard. Let them dig in the pockets of the minister of public works to see if there is anything there.

I am going to give the example of Attractions Canada. Because, after a long battle in committee, we managed to have these obscure people from the Attractions Canada program testify.

Just look at how things work. These $4 million are given to the Everest group, the buddies of the party, so that it will manage that money on behalf of the federal government. The Everest group is not subject to the same constraints, to the same transparency rules and so on. The government gave $4 million to buddies. They must get a cut on that. I do not know how much, but we will eventually find out. And these people sponsor or display advertising on huge Mediacom billboards, and it is signed Attractions Canada.

Strangely enough, the government did not create a crown corporation for that purpose. It would rather create partnerships with the private sector. It has such partnerships with Cadbury, Via Rail—although Via Rail is not quite a private company and the government gives it a lot of support—and others.

With the money he has in his pockets, the Minister of Public Works is capable of creating partnerships with the private sector. But it did not seem to be the case at Industry Canada. So, a crown corporation was established.

The pattern will be the same. Money will again be given out, and who is to say that it will not also become some kind of a propaganda agency? So, the minister of public works will award contracts to his buddies, while appointments will be made at the agency. We are very concerned by all this.

I do not doubt that there are people within the commission who are full of good intentions. But once the directors have been appointed or approved by cabinet, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, might they not conveniently forget that they are accountable to the minister?

I too am concerned about the principle of accountability in the management of public funds. I have in my hands the 1998 report of the Canadian Tourism Commission. I will not show it to the House, because props are not permitted. I challenge the House to find in this annual report the public money contributed. The $65 million from taxpayers is mentioned nowhere in the report.

We see how they spent all the money they collected—the partnerships with the private sector and so on—but nowhere is it mentioned that this money comes from taxpayers, to the tune of $65 million for the federal contribution. There are also contributions from provincial governments and municipalities, and other public agencies. So there is a real problem.

There is also the case of the Office du tourisme et des congrès du Grand Montréal, a group that appeared before the committee. These folks appeared, claiming to be private partners. I was very surprised and I asked questions.

Of this organization's $15 million budget, $1 million comes from each level of government—the municipality, the Government of Quebec and the federal government. That accounts for $3 million. Another $4 million comes from private enterprise, and $8 million comes from a tax on hotel rooms in Montreal of $2 a night.

Mr. Lapointe, the former Liberal minister who now directs the office, told me in committee that this $8 million was private funding, as though no legislation had been necessary to give him the right to levy a tax of $2 a night. I am not kidding—that was what I was told.

Sorry, but when the figures are added up at the Commission on interventions by a body such as that, and the bulk of them are classified as private interventions, I say wait a minute. We must make not mistake about the Canadian Tourism Commission: it is funded largely by public funds, whether federal, provincial or what not. But for the taxpayer, that is all the same.

Obviously, there will always be a certain number of events and partnerships the commission will be publicizing. Let us look at the whole thing here. In our regions, what organizations or events really benefit?

There are the major events, the major festivals, which manage to get included. A highly select few at the top. As for the others, they do not manage to gain anything from the spill-over effect, and still less so from small direct patronage programs such as Attractions Canada. What events in Quebec regions such as Abitibi—Témiscamingue or others even know such a program exists?

When we asked the public servants in charge, their answer was “All people have to do is to consult our internet site. They will perhaps find that there is some information available”. Yet they did not seem to be very clear themselves on how Everest determined its criteria for handing out money.

There are a lot of problems. Before taking the $65 million in public funds from the commission and making it into an institutionalized crown corporation, some internal housecleaning would be in order.

Representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service also came to testify at the hearings. For the rest, for the most part, those who came to defend their viewpoint were former members of the board or people still close to the commission. I do not blame them. They did their job. These people were all connected with the commission.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service appeared near the end. At the same sitting in which we were to begin voting on the bill, we heard these people in the morning, the first to speak out against the bill, and the bill was expected to pass before the end of the session, as if it served no purpose to take a step back and consider their arguments. The government took care to have them testify at the end.

I will read a few quotes from their brief:

The government makes much of the success of the commission since 1995 in promoting and enhancing tourism. Since this is such a success story now, why is there a need to change the crown corporation status?

A very good question. A little further on:

As proposed, the Canadian Tourism Commission will provide nothing new, except for the extra implementation cost. Bill C-5 is a measure that is so vague that employees' rights are not stipulated.

They went on a little further in their brief:

It is the institute's position that an internal adjustment of the special operating agency's powers is the way to continue and add to the success story that began in 1995.

They were therefore saying “Since we are told everything is fine, a few small changes would help us to improve things, without having to create a crown corporation”.

A bit further on, they say:

Therefore, there is no need at this point to engage in any creation of a crown corporation, since the agency can continue to undertake the dialogue, research, and marketing that are necessary in the tourism industry.

Their brief concludes as follows:

The institute feels that the extension of crown corporation status to the Canadian Tourism Commission is a completely unnecessary move, based on the fact that no particular advantage vis-à-vis the tourism industry will be gained.

This is an initial brief. There are also other people who appeared before the committee and questions were asked which, in my view, show how confused the federal government's approach is.

When Mr. Francis, the commission's chairman, appeared before the committee, I asked him about Attractions Canada, which I mentioned earlier. I asked him whether Attractions Canada was part of the Canadian Tourism Commission. He told me it was not. I asked him what then was it was part of and he told me that he thought it was part of the Canada Information Office. That was close; he had the right minister, but it was not the Canada Information Office; it was the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

I then asked him how the various departments got along together, and this is what he said:

“It is an ongoing challenge, something that we have been attempting to do over the last two or three years”.

People say “We are looking at all this. We do not have much of an idea of how it works, but we are looking at it”. So they came to sell us on the merits of creating a crown corporation out of the commission, but without even having done their own homework within the federal government.

I raised a lot of interesting questions but, in the final analysis, they said they were fully in agreement with what was going on.

I asked some witnesses to give me concrete examples of how partnership with the private sector would be easier if they were a crown corporation. These were people who were very close to the action, people who had sat on the board, or those working in tourism. They had no examples to offer.

I asked Mr. Lapointe of the greater Montreal tourism bureau “Are you familiar with Attractions Canada?” His answer was “Vaguely”. I then asked “Are you familiar with its mandate?” He started to explain to me that there were billboards, and that his understanding was that the purpose was to do this or that type of promotion.

How is it that people involved year in and year out in tourism are not fully familiar with the mandate of Attractions Canada, which spends dollars to promote tourism?

How can it be that they are not familiar with the rules for intervention by the minister through his sponsorship budget which, I might point out in passing, ensures that Quebec gets the lion's share? Yes, there are some programs where Quebec gets more than its share of propaganda, whether in billboards or in Canada Day spending. In this area Quebec gets more than its share.

However, when the time comes to ask the Minister of Industry, for instance, to do his part for a project such as the creation of a semi-conductor plant in Montreal, then the answer is: that takes time, it is complicated, they do not want to set a precedent by using a different approach in Quebec. But when it comes to flags, or what approximates a flag, or to nurture the friends of the government, it is a different matter.

I invite anyone who is interested to reread all that was said during the brief week we studied the matter in committee to see that nothing specific was put before us to enable us to conclude that this step of turning a special service into a crown corporation was necessary.

Naturally, there are the clichés “It is a normal stage of development”, “Partnerships will be easier”, “It will be very flexible”. But in practice, there is no specific proof. When we scratch the surface, we see that there are problems left and right. And I have not spoken in detail of Economic Development Canada, because its representatives did not appear before the committee.

However, in order to hear the others I mentioned, whether it be Attractions Canada, or opinions on sharing jurisdiction, it took a real battle in committee to get the minister himself to come and present his bill. They wanted, on the pretext that it was the end of a session, to hustle it through at committee stage, so as few people as possible would be heard on the potential problems.

Economic Development Canada, this federal government agency whose intervention criteria we will never clearly know, had long been an issue with me. Last year, they toured the various regions of Quebec, and in all the press releases, it was obvious there were funds available for tourism. In certain regions, ours for example, we have learned that they are putting money into one project in particular in order to help fund a regional development or marketing plan, but the criteria are not known in advance to those in the area.

We are told that $1.2 million is available, but we are not told how it will be allocated. When government funding is involved and there is a desire to manage it transparently, how can those in the business be expected to know that they are eligible and apply?

Economic Development Canada tells people to send in their applications and it will examine them. What criteria will apply? Nobody really knows. And then, to justify refusals, all we are told is that it did not meet their priorities. Oh? What priorities? Perhaps my region is an exception, but I do not think so. I think that this goes on in many regions in Quebec and I am certain that it also happens elsewhere with regional development agencies.

There is therefore a serious problem. For a minister who says he is concerned about promoting tourism, he should look at what is going on in his agencies, and do a little housecleaning so that his interventions are a bit more effective.

We know that the federal government will not withdraw from a sector such as tourism. The furthest it has gone is to say in the throne speech that it would try to establish new models of partnership with the provinces. Given its obsession with visibility, that is what it will continue to do. But it should at least start by striving for effectiveness and co-ordination in what it does. That would already be a big step forward.

In short, for reasons of efficiency and out of respect for those who pay taxes and who want transparency in the management of public funds, we cannot support a bill like this, especially when we look at the parallel interventions by the government in sponsorship and tourism, we see that public funds tend to be spent on other things and, under the guise of promoting tourism, provide encouragement to friends, such as those in the Groupe Everest.

Drawing parallels, the same minister manages the Canada Information Office or the federal government Liberal Party office of propaganda.

It may be rather alarming to see that there is still a lot of money: $44 million annually in the case of the minister of public works—this is a lot of money—, $65 million in the case of the Canadian Tourism Commission. Taxpayers pay out a lot of money, and we might as why it is used to fund the promotion of an industry that is currently flourishing.

We must not ignore the fact that the weakness of the Canadian dollar helps a lot to improve tourism both in Quebec and in Canada. I am not saying that the tourism market has not improved, but we must realize that the main factor was the quality of what we have to offer and the fact that our dollar is very weak, making other currencies stronger.

We will vote against this bill. I invite all members of this House to bear in mind the fact that we risk turning this agency into another federal government propaganda agency, yet again.

[Gasoline Pricing, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the study is expected in January 2001, it should be noted.

Is the federal government going to continue to close its eyes much longer on the dubious practices of the oil industry, when, according to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute itself, the refineries are taking advantage of the nervousness in the oil market to raise their refining margin?

When is the government going to assume its responsibilities and act in this matter?

[Gasoline Pricing, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, drivers were stupefied by the ten cent increase in the price of a litre of gasoline at the pump in a single day this week.

The news of it did not perturb the federal government, which remains totally indifferent.

I ask the Minister of Finance if he could tell us what he intends to do to respond to consumer concerns about these dizzying increases in the price of gasoline?

[Point Of Order, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to something that concerns the tabling of petitions.

Very often individuals or lobby groups signing petitions forward them to us for tabling here in this House.

However, in today's context, with the development of new means of communication, petitions may come in different forms. This has happened with me.

One individual has presented an electronic petition, on CD-ROM, with over 17,000 names. Mr. Goyette, a resident of Montreal, in Quebec, collected, through electronic means, 17,000 signatures. That petition, like the one I tabled earlier, asks the government to take action regarding the gasoline pricing issue. This type of petition does not quite comply with the current rules of the House, more specifically with Standing Order 36.

I am asking the Chair whether it would be possible to get a very broad interpretation of this provision of the standing orders or, if it is deemed more appropriate, to have the standing orders amended or updated so that in the future Canadians can use such means.

In some ways an electronic petition is better than a traditional one. It is much easier for the person who is collecting signatures to make sure that someone did not sign the petition more than once. By using an electronic address, it is possible to limit the number of signatures. In any case, an increasing number of people have an electronic address. We are likely to see others follow the example of Mr. Goyette who, to my knowledge in the first one to submit a petition in this format.

There are also advantages in terms of the storing of archival information. This simple CD-ROM has 17,000 signatures but it could have 50 times more. Storage capability for petitions would be greatly enhanced.

Considering that people can now file their personal income tax return by using the Internet, it seems to me that the House of Commons should review its standing orders to make it possible to table petitions in that format.

I respectfully submit this issue to your attention and I am anxiously awaiting your ruling.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition on the price of gasoline. Many people throughout Quebec and outside it as well are greatly concerned by the very rapid increase in the price of gasoline. In my region, over 3,500 people signed a petition, which I table in part today.

This petition asks the government to act quickly against this increase. It also asks the government to take steps to develop alternate sources of energy.