House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.
Post-Secondary Education September 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in the last few years the government has taken strong action to relieve some of the burden on students with their debts by elongating the period in which they can pay the loans and by deductibility of interest.
At the end of March this year we had a $12.3 billion surplus which automatically goes against the debt. That means that as a result of the payment of the debt in the last two budgets, we are saving $1 billion a year in interest costs. That is to the benefit of all Canadians.
Gasoline Pricing September 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, two months ago, the Minister of Finance, here in the House, proposed to the provinces that they work together to find solutions to this problem.
However, as far as I know, the minister did not get many calls from the Quebec minister of finance.
We have a situation where we are trying to work toward giving significant relief to Canadian consumers. To do that we have to have the provinces involved at the table, not just saying things but actually being part of the solution.
Gasoline Pricing September 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the GST was under debate by the Alliance Party just recently. However, our government is looking for a comprehensive approach to this issue. The GST, for example, with respect to truckers, is fully rebated when they apply for the GST credit. In addition, if we look at the federal excise tax it is 4 cents a litre for diesel but in Ontario it is 13.5 cents and in Quebec it is a similar amount.
We are working very diligently on the problem. It is a problem for Canadians. We want to have the right solution that gets in the hands of consumers, not in the hands of the oil companies.
Budget Surpluses September 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, over the past seven years, the Bloc Quebecois has called five times for a mini budget.
I can say with confidence that Canadians did not need the last mini budget nor do they need a mini budget today. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that while we underestimated our revenues by 3.6%, the province of Quebec has raised its revenue forecast by 3.8%. This is a national and an international phenomena. It is a good news story.
Supply September 21st, 2000
How about the fact that the federal tax has not changed in the last four years?
Supply September 21st, 2000
Madam Speaker, from time to time the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can be a reasonable person, but most reasonable people would agree that if the federal government were to make any moves on excise taxes the provinces would be expected to do something as well.
If we look at British Columbia, the gasoline tax is 11 cents a litre. That compares with our 10 cent excise tax. The diesel is 11.5 cents and our diesel is 4 cents a litre. In addition there is another 1.5 cents a litre that is applicable for transit in the Victoria area.
If the federal government moved on excise taxes, realizing that the provincial taxes should come down as well, would the hon. member support a cut in the ferry services that serve the Gulf Islands, his constituents, and the transit systems within Victoria that his constituents use as well?
Supply September 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the province of Saskatchewan, the provincial tax on gasoline and diesel is 15 cents. Our diesel tax is four cents and our excise tax on gasoline is 10 cents.
The point is that excise tax on gasoline like the tobacco tax and a whole range of other taxes go into the consolidated revenue fund of the government. They are used to serve the needs of all Canadians, including relief for farmers on the prairies which was between $1 billion and $2 billion in the last budget alone.
The revenues from excise taxes flow through to the consolidated revenue fund. They fund, for example, the $23.5 billion the Prime Minister recently concluded with the provinces and territories to invest in health care and education. They are not a dedicated tax. They were never intended to be and never will be.
Supply September 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, having lived in British Columbia for 13 years I am quite sympathetic to the forest industry. What will happen after the softwood agreement is somewhat extraneous to the debate.
With respect, I think the member is confusing two issues. I came from the private sector. It is a very competitive market and sometimes one is quoting on a fixed price. It seems to me that if truckers have learned anything, they should probably include in the next go-around some escalators when talking about a major component of their cost base.
The reality is the member is right that there are some truckers in this predicament. That is why the government is seized with the question. However, if we look at the GST, it has nothing to do with the contracts with their customers or clients. It is an input tax credit. They pay the GST, fill in the forms and get it back.
Supply September 21st, 2000
Yes, on this side we certainly understand that. The excise tax on diesel fuel is four cents. In Ontario the tax on diesel fuel is about 13.5 cents a litre.
How could we realistically come to the Chamber and put before us a motion that does not address the issues they are proposing to address? At the same time they ask, if we did something on excise taxes and it did not flow through to consumers, would it be such a big deal?
We are managing the tax dollars of Canadians. If we are to do anything we want to make sure it gets to consumers. The NDP has proposed some regulatory mechanism to try to ensure that would happen. I personally do not support it because it would be far too regulatory and cumbersome.
As members on the benches opposite know, the reality is that it would be virtually impossible to determine if a reduction in the excise tax made its way to consumers. There are many different variables. The oil companies will say that they were planning to do it but forgot it because their other costs went up.
The motion is horribly flawed. I am very disappointed that we did not have an opportunity to vote on an amendment so the House and Canadians would have an opportunity to see the two sides of the coin. I certainly will not be supporting the motion put forward by the Alliance Party. I would encourage everybody in the House to do the same.
Supply September 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be involved in this debate.
When the Leader of the Official Opposition gave his maiden speech he said initially that we should remove the partisanship in this debate and let us work in the interests of all Canadians. I almost fell for it until all his colleagues burst into laughter. I should have known that nothing has changed.
My colleague the member for Pickering—Uxbridge—Ajax tried to introduce an amendment to the motion and members of the Alliance used the trick that they have used ever since they came here. They used a procedural ploy. Canadians who are watching the debate may not fully comprehend the subtlety of it; it is procedural gobbledegook frankly. They denied Canadians the opportunity to see a real debate and denied members of the House an opportunity to choose either their motion or an amendment to the motion proposed by my colleague.
Nothing has changed. They talk about a new way of doing parliament. They talk about how their name is different but I look across the Chamber and the people are the same, except perhaps for one, and the policies and philosophies are exactly the same.
I would like to talk about fuel costs. Of course rising fuel costs are a concern to all Canadians. We need to understand what is driving the increase in energy costs.
In the last 12 months the price of crude and the price of fuel at the gas pump has about doubled but surprise, surprise, the federal taxes have not changed. The excise tax on gasoline and diesel is on a per litre basis. It does not change when the price goes up or down. If the government reacted to the concerns of Canadians and who knows, maybe it will, but it would not be because we are the culprits. It would be because we would be concerned about the plight of a number of Canadians and the amount they have to pay at the gas pump and the concern about the heating fuel costs for the upcoming winter.
We need to put the whole debate into another context as well. If we compare the taxes on gasoline in Canada with the industrialized world, our taxes as a component of the total pump price are actually relatively low at around 42% on average. In many of the OECD countries they are 70% to 75%.
Gasoline taxes in Canada comprise about 42% of the price at the pump and are very low by international standards. All we have to do is travel to see the price of gasoline at the pump in places like the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. I am not trying to trivialize the problem but we need to understand that our gas taxes here in Canada are really low in comparison to the other countries of the industrialized world.
When was the last time that the taxes went up over a long weekend? It does not happen. The taxes have not changed for many years. We are talking about a situation of pricing policies of oil companies.
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and I have been working on this issue for some time. Through his leadership our caucus has been concerned about energy costs for some time. The caucus made a number of recommendations which have led to action on the part of the government by the industry minister with reviews of the Competition Act. That is an area where we have jurisdiction. It is an area where the government might act to put more teeth in the Competition Act.
In talking about fuel costs, we are obviously looking forward, but we have to be concerned about the context of the debate. As I pointed out earlier in rebutting the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, it was during the tenure of the Tory government that diesel excise taxes were invented and the excise tax on gasoline was increased six times.
Likewise, we can look across the floor to the Leader of the Opposition. When he was in the legislature in the province of Alberta fuel taxes went up six times. In the province of Alberta they now sit at nine cents a litre. Our excise tax on diesel fuel is four cents a litre compared to the Alberta government's fuel tax of nine cents a litre.
Some people say that the federal government should just act unilaterally. I was on a talk show last night in Edmonton. I was reminded many times that these were not government tax dollars but the tax dollars of Canadians. If we are trying to alleviate the concerns of Canadians, why would we not be concerned about the question of whether any reductions in excise tax will flow through to consumers? Are we saying that we would reduce excise taxes? If they did or did not get into the hands of consumers is an irrelevant question. Let us do it. Let us show leadership.
As the Minister of Finance has said, if we are to provide real relief for Canadians we have to work in concert with the provinces. Unlike what some members have proposed in the House, the provincial taxes on fuel are in general higher than the federal excise taxes on gasoline and on diesel, for sure.
The problem is that the motion before the House seems to have been crafted in a very hasty fashion. If one were a cynic, one would say it is based on political opportunism. It talks about heating oil, consumers and truckers. As my colleague earlier pointed out, the motion fails miserably in trying to address these questions.
For example, there is no federal excise tax on heating oil. That is the first problem. The second problem is that they talk about alleviating the problems of truckers. I have great sympathy for truckers. I have a lot of trucking companies in my riding. When truckers pay the GST they receive a GST input credit when they pass it on to their customers. The GST they pay is a flow-through. All of us in the House understand that.