Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about this issue and the Bloc motion, as amended. It is something I brought forth to the Bloc, with regard to having a watchdog agency, something which has been around since 1999, then reintroduced in 2003, the concept specifically through an industry committee report, a committee in which I participated.
This is very important. What we are talking about here is not necessarily the price of gasoline. It is about public policy and whether or not we should have public policy involved in this industry to some degree. That is something that is not foreign to this country nor to the United States and other countries abroad. There is some form of public policy that either protects consumers or works to advance the industry and protects consumers.
In Canada there are four provinces that have monitoring agencies that regulate the price of gasoline. They have decided to look for more stable markets in order that they do not have the wild fluctuations in prices. They would prefer as consumers to have some stability. Nothing is more frustrating to people than having to fill their gas tanks on the way to work and finding out that the price of gasoline has suddenly gone up 5% or 10%. There is nothing they can do about it. That type of speculation in that environment is something people want to have addressed to a certain capacity. That is why four provinces have chosen a model that includes public policy for that.
It is also not foreign to this debate here in the House of Commons. It is not even foreign to the federal government. The minister's own briefing book, of which I have a copy here, talks about the Competition Act and the challenges the Competition Bureau faces. The Minister of Industry received secret advice, something I have acquired through the Access to Information Act, that basically outlines the Competition Act and some of the challenges.
The government spokespeople today have been saying that there is nothing wrong with this, but that is not what the minister's advice has been. The minister's advice quite clearly identifies that the act is based upon an analysis done in 1969.
I asked a question in the House of Commons the other day. I noted that the Woodstock festival took place back in 1969. The Competition Act comes from an era of about 40 years ago which created the body and the logic and the analysis all based upon that. There have been some changes to the Competition Act since that time, but there are still problems with it. That has been identified in the advice to the minister and his own briefing book.
It talks about the fact that there could be a leadership role to protect consumers if it was in their interest to do so. It also says there should be a pursuit of legislative initiatives related to identity theft, as well as other issues that consumers are raising. It also talked about the global economy and the bureau not having the proper resources to do the job.
That is the advice the minister was given over a year ago. He was told that the bureau does not have enough money, that the world is changing and that the bureau does not have the resources to pursue what it should be pursuing for consumers. It goes on in terms of noting some of the problems it faces and some of the things that can be changed. It is important that public policy be involved.
Mr. Speaker, before I go on to the next section, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the member for London—Fanshawe. I appreciate the pages who were so helpful in that matter with props. It looked like an old Bob Dylan commercial when they had the signs out there for me.
I want to return to this debate and public policy. The United States has what is called the petroleum reserve. The Americans have an agency that is dedicated toward preserving a certain number of barrels of oil for the actual market and for strategic reserves.
It is important to note that in 2006, the Americans put in money into the oil reserve, around $18.6 billion, to ensure that it functions properly for national security. President Bush has drawn on that to try to lower the price of gasoline. He has used that as an instrument to lower gasoline prices, something that has happened a number of times in recent years. He also rolled out a public policy for that.
The New Democratic Party has been calling for some form of public policy. That is why we believe the petroleum monitoring agency is the first step we could take to make sure there is accountability for consumers.
This industry has billions of dollars in profits. Recently the quarterly amounts came out with Imperial Oil at $774 million, Petro-Canada at $560 million and EnCana at $497 million.
We are asking whether or not Canadians are paying a fair price at the pump. A petroleum monitoring agency gives the independent analysis and voice that is necessary. MJ Ervin & Associates accumulates the data and basically is the voice for the industry. I am not here to say that it does a bad job, but I can say it has a different perspective in terms of analyzing the data, reporting it to the public and rolling out new initiatives on accounting for that. It is different from having an actual agency that does that. That was something we agreed to in 2003. The industry, science and technology committee almost had unanimous support for such an agency. To this date we have not seen that come forward. That is why we would like to see that part of the proponent brought forth.
It has been interesting that when we look at the high commodity prices that we have right now, people automatically assume we are going to see the higher price of gasoline and a reduction in use. That has not been the case in Canada. The most recent information from Statistics Canada is when it did a yearly review in 2006. It talked about retail gasoline consumption. It noted that with the price of gasoline going up “the only concession drivers made to higher prices was to switch from premium to regular grade gasoline in each year”.
Consumers have decided that they cannot afford some of the higher prices. That is why we have been talking about the prosperity gap in Canada. Ordinary citizens are watching their wallets being squeezed day in and day out, but at the same time they have not seen their income rise to levels that are appropriate for their daily needs.
We are supportive of reducing the dependency on gasoline as a product. It is a very important part of our public policy. For example, for a number of years I have been pushing for a green car strategy. At the same time we know there is a public vacuum and that with the increase in gasoline prices, consumers are going to abandon products that are cleaner and greener.
If we put them on the market but we over price them and allow the profit margin to continue to expand exponentially without questioning it, people will make choices that probably will not be very good. We will continue to have the growth of gasoline products at the lower end of the spectrum in emission standards and quality, at the expense of some of the higher brands, the ones we want to promote to citizens because they are cleaner and greener technologies. There cannot be this vacuum.
The member for Ajax—Pickering noted that the inflation rate is going up significantly. The consumer price index right now is skyrocketing. Consumers paid 2.3% more in March for their goods and services in the most recent data that is available. It was largely due to a strong increase in gasoline prices throughout the country. What ends up happening is that with the rise in inflation rates, people abandon the cleaner technologies that are available.
What is important in this motion is to create the needed elements for gas pricing that is going to be based around the Competition Bureau, making sure the refining margins are part of the public policy debate. The refining margins are very important. We have seen literally the dissolution of them over a number of years.
The most recent case is the Oakville refinery. This is an interesting case. Instead of Petro-Canada investing in this country in terms of the Oakville refinery, it decided to abandon it. When it was abandoned the company decided to import gasoline product from Esso. Recently there was a fire at its Sarnia refinery, and prices not only skyrocketed at Esso stations, but also at Petro-Canada because they are tied in with vertical integration. There is no competition. There does not have to be collusion; the fact is that this country has a lack of refining capacity and we depend upon a few key players in the market. With that type of a system we have to ask ourselves if we have the right public policy.
The industry, science and technology committee recently did a study on the manufacturing industry. We laid out recommendations to help the manufacturing industry. Gasoline prices have been hurting that industry. Energy prices have been putting us at a lower competitive level. There are rising export prices and the rise in the value of the Canadian dollar. Research and development in this country by the oil and gas industry is less than 1%. The industry is doing research and development everywhere else but here. That has to change.
The New Democratic Party is calling for a public inquiry. We will start by supporting the motion before us today. Hopefully we will see some fairness for consumers at the end of the day.
