Bryon Wilfert

[Joke Waller-Hunter, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, on October 14.

The world has lost a dedicated champion in the cause of sustainable development. For more than three decades in her professional life, she brought intelligence, goodwill and persuasive skills to help advance the cause of the environment.

As executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change, Canada had the good fortune to work closely with her in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal this year. Her spirit will be with us as we gather in Montreal and work collectively to seek a more inclusive global approach to combating climate change.

On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to express my sincere condolences to her immediate family and her colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that refinery capacity is at an all time low and there are issues dealing with that. I suggest to the member that refining capacity has been and continues to be a major problem. I think that is admitted by everyone, including the oil companies. What are they doing about it is a different issue, but there clearly is that problem.

I would suggest that the member's initial premise is absolutely correct. That has in fact been the trend with regard to pricing and crude oil prices and until recently that has been the case.

Yes, there is a lot of speculation in the marketplace. Some were reporting that we would see gas at $2 and $3 a litre last weekend. In fact, it did not happen, but again, it may happen because of some hurricanes which may impact on the United States but not this country.

We need time to bring all of the parties together and suggest that we need to see decisive action, particularly in the area of monitoring. There must be an ability to assure Canadians that when prices go up in this particular industry which affects Canadians in every walk of life, that in fact oil companies can justify that increase and be accountable, and at the same time ensure they make a reasonable profit. I am sure nobody has a problem with that. What we have a problem with appears to be the issue of gouging.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have indicated that they are looking at specific measures now to help alleviate the problem for Canadians.

It is not necessarily going to be a magic bullet, but it is going to be, I presume, an approach that will assist those middle and low income families and small businesses that are particularly affected by the rising price of fuel. There is no question about that.

Again, and I agree with my friend across the way, the Competition Bureau needs to have serious changes made to it to give it the power. Yes, it does all these investigations. Yes, it does try to find the smoking gun. Part of what it does not have is to say to the oil companies in Canada that if they want to raise the price by x amount, there is a cooling off period of, I suggest, 30 days as an example.

That is the kind of thing I would like to see the Competition Bureau have, so that it has not only the power to investigate and prosecute, but also in terms of its monitoring ability is able to say that these are the rules if oil companies wish to increase the price.

The average person, including myself, who goes in to buy gasoline cannot understand why the price seems to fall slowly at night, suddenly jacks up in the morning because of impacts. We talk about hurricanes and so on, but some of the companies are not importing American oil. We have not had the impacts.

Yes, there is a refining capacity issue. There is no question that it needs to be addressed, but again, that is not something directly that the government has a direct say in.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Clearly, Canadians are facing difficult times because of rising fuel prices. They want to see accountability from the Government of Canada, the provinces and the oil companies. The price of crude oil has gone up significantly since 2002, from roughly $20 U.S. a barrel to just over $60 U.S. a barrel. Part of that is because of increase in demand from countries like India and China. Although they only account for 10% of the world demand, they in fact represent over a third of the growth in demand.

The federal government does not constitutionally control the price and distribution of most goods and services in Canada, including the price of gasoline. We do not have that constitutional authority, so if people suggest that the Government of Canada somehow should deal with the price today, then they only need to look at the provinces. They need to look at provinces like Prince Edward Island which has a regulated regime, or Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to a degree.

In Ontario, in 1975 there was going to be a 5¢ a gallon increase and the Conservative government of the day decided to put a freeze on it for 90 days. It had that constitutional authority. If the issue is to deal with prices, it can either freeze the price today or it can roll the price back. It has that constitutional authority. Whether it wants to act of course is a different issue, but the reality is that on the issue of prices it is in the purview of the provincial government.

The federal government deals with the issue with the Competition Bureau. In 1998, I and 46 other colleagues on this side of the House dealt with this issue when we set up a Liberal caucus committee dealing with the whole issue of the oil industry. We made a series of recommendations, some of which were adopted by the government of the day, in order to deal with the issue of prices soaring at any one moment in time and then taking forever, it seems, to come down.

We called all the major oil company executives before our committee. If I were to tell members that they told us they do not make a lot of money on oil but they make it on selling potato chips, dry cleaning and ATMs, they might chuckle, but that was what they told us. I would suggest that if we called them today, we would see that in fact part of the reason why they are making significant dollars is that there is a lack of competition in the marketplace, particularly among independents. The Competition Bureau can and has stepped in, in the past, when one major oil company takes over a certain part of the market in which it will affect others. That happened in the province of Quebec with Petro-Canada at one time.

The authority to deal with anti-competitive measures is with the Government of Canada. I personally believe that the Competition Bureau needs to be strengthened. We need to look at ways to deal with that. Some have suggested there is collusion in the market, and I would suggest that trying to find a smoking gun is very difficult.

There have been at least 11 or 12 prosecutions with convictions over the last dozen years or so, but it is to find that smoking gun. Everyone says that the oil companies are in collusion but again we have to have evidence in order to prosecute and that is a difficult thing. However, when the Competition Bureau has evidence, it does take action. Obviously we cannot have anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace.

There may be a solution. I listened to the Bloc this evening talking about some kind of agency. Maybe we could say to the oil companies that if they are going to raise the price of gasoline by more than 1¢ there needs to be a 30 day notification. Maybe there needs to be some mechanism, but clearly the bureau needs to have those tools. It is high time for a very rigorous review of the powers of the Competition Bureau and what it can and cannot do.

The issue of taxes, which we have heard a lot about tonight, is not the issue. In 1992 the province of New Brunswick reduced the tax by 2%. The consumer did not see that because the oil companies immediately filled the void and raised the price. Cutting the excise tax by 3¢ would have very doubtful results because unless there is a regulatory regime in place that is going to clearly monitor and check that the 3¢ reduction is passed on to consumers, it will not make much difference.

I would point out that when I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance back in 2002 during that particular oil situation, the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance of the day suggested that he would stop collecting the tax if the provinces followed suit. Maybe one province actually responded to that. The provincial taxes ranged from 15¢, 16¢ or 10¢ a litre, and they were not prepared to give that up.

The issue really cannot centre on taxes because the issue is whether or not there is competition. The issue is how to make sure, if we want to regulate this industry and obviously some would suggest in this House that we regulate it, that in fact if we are prepared to do that then we need to have the kind of regime in place that has the power to do so.

We need to have accountability from the oil companies. If one had been through the experience that I and others were, one would not believe some of things that we heard from oil company executives. They basically said that there is no question that there is a world demand. There is the impact that it has here, but it still does not account for the fact that prices spike significantly one day by 20¢ or 30¢ and then take forever to come down.

The Government of Canada has indicated through the Minister of Finance and through the Prime Minister that we are looking at ways to help assist Canadians during this difficult period. There is no question that fuel has the biggest impact on everything, whether it is in making pizzas, delivering them or getting the ingredients for those pizzas, or anything else. Fuel has an impact.

With whatever regime, if in fact we want to go ahead and put it in place, we have to remind ourselves that it will have to be there for a very long time. But if the price of hydro goes up or heating oil, again one has to look to the provinces. In terms of pricing, it is a provincial jurisdiction. I have not heard a lot about that tonight because that is their domain. It is not our domain and even if we wanted to, the only time I think we could ever become involved is in an emergency situation such as in a time of war. We would certainly hear howling from the provinces if we intruded on a jurisdiction which obviously some of them are not prepared to even exercise at this point.

The issue that I hear from some members relates to taxes. Again, there is no guarantee of savings and in fact, whether the price is 80¢ a litre or $1.30 a litre, the federal tax does not change. What does change is the fact that the government has taken an aggressive stand on renewable energies. It did so in the budget of 2005 which some did not support.

This is the government pushing ahead on ethanol as an example. This is a government that is clearly committed to higher fuel standards for vehicles and is committed to all sorts of renewables. But those are clearly more down the road.

There is an immediate impact on families who are suffering today. The action the government will take will obviously have to be one that will not create a bureaucratic situation. We did try to assist in 2002 with rising costs in the area of heating oil and we were accused of giving cheques to dead people. People did die, even though they were on the list, after the cheques had gone out, or some went to jail.

I do not know whether we want to go down that road again, but I think we need to have a monitoring agency that has the proper tools, through the Competition Bureau, to call for accountability from the oil companies, to say that within 30 days if they are going to increase the price by 1¢ a litre they would have to report and would not be able to raise it until the time was up. There has to be some surety in the marketplace if in fact this is what members want to do. While I think all members seem to agree that they want to take action, the question is what kind of action should we take.

Constitutionally, if we want to freeze the price of gas or roll it back, we have to phone our members of the provincial legislatures because they have that constitutional authority. We will deal with the Competition Bureau which I think the House should really be looking at by giving it the proper tools. Let us move ahead and assist Canadians in this difficult time that they are all facing.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be recorded in favour.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the House from residents in the greater Toronto area who support the spiritually gifted Bryan Farnum on issues such as foreign ownership. They would like a restriction of 20% on oil and gas, also control of Canada's natural water resources. They state that issues such as family values and general health care should be put to a national referendum. They promote peace and obviously are interested in the issue of nuclear disarmament.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, when I referred to this issue in my original comments, it was a federal project not a state project. In fact, it was questioned whether it would even go ahead because it had not been recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is like dealing with apples and oranges. We are talking about two different things here. Therefore at the time it was premature to suggest that we would do a reference. The environmental assessment, which was recommended by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, had not been completed. When that assessment was proposed by the Corps, North Dakota found it very expensive and decided to go on its own. However it was a federal not a state project, and therefore that is why. I hope that helps clarify it for the member.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her suggestion and welcome it. Anything we can enunciate with one voice from this chamber to the United States Congress would be helpful and I certainly would take it under advisement. She has made some very good comments and they articulate what we are trying to achieve, which is a resolution based on science and a strong environmental assessment.

I think those are the kinds of comments and the kind of non-partisan wording that are helpful. Certainly we, as a government, are prepared to look at anything that will move the yardstick in that regard.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to make it very clear that the Minister of the Environment has raised this issue on many occasions, and certainly the Prime Minister recently raised this issue directly with President Bush. We are very pleased that the White House has become directly engaged.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a Canadian issue. This is an issue in which all Canadians have a stake because of what could happen. That is why it is important that we work collaboratively to ensure, in the discussions the Government of Canada is having with the White House and with other American politicians, that at the end of the day we have a resolution that is good for Canada and good for the United States and that protects and preserves the ecological integrity of the system and certainly of the environment.

The spirit of the Boundary Waters Treaty is extremely important. Since 1909 it has been the keystone in terms of how we have resolved issues with the IJC. I know that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with whom I will be splitting my time, will be elaborating on that.

We have worked very closely with the government of Manitoba for years. I want to praise the government of Manitoba for the work it has done; there is no light between the government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada on this issue in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

I would mention that there have been many meetings where we have raised these concerns. More meetings are going on, but particularly in April of this year the President of the Treasury Board, the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Ambassador McKenna and provincial ministers from Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec held meetings with senior U.S. officials.

The Minister of the Environment continues to bring this issue to the attention of his U.S. colleagues, particularly the White House Council on Environmental Quality, for example. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of course has raised this issue with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. The Minister of the Environment has never let an opportunity go by where he has not brought forward these concerns, because if this project were to go ahead it would be extremely important that the environmental integrity be protected.

This is not, as I say, a partisan issue. I was a bit disappointed with the last speaker's characterization of the 2002 issue, the so-called reference. I want to again point out that the reference was based on a federal project, not on a state project, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had not finished its environmental assessment, and that there was not even certainty as to whether the project would go ahead. It was not even sure that there would be funding at the time. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers never recommended an outlet as an alternative.

It is important that we should be looking at and concentrating on where we are going and how we can achieve a successful conclusion. Those who would suggest that Canada missed an opportunity in 2002 are not, with all due respect, providing the facts.

The fact is that we are prepared to have this referred to the International Joint Commission. We are prepared to ensure that in the end the integrity of the ecological system is protected and that bodies of water such as Lake Winnipeg are protected. It is in all of our interests, whether we come from British Columbia, Newfoundland, the Arctic or anywhere in between.

Clearly over the last few months we have built a broad coalition of all stakeholders, whether they be NGOs or whether they have been political leaders on this side or the other side of the border, provincial, municipal, et cetera.

The all party House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development had a press conference in which all parties said that we must act with one voice on this issue. We cannot allow partisan politics to deflect from the fact that at the end of the day if we do not do this right we will have a major environmental problem. That is why we have to work very closely together.

Obviously it is important to work with people in the United States Congress such as Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota or Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio. It is important for us to work with these political leaders, such as Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana.

We saw the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence cities initiative, a coalition of mayors, including the mayors of Toronto and Chicago and mayors from Quebec and Ontario and eight Great Lakes states, pass resolutions, all of course supporting the call for action.

There is no question that at this time negotiations are going on and they are very sensitive. I would hate to think that members in the House would say or do something which would in fact provide ammunition for those who would take a shortcut in terms of dealing with a sensitive environmental issue.

This government is concerned, and I know all members in the House are concerned, about the possible effects on the ecological integrity of our water and the economic consequences that could occur. We are concerned about the possible introduction of foreign species. Having listened to some of the speeches this evening, I note that this has been a common thread.

We must ensure that we have done the science and have the necessary safeguards in place before, if the outlet were to start. I can certainly assure everyone, and I know the Minister of the Environment has made it very clear, that we will not rest until we have a satisfactory conclusion to this.

The preference, of course, is the reference to the IJC, but we want to make sure that the end result is going to be in the interests of both parties, because it is not just this particular issue. There are other issues that may come up down the road and we would want to be sure that the mechanism which in fact has served this country and the United States well since 1909 is protected and utilized.

There is no question that the efforts that have been undertaken by all governments, all NGOs and all parties have in fact clearly put this on the radar screen for people to say, “Stop. Let us do the right thing”. We only get one opportunity and this opportunity is to ensure that no stone is left unturned until we reach a resolution. I think that is what all members want. I commend the member opposite for raising this issue this evening.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development came together. In a minority Parliament sometimes we hear a lot of political rhetoric as people take different positions. The committee was very clear, saying it wanted to make it very clear to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. A letter was sent from the committee, which all members supported, to also make sure the White House was engaged. Again I refer to the Prime Minister's discussion with the President of the United States.

We have worked together and we will continue to work together because we know that in the end it is in all of our interests to do so. I trust that at the end of the debate this evening we will all speak with one voice and say that this project cannot and must not go ahead without the full environmental assessment that is needed.

I believe very strongly that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with it. I also believe that the pressure and the actions of the Department of Foreign Affairs, on which my colleague will elaborate, as I have said, have been very helpful and very constructive in ensuring a resolution of this situation.