Dan McTeague

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, once again I have an opportunity to give a brief illustration of some of the concerns I have with Bill C-3.

Let me state from the outset that I will be supporting the bill. It is a timely bill. We are debating a bill on a day in which Canadians, short of what happened in the House of Commons in the past 24 to 48 hours, are beginning to wonder whether or not a nation so blessed with energy is being put in the situation where it is being manipulated by its own resources. Canadians are seeing prices that they could never have imagined a few years ago.

Some time ago members on this side of the House took under their own wings the idea of looking at the gas and oil industry. I am proud to say that the industry is doing extremely well in Canada, but not as proud to say that for most of my constituents it is doing far too well.

I would like to indicate where the bill could be improved because it is clear that its intention is to divest, among other things, federal government shares which it currently owns in Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was created out of the national energy policy. As a young assistant I sat in the gallery and watched as the act unfolded. Back then it was an issue for me. Amazingly enough at the age of 38 it is still an issue for me and it will continue to be an issue for most Canadians.

I will provide my colleagues with a description of where the energy sector is going. There has been a lot of interest in the idea of a continental energy policy. I had an opportunity to make some observations on that during the take note debate last evening. The most interesting comment that I have heard came from the former governor general of the country, Ray Hnatyshyn, who as a young member from Saskatchewan referred to a continental energy policy as it related to Canada and the United States at the time as being a bit like “swapping partners with a bachelor”.

The difficulty is trying to explain to Canadians that when there are opportunities to provide more energy for other parts of the world desperately in need of energy, there inevitably becomes a consequence to one's own consumption and to one's own domestic situation as far as the market is concerned.

It would probably shock and surprise Canadians to know when they are fuelling up with gasoline or buying home heating fuel, or truckers who are using diesel fuel, that all our energy is priced in U.S. terms because of the differentiation between the Canadian and the U.S. dollar.

The standard benchmark for oil as set by West Texas Intermediate is about $26, $27 or $28 a barrel in the U.S., which is $42 or $43 in Canadian terms. That number has to be divided by 159 because a conventional barrel of oil yields 159 litres of gasoline. That makes it about 25 or 26 cents a litre. That is the breakdown of why people in Ontario are paying 80 cents a litre for gasoline and perhaps more.

Crude oil in Edmonton today is selling for about 26 cents a litre. It takes about one cent to push it through taxpayer funded pipelines which we gave over to the oil industry as an apology for the energy program many years ago, so it is now 27 or 28 cents a litre.

Refiners in Ontario and across the country will then transform the crude product, the bitumen, into a rack price, which is known as the wholesale price. This usually costs them about two or three cents a litre. However the margin today is 18 cents a litre. Of the refinery's production, 15 cents is going into the pockets of oil companies. I am not so concerned about their ability to do it. They say it is economics 101 and it is their right to do these things because that is the way it is done in other markets.

In the U.S., the average refinery margin is hovering about nine cents a litre. However, because we are Canadians and because it is our own product priced in U.S. dollars, not including taxes, we are being forced to pay an extra eight or nine cents a litre. That may not mean a lot but when we consider that 35 billion litres of gasoline a year are sold in Canada, we are talking about a transfer, for every penny where there is no competition at that level, of some $350 million from the Canadian consumer's pocket to the oil companies. Some members may wish to nod their heads approvingly or disapprovingly but the facts and the proof are in the pudding.

The record profits that are being made in the downstream, in the refining and retailing of gasoline, is testament in and of itself of the evidence that something has gone completely wrong with the industry and for which there is no oversight.

I would now like to talk about the retail margin. If I am an independent I would be buying gasoline today for about 74 cents a litre including tax. I would have about four to five cents to work on. That is usually what is needed to turn a pump on, to pay for staff and to keep one's nose above the water line.

Since 1993 we have seen the sustained policy of oil companies, using their huge profit at the refinery level to cross-subsidize. That never gets challenged because there is no competition there. They do not mind losing money at the retail level.

Big, beautiful gasoline sites are being put up by the integrated major oil companies in the country. It costs millions of dollars to acquire the land, to put up the infrastructure and the capital, and yet they are running on margins of one cent a litre or half a cent a litre, and in some cases negative one or negative two cents a litre.

This would be completely illegal in the United States. Shareholders would get upset at losing money at the retail level because retailing and refining gasoline are completely different. Also anti-competitive questions would be raised. To build a facility like that on the most expensive sites to attract people to the site would be prohibitive. It would likely reflect in the cost.

Hence when we go to the United States, and many of us have done that although with our weaker dollar it has been more difficult, we go to a little gas station on the side of the road. It is an ugly, beaten up looking thing. The guy is outside with his dirty hands and his wife is pumping gasoline. The gasoline at this station is 10 cents a gallon less than the Mobil across the street. A product cannot be offered at cost or below cost unless money is being made somewhere else.

There are opportunities for the government to look at the issue of segment reporting. One of the benefits that I hope would not be lost, in any attempt to sell the final 18% of Petro-Canada shares, would be segment reporting. One of its advantages, because it is a publicly held company, is that it tells people what it made at the retail level. It has not engaged in predatory pricing versus what it has lost or made at the refinery level.

Finally I want to talk about what makes up the cost of gasoline. We have 26 cents for crude. We have 18 cents as a refiner margin today in Ontario, particularly in Toronto. We have taxes in the area of 24.7 cents, which consist of 10 cents for the federal excise, 14.7 cents for the province and about 5.6 cents for the GST. Of course the GST goes up with the cost of the product. The final point I want to put into this cost, and why it is so important for us to consider it now in Bill C-3, is that in the future when it comes to being able to measure these companies we will have less of an opportunity to do so. Yes, the books will be open, but they will be open for shareholders.

Will there be guarantees, as we see with a current partially held public company, that these companies will be held to a higher standard? Will there be guarantees to ensure that all reporting is not combined and that it is not simply put in and consolidated, as we see with Imperial Oil and Sunoco? They tell us what they made in crude and of course what they made in the entire downstream, which is refining and retailing. As we know, they are two completely separate businesses.

There are opportunities for the federal government and parliament to begin to look at the impact a possible continental energy policy would have on product. For instance, in regard to transferring a certain amount of product from Canada to the United States, priced in U.S. dollars, if we do not take into account the fact that there will be an impact on Canadians, a cost push in higher prices, then I think we are engaging in a fool's errand. There is no doubt in my mind that a continental energy policy must take into account the impact it could have on Canadians.

I believe it is important that we head in that direction and that we begin to look at ways in which we can co-ordinate our valuable energies and our resources. However, if we fail to estimate the impact on Canadians, we will lose the very people who give this place legitimacy.

Right now gasoline is at 80 cents a litre in Toronto and there is an 18 cent a litre margin at the refinery level, which not too many papers, media or members of parliament want to talk about. We tend to spin around and worry about the taxes that are part of gasoline. I think they are important, but there is not a single member of the House of Commons who does not know that those taxes go back into general revenues and are there for the common good of the country. We can dismiss re-election for every member of parliament here if we do not like the way our taxes are spent, but there is no accountability for the chairman of Imperial Oil.

That money that we call taxpayers' money, which is part and parcel of the cost of crude, does not go up on long weekends and every Canadian knows that. Canadians also know it goes to pay for our hospitals and for our roads. Equally, they know that if we are dealing with the subject of taxes maybe we ought to look at how the oil industry is spending those taxes.

It may come as a surprise to some members of the House of Commons that an oil company will charge an independent cash on the barrelhead, taxes in, for delivery of goods and products, for their product, the gasoline. They demand the taxes up front. However, because they are large companies they get to keep that tax for 30 to 40 days as a float, simply because they happen to be large players. That is part of their general revenue. Never has working with the government been so profitable.

For this reason I find it rather ironic that we are dealing with what appears to be a rather casual housekeeping matter in Bill C-3, that we should proceed with this. However, make no mistake about it. Most of us here know that we are proceeding with the further privatization of a company that has done very well from the marketing point of view considering where its shares were a few years ago. I applaud the company for that. They are now at $40.72 in trading. That is quite a whack of cash. Some $2 billion is what the federal government has at stake here if it decides to sell its common shares on the open market tomorrow.

I would argue very passionately that this money is only a small amount of the money Canadians put toward creating Petro-Canada in 1990 as a result of a decision by the House of Commons. I think the time has come to do something, given the high cost of energy and the anticipated even higher costs down the road. The oil companies use the excuses of warmer summers and colder winters or shutdowns in Kuala Lumpur or wherever in order to justify these high prices. The excuses are predictable, but they are certainly not exhaustive.

For that reason I think it is important for the House of Commons to consider taking that money and do nothing else, short of putting it in the general revenue, but to give it to every single Canadian on his or her income tax in the form of a grant, a credit or however the system can be worked. I would advocate very strongly for that because I think it gets us away from the arguments being made by members on the other side that the solution to high costs of energy is somehow related to taxes.

Members on the other side know only too well, as my colleagues here from New Brunswick know, that when the provincial government of New Brunswick in 1992 gave back two cents a litre to consumers, delivered through the oil companies, the public never saw the savings. The hon. member for Peterborough knows this very well and has said it very eloquently to a lot of his constituents.

Consumers felt that the government was heading in the right direction by dropping taxes, for whatever reason, and it was one of the more difficult environments in which to do it, but the public never saw the savings. This was reason the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing recommended that if we were to take the tax off taxes on gasoline, we must ensure that the resulting savings go to Canadians, not to the bottom line of oil companies.

That was true then and we have evidence of it having occurred in real terms in Canada. It is one of the reasons that, yes, even the right wing government of Mike Harris in the province of Ontario agrees with the findings of the committee. It is one of the reasons they have done nothing with their 14.7 cents a litre.

I also take the liberty at this time to explain and remind members of the House of Commons that when it comes to diesel, the fuel that keeps our trucks going to and fro, the federal government takes a mere four cents a litre, not 14.7 cents, not 22 cents and not 25 cents. We recognize the importance of that industry.

As my hon. colleague from Peterborough explained, which I did not know, when a farmer or a construction company buys coloured fuel no taxes are paid from the federal point of view, period. There may GST on it but that is quickly remitted.

The federal government, as it relates to taxes, is on very strong ground. I believe that some day there will be the ability for us to afford a tax cut in that area, but consumers are not fooled. Only six months ago crude oil was at $38 a barrel and the price at the pump was 77 cents in Ontario. It is now down to $26 a barrel for crude and the price has gone up to 80 cents a litre and rising.

No matter how many analysts or how much of the public's money is being used to bamboozle the public about how gas pricing occurs, the public is not fooled by these rather shameful tactics to use their money to make them feel like complete idiots when it comes to how pricing occurs.

I would not be so passionate about the question of energy or gasoline if I did not think it was a problem that existed elsewhere in other industries. I have talked to other colleagues about this before. I believe we have some problems with respect to concentration. If the oil industry can get away with this, then I am sure there are other industries that can do the same.

I want to finally end by simply saying that I call upon all colleagues and members of parliament on both sides. I am certainly interested in hearing their questions. Believe it or not, I had no intention to stand and talk on this bill but it begins the process of coming to grips with the changes around us.

If we do not begin to understand the market structure to which we are making changes, we will have done a disservice to the public. We will have failed in our mission to create good public policy. I plan to work with the government. It is a good bill but let us do it in a manner considerate to the context in which Canada currently finds itself with high energy prices.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, April 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will add my comments on this very important bill a little later, but I would like to ask for a comment from the hon. member.

He will recall that it was his party in 1990 that began the process of selling Petro-Canada. At the time it was seen as a very wise move given the need for capitalization and the changes that were necessary. Ten years later, we see that gasoline prices have now hit their highest levels and that although retail margins are a little weak, we are now seeing refinery margins in the order of 18 cents a litre. By the way, that never gets discussed by the press because for some reason there seems to be a conspiracy of silence, whatever the case may be.

More specifically, to the question of the number of shares held by the Canadian public through the government, it is 49.4 million shares out of 271 million common shares in Petro-Canada, at $40.72, which is about $2 billion in potential revenue.

I wonder whether the hon. member has given any thought to the idea that rather than the $15 billion, if we amortize that over a number of years, that has been spent by the Canadian taxpayer to create Petro-Canada in the first place—and we can debate the merits of whether it was there to remove refinery capacity in the country, because that is exactly what has happened—would he consider or at least give some thought to, based on what Bill C-3 is proposing, the notion of returning $2 billion in income taxes to Canadians as opposed to simply returning it to general revenue?

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill River. I have attended for two hours now. I am not as patient, of course, as the hon. minister for rural development, but I have sat many times very pensively watching his work and his deliberations. I applaud his efforts, not only for being here for all these very good and valued questions but also for being the first, I think, to deal with one of the more substantive issues that confront the House of Commons, usually in a very partisan and very confrontational way.

Tonight, my comments will deal with a subject that is perhaps a sort of hub of the major issues of the day concerning the energy sector and the market structure. We see now that oil prices have increased, although they have not reached $28 a barrel yet, and we also see prices at the pump of 80 cents a litre in Toronto and 90 cents in other areas such as in Quebec, and even a little higher, depending on tax variations.

I am concerned. I cannot for the life of me think of something that is more debilitating to bringing us together, under the question of not just our nation but of natural resources, and to overcoming the divide between rural and urban sectors in our economy than knowing that the people who produce the product—and knowing that there could be an abundance of jobs in those areas—are at the same time perhaps suspect on the part of those who are consuming the products at the other end.

Consumers across Canada, whether they be in rural or urban areas, quite often are subjected to very high prices for products. At the other end, of course, those who produce the products, whether they be miners or farmers or those who are working on the derricks in this country, will find that the price may be satisfactory. However, no one is making a whack of cash at the platform level and certainly jobs are being created there.

I say all of this in the context of the government's interest in the area of continental energy policy. I am perhaps borrowing from previous members of parliament and from one who is no doubt familiar, Madam Chairman, to you and to the Governor General, Ray Hnatyshyn. As a member from Saskatchewan, he said on the question of a continental energy policy that for Canada it is like swapping partners but with a bachelor.

Of course this creates some difficulty, because a lot of people would naturally assume that providing new opportunities for a hungry, thirsty energy deficient U.S. may on the surface appear to be an important way of ensuring that we are able to get other concessions from that country, particularly in areas that deal with natural resources, such as potatoes, agriculture and of course softwood lumber. We are at the same time perhaps risking the rise in energy costs to the extent that those energy costs may be prohibitive not to the Americans or to others within that continental arrangement, but more specifically to Canadians.

Today I would like to point out for members of parliament what I believe to be a rather interesting phenomenon that is occurring right across the country. People may be paying as much as 80 cents to 90 cents a litre for gasoline, yet crude is $10 less than it was six months ago. As I mentioned earlier, it was hovering at the $28 range. Six months ago it was near $36 or $38 and the price was averaging roughly 75 cents or 76 cents. What has changed is the market structure and the ability of those who process. Again, it is that big middle ground between the producer of the product and the consumer. Those who refine or transport or create this new product are able to take a lot more as a result of a lack of or a deficiency in competition.

There have been a number of excuses or reasons given. One which was been cited was short supply. Canada does not have a shortage of supply. Maybe there is the odd refinery that shuts down from the United States. However let me be very clear on the question of natural resources for all my colleagues here.

The excuse that is trotted out before winter is that it will be a cold winter therefore we will have low inventory. During the summer there are more people driving and therefore we have a low inventory. These are realities of our geography and climate in Canada. We have cold winters and warm summers.

However Canadians have experienced not only high prices for gasoline but for other energy products, more so than we have seen in many years. Of course that may be owing to the fact that we are already part of a continental arrangement where NAFTA has prevented us from keeping a supply. Perhaps that is not such a good thing. It certainly is not what I am advocating.

What I am concerned about is the ability to tack on an extra few cents. Today, when Canadians are reading about record profits being made by oil companies to the tune of almost $1 billion in the downstream alone in 12 short weeks, there is something seriously wrong with the transfer of wealth from the Canadian economy to the bottom lines of major oil companies.

I do not disagree for a moment that a continental policy which allows Canadian products to be refined and created here in Canada but produced and sold back to Canadians in U.S. prices is in itself a bad thing. Canadians and many members of parliament I am sure are not aware of the fact that it constitutes virtually 12 cents of a litre of gasoline.

I have some concerns about the object of a purposeful discussion on dealing with resources and making productive uses of them for all Canadians and for the international market. I do not think Canadians should volunteer themselves as international boy scouts and assume we should be looking in the other direction, saying that that is fine and that we can supply energy to other nations but that we are not looking after the interests of Canadians.

Today on April 24, 2001, it would appear to me that that is a very serious problem for Canadians. However I believe there also is a problem with the structure of the market. Those who control the product are in a position to also control and determine what the price is going to be.

If we control the infrastructure, if we control the pipelines, if we control the ability for the product to be refined, it is very conceivable that those who are producing, whether in the industries of agriculture or fishing or mining, will wind up with lower and lower prices.

This brings me to the issue of agriculture. It seems rather unfortunate that we simply are looking at the issue of agriculture from the perspective of depressed international crises. Most analysts are now looking at agriculture from a different perspective and that is to see that there are changes of concentration, dynamic, quick, evolving changes of concentration in the areas of processing and manufacturing to respond to the new realities of concentration at the retail sector in our economy, certainly as it relates to food.

For instance, although Wal-Mart does not have a large presence in terms of groceries in Canada, certainly the weight and the substantial size and power influenced by Loblaws, or Sobeys or by other smaller but nevertheless important regional players, such as Dominion and A&P, have an impact on artificially raising manufacturing costs and in turn take this out on farmers.

This is not just something that has been invented by this member of parliament at this time. Policy-makers and a lot of us do not want to enter into the more substantive and critical area of determining what the structural problems are with the industry.

If we are not prepared to accept that Canada has, perhaps more than other nations and certainly more than our trading partners, a much more concentrated market environment, we are inevitably going to find ourselves in a position where all the solutions we are looking for are really band-aids and very short term.

So I would plead with members of parliament that when we are dealing with the issue of natural resources, we look further than simply saying that these are industries that have to compete on the international market or that these are industries that have a similar product but the processes might be somewhat different. We must examine whether or not the markets in which those products are to be sold are already predetermined and precontrolled in which there is already a fixed or set price, which is harmful and detrimental to the competitive process but is also detrimental to the very people who are working day in and day out across Canada.

We are dealing with a dichotomy of people in rural areas, as I have heard from the minister, who are not making enough and who do not have jobs. We have heard about the mining sector and the agricultural sector. We heard about consumers who felt they were paying too much.

Let us start looking at what is in between and we can come to a much better understanding of the realities in the country. In the process hopefully debates like this will be more meaningful.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena. I thought some of his comments were very interesting. I have just spent a little time in British Columbia in the community of Kimberley, which is closer to Cranbrook. I was also surprised at the reliance of the community on local resources.

Clearly from his own experience the hon. member has quite a bit of knowledge on what is needed. How does a resource based industry or how do resource based communities such as the ones he alluded to in his area compete, given globalization and given the need for shareholders' rights to be first and foremost in terms of profit making? Even if we are the most productive country in the world, at some point or other it would appear that Canada does not always have the edge, short of giving away any type of tax concession, which seems to be the only alternative.

Are there other areas where the member believes that Canada may have a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other nations that may produce the same product but per unit much more cheaply? Because of course there are other factors such as warmer climates and cheaper labour which might also enter into this. What does the member think would help his community, certainly in light of depressed prices like we see in the cycle he referred to earlier?

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, we are very interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Red Deer, particularly with respect to the issue in California and the lack of energy there. He explained something that was occurring in the Fraser Valley. I am not sure if he meant coal generation or hydroelectric generation and what the implications were.

I am from southern Ontario. A lot of us would like to believe that our air is fairly clean. A lot of us would prefer not to have the kind of blow over from some of the coal-fired plants that have been used as an alternative to the shutting down of some the reactors.

In order for us to really understand where he was coming from, could the member perhaps give us, in the environment that we have here, a specific illustration of the problem because it was a very good thought. I am not sure if it is a provincial jurisdiction or if we should be co-operating with those levels of government, obviously we should, but I would like a better illustration of what he was saying.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, this is one of the most awesome events I have participated in during my brief seven and a half or eight years as a member of parliament and my time as a legislative assistant for other members prior to that.

I was very interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. As someone who has experience with the natural resources industry, I will point out to him an observation I have made. As the hon. member knows, there is a nuclear reactor in my riding, at one point one of the largest in the country. I have some interest in the dynamics of the marketplace, particularly as they relate to oil and gas and of course to food.

I have noticed the disparity between rural and urban Canada, of course, where fishing, farming, mining and forestry tend to be of a rural nature whereas the production, processing and delivery of products occur in more urban centres.

I wonder if the hon. member has given any time, thought or consideration, along with his party colleagues, to reviewing and updating our thinking on the new changes in the marketplace and how it has become more concentrated. Has he given any thought to the impact this might be having on the bottom line, not just for urban Canada but more specifically for rural Canada? Either member can answer. It is open to anyone.

[Organ Donation, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Canada has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the industrialized world. More than 3,700 Canadians are waiting for organ transplants. Thousands more are in need of replacements for tissues such as corneas.

Given that today is the launch of National Organ Donor Awareness Week, could the minister tell the House what the Government of Canada is doing to rectify and correct the situation?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member for St. Albert. I heard him talk about things that I know are near and dear to his heart such as expenditures for the country. I compliment him for his work on the public accounts as chairman there. It is one of the only examples where there is an opposition chair. This should be extended to other committees.

I was quite amazed that on the subject of parliamentary reform he could not see the obvious in his own personage in terms of being the chair of that committee.

I take some exception to the member's comments about home heating fuel. I found them passing strange in that the premier of his province had shown wisdom by extending a rebate to his people, as did the federal government, particularly those who are very poor. He talked about the boondoggles and concerns of individuals with respect to the money being poorly spent. Yet tens of millions have been spent properly for Canadians to help alleviate what was arguably one of the coldest winters, certainly in eastern Canada.

In the one or two minutes he has left, is he prepared to talk about the subject of parliamentary reform, particularly in the context of his knowledge with respect to whether we should have a few more chairmen from the opposition chairing committees?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know you want to hear a yes as an answer. I agree with and respect the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

There is no doubt that in order to allow the House to function, those who serve it must also be seen as being able to discharge their function in a way that is at arm's length and in a way that is above reproach. I think this is something that Canadians can trust as being part and parcel of the importance of our institution, which is to ensure that its officers function day in and day out in a way that ensures the level of confidence we have in our institutions, beyond the function of the members of parliament. Everything must be done and seen to be done to do just that.

Very briefly, we need to do this with respect to officers who may have worked within various ministries, portfolios and departments to ensure there is a cooling off period and to ensure that Canadians have that accountability and that trust.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are definitely challenged by the tenacity and the acuity of new members of parliament who seem to be very much on the ball, even at 38. I have to apologize, I have grey hair now but I did not eight years ago. The hon. member from Edmonton Southwest may know that in a couple of months. Perhaps if he spends a bit of time as a backbencher he will know what I am talking about.

To answer his first question, there is no doubt the hours should be extended. I think there is common perspective on the notion of extending the hours of debate in the House of Commons to accommodate private members' business. Perhaps one of those could be to devote the entire Friday to that end. That would be important as long as the condition was that private members' business was votable and that it would be taken more seriously, so that more members of parliament would come to the House and participate in those debates. That time should not extended on non-votable bills because we basically talk out those bills.

His second question is even more important. I agree with him, as have many academics and many others who have observed this since about the time of Pearson and Trudeau. We have seen an accretion of power to the centre. There are a number of reasons for it including globalization and separation. Also, the media has changed. Rather than looking for information in the post-Watergate period, it has looked for the scandal. We have certainly seen that in the past few days, and the member is not unaware of that.

Would I agree to the notion that members of parliament can take back the House of Commons? They can do it at any time.

I think it takes the collective will of members on both sides of the House to work together on issues and principles, as long as they can agree that there is a place and a time for partisanship.

I refer to that in my few comments because the House tends to be so rife with division based on party lines. We tend to have an us versus them mentality. That is the very thing we have to try to get around if we are going to go to the question of whether we can restore the sovereignty of the House of Commons.