Dan McTeague

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This hon. member has in some respects attempted to try to put words in my mouth in terms of what I have said. For the record, this is clearly—

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak right now about what the punishment is going to be for various members of parliament, but I can assure Canadians this evening that when it comes to this issue, this party, unlike that party, knows it implicitly. More importantly, it does not play the kind of hair splitting recommendations where members selectively pick certain parts of this wonderful document. They have given credit to one simple area.

On the question of the resolution, the member across has conspicuously forgotten that as part of the condition of that recommendation, it recommended that if the GST was removed from other taxes, the federal government should undertake measures to ensure the resulting savings were passed on to consumers and not merely absorbed by the oil industry. They cannot talk out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they want the resolution. On the other hand they do not want to accept the mechanism, which is to give it directly to Canadians.

That member, her party and her leader today had an opportunity to give the tax back to Canadians, assuming of course it was going to bring down the level of gasoline and somehow remove the hardship on Canadians. I know Canadians understand this, that they are johnnies-come-lately on that side. They are shamelessly sitting here and trying to pass off their defence of an industry that for the past three years has been making excessive profits, cutting back production and creating all sorts of disruptions in a country where we have paid through our taxes to make sure that industry received more benefits than others.

I suggest they start talking about the oil patch, the difficulty Canadians are facing and understand how dangerous the resolution is without the amendment and give Canadians an opportunity to receive those taxes, not the oil industry.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the interest of ensuring that we achieve goals for Canadians in common, and with the Leader of the Opposition here, I ask for unanimous consent to amend the motion by deleting everything after the word “consumers” and replacing it with the following, “especially those with low incomes. This House calls upon the government to assist Canadians in coping with the rising financial burden and that this House strongly urges provincial and territorial governments to consider providing similar assistance”.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his statements. I also want to commend him for his insight on an issue that we on this side have been working on for some years.

I wish, however, that the hon. member would perhaps take the time to read the rest of the document which has inspired his first foray into the question of taxes, that all ills can be resolved by dealing with gas taxes.

Given that the price of gasoline is rising as a result of the commodity, and given Dr. Nicolaou's views that the Canadian gasoline market is sheltered from competition and that this market disease is a profit boon to oil majors, would he not agree that it is better for the Government of Canada and the opposition to accept the motion that the member put forth this morning which tactically they denied through unanimous consent, and allow Canadians to receive the rebate, not the oil companies as a third party?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the last part of his comments. It is clear that document was written two years ago, but it is important for the hon. member to understand what has happened.

Most of the recommendations in the report have already begun their very long and torturous road toward finalization with both the Conference Board of Canada and the public policy forum, not to mention the fact that there have been several bills. Some of them are close to becoming law, no thanks to the former member of his party who sat on the industry committee.

Notwithstanding the relative low profile the fuel issue has received until now, suddenly the Johnnies-come-lately in the Alliance discovered this was an issue. Given what happened in New Brunswick with the first and only example of a tax decrease, would the hon. member agree that the precedent set and agreed to by all parties, including the Conservatives along with the Liberal government of Frank McKenna of the day, concluded that there was some difficulty in ensuring that tax decreases would be passed on to consumers who so desperately needed them?

The resolution I have provided is tantamount to basically a rebate directly to people. Would it not be better than simply relying on the oil industry? As a consequence, would the hon. member not feel that what he is doing is nothing more than operating on the belief that oil companies would be honest enough to pass it on?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Right hon. Leader of the Conservative Party speaks from his heart on a question which this side of the House has for many times decided that this was to be an important issue. It is only today with higher prices that the very things we were warned of in this document, which was very well written by my colleagues, have now come to bear fruition.

I do not doubt the party's concern. Yesterday, in most of the papers in their provinces another dimension of concentration in their neck of the woods is about to unfold with respect to the disruption of supply. The right hon. member will also know about my recent letter with respect to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act.

Given the New Brunswick select committee's background and knowledge about what happens when taxes are reduced in the best intention of helping Canadian people, can the right hon. member tell me, given the motion that I read this morning about helping those with lower incomes with an immediate rebate, if this is not something he would agree with and by implication vote against the odious resolution motion by the Alliance Party? Which is it?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am greatly encouraged by the comments made by my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

I want to point out to the hon. member, who has looked at the the Liberal caucus committee report on gasoline pricing, that he should not fall into the trap of the Alliance and only read the first recommendation. He should also read the next recommendation which is contingent on the first occurring. I will read it for him:

The committee further recommends that if the GST is removed from other taxes, the federal government should undertake measures to ensure the resulting savings are passed on to consumers, and not merely absorbed by the oil industry.

Since there has been sudden newfound wisdom by some in the House on this very question, I ask the hon. member a question. Considering what ARCO did in terms of its activities over the past year by driving the price of retail below the cost of even taxation let alone wholesale, and the resulting damage of higher prices in British Columbia, would he not see wisdom that it can also be found on page 34 of this report with respect to the concerns that the British Columbia government has already brought forth in its inquiry and more important, ensure that he does not vote in favour of this motion?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am positive I heard members of the Alliance say no. What are they afraid of?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had a ruling from you with respect to the amendment which I would like to move. Given your ruling I would now seek unanimous consent under the same ruling to move an amendment to the main motion.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage that says to see the truth you have written twisted by knaves to make a trap for consumers. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the debate on this issue before us today is about gasoline. If so, obviously the member has not even read his party's own motion.

If members opposite wanted to be sincere about their attempt to address the rising price of fuel they would have done so two or three years ago on the question of taxes when it was 50 and 60 cents a litre across the country. However we heard nothing from those individuals on that side until such time as they could find a very relevant thin edge of the wedge.

With respect to the recommendations in this document, and they are quite rightly consistent with the comments of the finance minister, there is no doubt the government will provide relief. The amendment which I was skilfully prevented from putting on the floor by the use of the same old tactics from previous years calls for that.

There will be relief, but I think the government is more interested in giving it to the people who count, not lining the pockets of big oil companies on whose behalf that member speaks.