Dan McTeague

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am humbled in that I only have 75 petitioners who request that the federal government amend the Divorce Act to ensure that grandparents have the right to access, that they be allowed to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of their grandchildren.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

That is a small number too. More than eight.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the comments of my hon. colleague for Prince George-Peace River. However, I thought I was probably at a meeting of the flat earth society when I heard what he had to say.

I realize and understand that the hon. member has the interests of a refinery in his riding in mind. I do not blame the refinery nor do I think it is fair to trade off the interests of eight people who happen to work at that refinery. After all, they have health concerns and concerns about the environment just like everyone else.

I should point out to the hon. member that I know a little bit about the automotive industry. I know that there are several Toyota dealerships in his riding, each having 20, 30 and even 40 employees whose livelihood and jobs are at stake simply because the new vehicles that are coming in, not made in Ontario, not made in Quebec which is, of course, the pretext by which the member of the Reform Party likes to side with the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously, Reform members find themselves in a very interesting position. It must be an election year and they are desperate to find any issue, even at the expense of someone's health.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to resolve this question. According to the B.C. motor vehicle emission control warranty regulations by this time next year, for the 1998 models, it will probably be that the emissions, which is what we are speaking about here, will not meet the standards set by his own province. How is he going to resolve this dilemma for his own constituents and for the sake of the car dealers there who are creating jobs and who are trying to make ends meet? He knows this is an important issue that will have to be met, particularly from the health and environmental standpoint.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks made by the opposition critic, who said that this bill was of interest to Ontario manufacturers, who were pushing for it.

It think there is something else at stake here: the health of Canadians, Ontarians, Quebecers, everyone. I do not think that health issues know boundaries and stop at the Quebec or Ontario border.

I would simply like to ask my hon. colleague who raised the issue of the environment a moment ago a short question. How can he justify something like this going on for so long? The facts speak for themselves. Even manufacturers outside of Ontario, those for whom I worked many years ago, are concerned not only about what will happen to their product but also about the health of the public.

There are many people asking this House to pass this bill. How can the hon. member turn his back on people and their health?

[Competition Act, October 4th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the bill comes at this particular juncture when the House of Commons seems divided on many issues, the issue of gasoline pricing and the concern of our constituents is one that unites us all. It unites us all in the common recognition that there is something patently wrong with gas pricing.

The bill seeks to try to provide some very simple answers for Canadian consumers and those who have a concern about the high price of gasoline. That can be done by way of information.

We are fast approaching the 21st century when the information age will become even more important. Very few consumers or any of us here can say that there is an alternative choice to gasoline.

We need to know why the increases take place, why they take place on weekends and why the only answer by the oil industry is: "We do not have to provide any answers".

Let me say first that the Bill C-267 amends the Competition Act by requiring that the oil company in question, before the price of oil is raised more than 1 per cent, must give 30 days' notice. From the wellhead to the gas pumps where the consumers fuel their vehicles, it takes six months for price increases to work through the system. As members of Parliament we cannot provide answers why these sudden gyrations take place. Consumers are asking above all for some predictability.

The bill does not regulate any industry. I am very emphatic about that point because I think there are some misgivings. Some may want to take the point of view of the industry which says that somehow it is causing the industry to feel it is being burdened. Perhaps this may be an argument that is given by the department.

I think a good corporate citizen which wants to make sure it keeps customers on line would above all want to make sure that at the end of the day the consumers are well informed. This is very good PR and it also allows us to have some accountability to our constituents.

Let me give some points. A year and a half ago when the Minister of Finance presented his budget, he included a 1.5 cent increase in the excise tax. Politicians from all sides of the House may be able to use that as a pro or con, but the money ultimately goes into the general revenue fund to pay for things like hospitals, pay down the debt and do a number of good things for the economy and the general interest and welfare of all Canadians.

At the same time that 1.5 cent increase took place the oil industry took liberties and tacked on another 4.5 cents. From February to March, April, May and June 1995, Canadians were paying an extra 6 cents a litre. Is that justified? That is not for me to question. If I were to ask the question, I suppose some would say that it is matter that would border on regulation. I believe that consumers would like an explanation from the oil industry once and for all.

I have taken it on myself to remove the shroud of mystery that surrounds oil pricing in Canada. When we peel back the various layers of the oil onion, if I can call it that, we find that there is something sinister in the way that gas pricing is headed in this country. For the first time in many years people living in the Toronto and Montreal regions and some parts of western Canada have found that the price of gas rises uniformly and declines uniformly. There is no longer the kind of competition from station to station that was once available. Why is it that way?

It may come as a surprise to members of the House to learn that over the past 15 years we have lost a number of potential refiners in this country. The takeover by Petrofina of BP, the demise of Texaco and the takeover of Gulf Canada has all meant that the question of supply is really relegated to a very few companies.

At the same time, the supply of gasoline would not be a matter of great controversy if there was not the appearance of a new phenomenon known as vertical integration in the market. Crude oil refiners are not only the distributors but are now, in many respects, the retailers. It is the connection from end to end that has given the impression that what we have is an oil monopoly.

If a company controls the supply, its distribution and retailing, it stands to reason that, at some point, the price will be controlled. Therefore, it is not by accident that we are seeing sustained, uniform and high prices in this country.

The people of Canada begged Parliament for an answer. In the absence of any other remedy, it is this Parliament that is the eyes, the ears and the conscience of consumers.

So I have trouble acknowledging that some of us think we have no way of guaranteeing competition in the oil industry.

We have an opportunity with this bill to provide consumers, not only with answers but allow them to formulate, in the absence of any choice, not being able to use any other mode of transportation. They cannot suddenly put lemon juice in their gas tanks. Every Canadian has an interest in finding out why the gas prices are what they are.

In talking about why prices are uniformly high and why we are seeing unprecedented levels of high prices, the argument has been put forward to look at what happened in the maritimes over the past few months. In Quebec, the price has actually gone down.

That example should alarm every member of this House of Commons because it demonstrates very clearly the real possibility of predatory pricing. The wholesalers that had an interest in retailing since they wanted to control the supply over this past summer, engaged in a process of driving the price down at the retail level precisely so that they would knock out the independent gasoline owners who have, for the longest time, provided the equilibrium for competition in the industry.

With all the knowledge that I have received from speaking to many of these independent gas owners from Sudbury to Windsor to Cape Breton to Quebec de la region du Saguenay, we have a very serious situation on our hands which requires at least some consideration by members of Parliament here and now.

If we do not believe that a free market ought to apply in the oil industry, then where do we stop? Do we now say it is okay to have this in the pharmaceutical industry? Do we say that it is all right to have no competition and have only a handful of people or a cartel drive the price to whatever it deems fit?

It is important that we understand the plight of the independent gas station owner, the person who gets up in the morning and knows that if they do not put in 18 hours a day of sweat equity, they are not going to get a paycheque at the end of the week. The problem is that that paycheque has been severely and calculatedly reduced. How is it possible for a person who buys his products from an oil company to be able to make ends meet when the person he is competing with happens to be a gas station that is owned by the wholesaler.

If this does not raise concerns about the abuse of dominant position of the oil industry today, I do not know what will. Canadians may take some slight comfort in the fact that they may, from time to time, get lower priced fuel as they saw in the maritimes.

I take the example of what happened in Grand Falls where there were 11 gas stations. Of those 11 gas stations, 10 were owned by the majors. Only one was an independent. The price was approximately 48 cents a litre about a year and a half ago. When that independent was smothered the price shot up to 68.9 cents. If consumers are concerned about competitively priced oil and gas, they had better understand that it is because of the existence of the independent gas owner, who is prepared to pass on the savings to consumers, and who is one of the major reasons why we have had decently competitively priced gas in the past.

I was a little surprised to learn that there are some members who may still harbour the belief that free competition or open markets actually exist in the oil industry. I should point out that from a national point of view there are really only three major players: Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil and Shell. Regionally there are smaller players but who are nevertheless significant: Irving in the maritimes, Ultramar in Quebec, Sunoco in Ontario and out west Mohawk Oil.

There are agreements between the refinery companies to provide supply for each other. This idea that there is not any agreement or understanding, better known in the industry as product supply arrangements, between refiners would be misleading. Yet the competition bureau seems incapable of trying to address the reality that many of these refiners are actually in a position where they can not only agree among themselves what the price will be, but they can also above all agree among themselves to how much to supply.

When we hear the tired arguments that the industry puts forward, and unfortunately some members may fall victim to the argument that the cost of heating oil, for instance, increased because we had a long cold winter, the members ought to ask themselves if we have a warm winter does that not mean by implication, logically speaking, the price should go down.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about how much a person ought to be paying in Canada for crude oil, for that which they need to use almost every day. Because it affects every member in this House and it affects every one of their constituents there is no mystery here.

Today the spot oil price for crude is, at the highest level, about $24 a barrel. Of that $24 there are approximately 200 litres of gasoline in a barrel of oil. We understand not all of that goes to less costly gasoline for cars. Some of it goes into polystyrenes and to more expensive products.

Let us go with the worst case scenario. It costs the oil industry 12 cents maximum a litre to bring that product on line. According to the Canadian Petroleum Foundation it costs 5.2 cents to refine, to market and to distribute. That is all their costs covered. That is up to 17.2 cents a litre. Add the federal and provincial sales taxes, and we know where they go-even though there is a lot of debate about where they ought to go in this House-that is an extra 29 cents a litre on top of 17 cents. That is about 45 to 46 cents a litre.

Give the independent or the gas owner 2.2 cents and we have 47 to 48 cents a litre maximum. Today in Ottawa when it is 57 to 58 cents a litre, or when it is 61 cents in the maritimes or for that matter 58 cents in Toronto, who is making the money? Where is the accountability?

I have no difficulty with people making money. I think it is laudable that they do. However they have a responsibility and an obligation not to use their position of privilege or their oligopoly or their cartel to bamboozle constituents, to take advantage of consumers and to perpetuate this rip-off.

It is very clear to me that no matter how difficult it may be for some people to accept or to swallow, the oil industry is on the verge of what it has always tried for-I guess what many companies hoped to accomplish in other countries, in particular the United States-and that is to give consumers absolutely no choice when it comes to the cost of gasoline.

I have received thousands of letters since I brought this bill to the House of Commons. It was first introduced as Bill C-361 in the previous session and has been reintroduced as Bill C-267. Notwithstanding the fact that it was not deemed votable, I would nevertheless call upon the House to consider this an important step forward.

We should resolve today to at least attempt to get some answers from the oil industry. Given that many of us in the House assume that the big issue is price fixing, we are missing the point. We are missing the boat. For members of Parliament to assume that the issue today which should concern consumers is price fixing by the oil companies, they are simply missing the boat because the cartel

at the supply end already exists. There is no need to price fix when there are very few players in the game.

I would appeal to members of Parliament to revise their thinking, to modernize their thinking and to get in step with the reality that exists as it relates to the oil industry in Canada today and now.

I also must say to my colleagues, and more particularly to my fellow members from the province of Quebec, that I am very concerned and even disappointed in the behaviour of the oil companies and the way they treated independents.

We see young people who try to get a job and offer competitive pricing to the consumer. This is something we see, not just in the small villages I visited this summer but also in other regions across the country, as I explained earlier.

In the maritime provinces we have heard people saying: "Great, look at the prices. They are coming down to 29 cents a litre". I was just reading in Maclean's magazine an article by its business editor, D'Arcy Jenish. He writes that he met several station owners in the maritimes and one in Nova Scotia told him that in 28 of the first 38 weeks of 1996 the retail price was below the wholesale buying price. That is predatory pricing. That is a recipe for disaster.

It is very clear to me that we need some kind of safeguard over and above the rhetoric that we hear under the guise of the competition bureau to actually protect the people who are protecting the interests of Canadians and who are protecting the interests of our consumers.

If we do not believe today that 68 cents per litre is going to be a reality in years to come, I would suggest that we look at what has happened in Gander, Newfoundland. I would suggest that we look at what happened in Toronto last year. From Burlington to Clarington which covers a population of about 4.5 million people, there are so few independents left that they are not able to make any impact on the price.

Those independents who are out there right now are trying to survive. They are in no position to provide competitive pricing for consumers. They are unfairly prejudiced by the oil companies which are using very blunt instruments such as the removal of credit terms. They have taken away the 45-day credit which was previously extended to the independents. They have taken away temperature compensation. I could go on about the methods by which the oil industry has been able to uproot the independent oil companies. They have done it through vapour recovery. They have demanded higher thresholds.

Imagine if an independent sold 5,000 litres in a day and an oil company said that was not enough because the retail outlets which it owns sells 10,000. It says to the independent that it had better double its sales next week, even though the price has not come down, or the supply will be cut off. That is wrong.

I appeal to Parliament to review the decision not to make this bill votable by seeking the unanimous consent of the House in the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing), be deemed to have been chosen as a votable item.

I do so in the interests of every Canadian consumer.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the candidness with which the member for Edmonton Southwest expressed his comments. It is an issue most of us will deal with. I too would like to reflect a little on a personal note. A very personal friend of mine and his spouse are going through the trials and tribulations of a possible breakdown.

Given what the member has said in terms of suggesting that this bill might expedite the possibility of bringing about divorce or not providing an adequate remedy, I seem to get the impression at least from my constituents and many others who solicit all members of this House of Commons that the judicial system tends to lean more toward the interests of the female custodial parent as opposed to the male custodial parent.

Could the member clarify for me and for this House what his real objections are? There seems to be a contradiction in his statement in terms of suggesting that the legislation would not allow the judicial process.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I listened carefully. It was difficult not to hear the passionate comments made by the hon. member who spoke before me about an issue that undoubtedly affects him and which he feels passionately about.

But I think it is rather interesting that this same member, pointed first at the government benches instead of using the opportunity to talk with his seven colleagues who were in the Tory government in the last Parliament.

It seems to me to be rather inconsistent for this member to be pointing a finger at this side of the House when he has not taken the first step, a logical step, a rational step, to ask members of his own caucus who were part and parcel of that problem in the early 1990s when several of those members, including the former leader of his party, were at the front bench of the government that made that decision.

When will the hon. member start to talk to some of his Conservative cronies in his own party and maybe ask them where this process began, why they are not here asking the same questions he is now asking rather hypocritically?

[Sinclair Secondary School, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Durham Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School of Whitby recently received international acclaim at the Carl Bertelsmann Foundation's annual competition to identify outstanding public institutions.

The board was honoured for excellence out of a field of competitors which included school systems from Scotland, Norway, New Zealand, Hungary and the Netherlands.

In selecting the Durham Board of Education, the foundation noted its dedication to the improvement of education quality by offering optimum freedom of organization to individual schools which enables students to develop to their full potential. A $300,000 prize from the foundation will be used to further improve learning opportunities in Durham region.

I wish to congratulate the Durham Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School in Whitby on achieving this prestigious international award. Well done, Durham.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition .

The petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation along the lines of Bill C-267 which would require major oil companies to disclose and to provide a period of notification of no less than 30 days for any increase over and above the current price of oil at the retail pumps.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Congratulations!