Dave Van Kesteren

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to sound like we have a lovefest at the industry committee, but I think it is fair to say that we have a great rapport. I have a high regard for the member opposite as well. Again, he makes a great contribution to the industry committee.

My answer to the hon. member would be that this specific bill deals with a specific problem. The legislation itself will narrow in on that problem.

He raised the issue with respect to increasing competition. That is a very fair question. It goes to the very heart of what will determine prices. If we do not have enough competition, there exists the possibility of corporations taking advantage of that in prices. He is absolutely right.

In a number of the studies that we have done in the industry committee, we have looked at what is going on in the oil industry. It is very expensive. What seems to have happened in the oil industry is that the number of refineries has been reduced. That is to combat the enormous costs that take place when we refine oil. Today there are fewer refineries in Canada than there were perhaps 20 years ago.

Very near my riding Shell Oil was looking at the possibility of beginning a refinery. That did not happen. I think it spent $10 million just on doing the studies but it has retracted from that.

I would share my feelings with the hon. member. I think we need more competition. We need to encourage oil companies. One of the things we need in this country is another refinery. It would help tremendously with respect to the price of oil.

Perhaps at a future date we could look at that possibility and take that up as a study in the industry committee and produce another fine report from which we could all benefit.

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's fondness for the industry committee. We have both done remarkable work and have seen remarkable work done in that committee. I am very glad that he is on that committee. I also give the member credit for his knowledge with respect to gas prices and the industry as a whole.

I remind the hon. member that this bill deals with a specific problem. This bill answers what our constituents have been asking us to do, which is to remedy a wrong that is taking place in the marketplace.

The hon. member probably has seen me with my book. I take it everywhere and write everything down. One of the things that I have written down in the back is his formula for the price of gasoline. I give him credit for that. I get calls every day and my constituents will say, “This price is being manipulated. What is going on? It has to stop. You are the member of Parliament”.

I tell them that the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East has done fine work in figuring exactly the price of gas. It is not rocket science. It is right there. We can figure out the crude, dividing by the number of litres, adding the margin for the refining cost, the profits. That gives us the price of crude, and then we add the refining margin, the Ontario tax, the federal tax, the GST, the retail margin, and then we get the cost at the pump. It is wonderful and is very accurate.

What the member is talking about, and he would agree with me, is that on a number of occasions we tried to see if there was manipulation taking place. We are not seeing that. I know what he is attempting to do and I agree that we need to continue to look at that, but at this point we have not seen any of that.

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for giving me this opportunity to voice my support for the fairness at the pumps act, an act that upholds the integrity of many Canadian industries, an act that boosts consumer confidence and promotes competition in the marketplace, and an act that honours the promise my hon. colleagues and I made to Canadians when we formed this government.

I urge members of the House to recall that promise now, to remember the events of two years ago. At that time, gas prices were rising steadily across the country. With each passing month Canadians were pressed to dig deeper into their pockets to drive their children to school, commute to work, and to purchase consumer goods transported long distances to local stores. By spring, the cost of fuel was reaching historic highs.

That is when the news hit. Some retailers were capitalizing on the hardships of Canadians fraudulently. Media outlets covered the story recalling that as a result of inaccurate measurements at the pump, many people paid for fuel they never received. Canadians cried foul and rightly so. The fundamental rights of consumers had been violated. The vital trust between buyers and sellers had been broken. The time-honoured principles that formed the very basis of this country's market economy had been dishonoured.

The Government of Canada took action immediately. We vowed then and there to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act. We vowed to ensure that people across the country receive what they pay for at the pumps. We vowed to protect consumers in all trade sectors that depend on accurate measurements of goods.

We made a promise in 2009. Today, we keep that promise. We keep that promise through the introduction of the fairness at the pumps act, a piece of legislation that holds retailers accountable to buyers for the volume of product sold, that enshrines consumers' rights to know what and exactly how much they buy of any product, and that promotes fairness, honesty and decency. These are the values all Canadians cherish.

I am sure many members of the House agree with me. Such legislation is vitally necessary, but will Bill C-14 be effective? Will Bill C-14 accomplish the goals to which it aspires? Will Bill C-14 prevent fraud in the retail petrol sector? These are valid questions.

Too many well-intended laws lack the robustness needed to bring about real change. The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act are proof enough. By virtue of these laws it has long been a criminal offence to cheat the measurement of goods and services and so deceive consumers. Still, many retailers fail to follow the letter of the law.

In 2006-07 Measurement Canada made it a priority to get to the bottom of the issue. Indeed, the special operating agency declared its resolve to address the problem of measurement inaccuracy in eight trade sectors, including the retail petroleum sector in Industry Canada's 2006-07 report on plans and priorities.

Since then, Measurement Canada has consulted extensively with industry leaders, small business owners and with members of the public. In each discussion one truth continually resurfaced. One truth that now provides the rationale for the specific amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act presented in the fairness at the pumps act.

There are two types of non-compliant retailers. There are retailers who mislead consumers inadvertently and much more seriously, there are retailers who cheat consumers maliciously.

Let me speak first of all to those who mislead consumers inadvertently. By and large, these are honest retailers. These are decent, otherwise dependable men and women who through ignorance or negligence fail to monitor and maintain the accuracy of their equipment.

At present, the only means to punish even minor contraventions to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act is in the courts. Prosecution, however, is not always the most appropriate means to penalize careless retailers. After all, these are not necessarily felons. These are not people whose actions are so monstrous as to warrant a lifelong criminal record. These are people who should be warned, who should be disciplined, and who should be taught to be accountable for the distribution of their products and services.

For those retailers the solution is simple: more frequent inspections. Under the fairness at the pumps act, businesses would be required to have the accuracy of their gas pumps or other measurement equipment validated and certified regularly by the authorized service providers trained to meet Measurement Canada's performance criteria. Retailers found to be non-compliant with consumer laws would face monetary penalties in line with the severity of their offence.

What about retailers who cheat consumers maliciously? What about the second type of non-compliant retailer who knowingly undermines the accuracy of his or her devices so as to profit at the expense of others? Periodic audits of measurement accuracy are not enough to protect Canadians from such racketeers. Strong enforcement mechanisms are necessary.

Here is where the existing legislation falls flat. At present, the maximum fine for non-compliance is $5,000. A minor offence runs retailers a mere $1,000. The penalties are a pittance compared to the money dishonourable retailers stand to gain. Make no mistake. Tampering with the accuracy of measurements is not a crime of passion or revenge. It is not a crime of hatred or a crime of fear. It is a crime of greed. Money is always the motive. Therefore, let money also be the deterrent. Let criminal behaviour be made less lucrative. Let criminal behaviour be made less compelling.

The fairness at the pumps act would increase court-imposed fines up to tenfold and would add new administrative monetary penalties. Retailers who commit minor transgressions would pay for their non-compliance with a fine of $10,000. Retailers who are more conniving, unscrupulous and deceptive would face fines of up to $25,000 and could find themselves before a judge. Retailers who are found to measure fuel or other goods inaccurately more than once would risk a $50,000 and legal prosecution.

In this way, the fairness at the pumps act would provide what existing legislation lacks: a strong arm to enforce the law and deter criminal behaviour before it starts. For this reason, I am confident that Bill C-14 is not merely a mouthpiece for consumers. Bill C-14 is a champion of consumer rights, with the backbone to defend the interests of Canadians at the gas pump and everywhere else consumer goods are sold on the basis of measurement across this country.

I urge my hon. colleagues to also defend the interests of Canadians. I urge my hon. colleagues to contemplate the merits of the fairness at the pumps act and pass Bill C-14. Indeed, I urge my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of this act with as much conviction, as much determination and as much principle as Canadians did when they elected us as their representatives and entrusted us with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly had a very interesting speech from the hon. member across the way. He loves to talk about taxes. I have to say that our Conservative government has the record to prove that it does reduce taxes. Since coming to office in 2006, we have cut over 100 taxes. We have removed over one million low income Canadians completely off the tax rolls. We have reduced our tax burden to the lowest level in nearly 50 years.

The NDP members love to talk about cutting taxes but every time the government introduces tax cuts they vote against it. However, at least one member admits that his party should not be embarking down that path. This is what the NDP member for Thunder Bay—Superior North had to say, “There are elements in our party that have not been adequately concerned about the health and growth of businesses”.

I am wondering if the hon. member would care to comment on what his colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North had to say.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech.

I think he forgets the circumstances in which we found ourselves in 2008 and the meltdown. The result of that was that the organizations of states got together, recognizing the drastic condition we were in, to implement some measures. One of those was to delegate some of our GDP, our money from the governments, each government would delegate some of their GDP to shore up their economies, and we made that commitment as well.

I am very thankful that we spent that money on infrastructure. I am sure the member knows that Statistics Canada announced just yesterday that, for the fifth straight month, GDP grew in Canada. In fact January's increase was the biggest monthly increase since December 2006.

We also read in the paper that KPMG ranked Canada the most competitive industrialized country for job creations.

There was an article by Patricia Croft of RBC who said that Canada really has come out of this a winner in many regards and thinks we can stand head and shoulders above in many instances.

Therefore my question for the member is this. What other industrialized country would he suggest has weathered this global recession better than Canada has?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government is proud that Canada will host the G8 Muskoka summit in June, which will be followed by a separate meeting of G20 leaders in Toronto. The theme of the G8 Muskoka summit and for the Toronto G20 summit leaders is recovery and new beginnings. At the Toronto G20 summit, Canada will work with G20 partners to ensure that global economic recovery is assured and set the world on a path to strong, balanced and sustainable growth.

Over the past year and a half, many Canadians have felt the pain of the global economic recession. Through Canada's economic action plan, this government has taken decisive steps to protect incomes, create jobs, ease credit markets and help workers and communities get back on their feet.

Canadians know that the world's poorest citizens are also suffering the impacts of the recession and expect their government to show international leadership. The global recession threatens to set back many of the important development gains that have been made in recent years, including related to the United Nations millennium development goals.

Action within the G20 is helping to create the conditions for more sustainable growth that will help developing countries. Helping improve the lives of people throughout the developing world is something the G8 has been doing for many years.

The G8 has a strong track record in supporting international development efforts and efforts related to global peace and security. As G8 president in 2010, Canada will ensure that the G8 countries continue to deliver results in these two core areas, by advancing a pragmatic and a results-driven agenda for the Muskoka summit. Accountability will be the hallmark of this agenda.

In Muskoka, the G8 will follow up on past commitments to ensure that it delivers on its promises. Together the G8 will set focused goals for leadership going forward.

In Muskoka, Canada will focus the G8 agenda on areas where it has the greatest value added development in peace and security. These are central to the values and interests of G8 members and are areas where the G8 can make a clear difference.

On development, Canada will champion a major initiative to improve maternal and child health in the world's most vulnerable regions.

The statistics are shocking. Each year nearly nine million children die before they turn five and half a million women die in pregnancy and childbirth. Many of these deaths can be prevented with improved access to health care, better nutrition and scaling up proven interventions such as immunizations. We believe the G8 members can make a tangible difference and we will make this a top priority of our Muskoka G8 summit.

At the Muskoka summit, Canada will seek to leverage greater commitments from the G8 and other major donors to help developing countries respond to these challenges. The G8 summit will also focus on critically important peace and security challenge. The spread and use of weapons of mass destruction, including by terrorists, remains a key threat to global security and stability. This requires continued resolve and leadership on the part of the G8 and its partners.

Building the capacities of vulnerable states and regions to address peace and security vulnerabilities is another priority. This will include steps by the G8 to strengthen institutions, prevent conflict and better mobilize civilian and military capacities.

The G8 has a long track record of delivering results on development. We have done this by working in partnership with African and other developing countries to support their priorities. Making a real contribution to international development requires leadership and resources. The G8's collective contributions on development are unmatched.

Collectively, the G8 is a leader in contributing to development assistance. Leading by example, the G8 has been effective in leveraging additional financial and other support from other countries. For example, at the 2008 summit in Japan and then again in Italy in 2009, the G8 played an important role in helping millions of the world's most vulnerable citizens threatened by rising food prices in recent years.

At the 2009 L'Aquila summit, the G8 led 40 leaders and heads of international organizations in agreeing to mobilize more than U.S. $20 billion for agricultural development over three years.

Canada will participate in this new initiative, doubling our spending in support of agricultural development by committing an additional $600 million Canadian over three years.

As Canada continues to prepare for our G8 summit in 2010, we remain committed to working diligently with other stakeholders to continue addressing the issues associated with hunger and food security.

The G8 also has a strong track record in helping address the health of people around the world. In 2001, the G8 launched the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and G8 countries have contributed substantial funds to fight these life-threatening and debilitating diseases. The G8 has made significant investments in addressing the health challenges experienced in developing countries.

However, significant challenges remain and the G8 can continue to show leadership in mobilizing the international community to meet these challenges.

One area in particular that cries out for action is maternal and child health. These two issues are captured under the United Nations millennium development goals four and five, with targets set for progress by 2015. They are the millennium development goals that are showing the least progress.

As G8 president, in 2010, Canada has decided to advance maternal and child health as a key priority for the G8 Muskoka summit and it is doing so with the strong and universal support of its G8 partners.

Canada is already very actively engaged in support for child health and maternal health around the world. Our priorities include malaria control, especially to protect children and pregnant women, and the scaling up of health worker training to develop high impact interventions to women and children.

We have long been active supporters of programs to support child immunization, including for polio vaccinations.

Given the close intersection of healthy children and educational attainment, we are also delivering on our commitments to fund basic education and to support school feeding programs. Canada also announced that three priorities will guide our development programming going forward, one of which is securing the future for children and youth.

The challenge of improving maternal and child health is immense and requires comprehensive solutions: additional skilled human resources, political support and strengthened national health systems. It is not something any one country can take on by itself. So, in Muskoka, Canada will mobilize G8 members and assume a leadership role in setting a global agenda for improving maternal and child health.

The G8 provides a powerful framework to accelerate action on these issues, bringing increased political profile, operational coherence, financing and accountability to collective efforts.

I will conclude by noting that accountability will be the hallmark of Canada's 2010 Muskoka summit. Canada championed the creation of the G8 working group on accountability because we believe it is important to deliver on promises made. When G8 leaders meet--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yes, our government has played a strong role in the establishment and the continued efforts to make families, the very root and foundation of our society, stronger and enable them. One of the ways that we can do that is by encouraging groups and charitable organizations to do some of the ground work, to go out and help those areas that specifically have been struck by natural disasters. I think for instance of Haiti. We all saw the generous outpouring of Canadians.

It escapes me right now as to how many millions of dollars were collected, but the government's initial reaction to that was to allow that be done and then to match those dollars. This is an excellent way to move forward and to help in areas. I know there are communities and organizations right across the country that are so eager and excited about helping and making a contribution. This is an excellent way that governments can partner with them. The end result is that we can be that much more effective in our world relief efforts.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as was laid out in the Speech from the Throne, which I touched on briefly in my exposé of that speech, the government will introduce an ombudsman. We have many issues with our veterans.

If we look at what our government has done over the past four years for our veterans, it is an ongoing process. Oftentimes we need to stop in life, look back and see where we have come from. I am particularly proud of the many things we have done for our veterans. We are not finished by any stretch of the imagination. These brave men and women have given us so much. The freedoms we experience here in the House we can attribute to them. It is an ongoing process.

I thank the member for his question. I also would encourage members to continue to give us good advice and good ideas so we can make veterans' lives in their later years after they have served even better.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Speech from the Throne. The speech was an excellent reflection on the accomplishments of the government in the past year and a visionary glimpse of the strong future set before us.

In the fall of 2008 the world was rocked by an economic crisis that began in the United States with a meltdown in the housing industry. The whole world looked on with nervous apprehension as banking systems throughout the world were shocked by one financial quake after another.

Canada was not immune to the crisis and suffered in its markets, especially in employment numbers. Our government was called on to act, and we did decisively with the economic action plan that followed on job retention and creation and measured financial stimulus to shore up our banking and lending institutions. Today Canada is recognized as having one of the most secure banking systems. In fact, the World Economic Forum has said that the Canadian banking system is the strongest in the world.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House the effects the economic stimulus plan has had on my riding of Chatham-Kent--Essex.

Last year we announced a combined amount from the federal and provincial governments of $50.5 million in Chatham-Kent and $17.2 million in Leamington. The projects included roads, bridges, municipal buildings, sewers and water treatment facilities which created economic activity in my riding, particularly jobs, directly and indirectly as a result. This was exactly the plan our government set out in last year's budget and continues on in this year's plan as explained in the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne addresses new training for laid-off workers. Layoffs are something I am afraid we have experienced in my riding. I would like to make a few comments about this.

A large number of people in my riding of Chatham-Kent--Essex work directly or indirectly in the auto industry. In 2009 we watched as the three major North American auto manufacturers fought bankruptcies, another casualty of the 2008 economic meltdown. It was our government, combined with the Ontario government, that came to their aid and lent General Motors $8.5 billion and Chrysler $3.75 billion. Although both companies are now recovering, many jobs were lost and many of these jobs will not come back.

The future in the auto industry has changed and we must change with it. That is why I was so glad to see our government introduce new training for laid-off workers, training for a new 21st century workforce. That is why we in Chatham-Kent--Essex were so excited about the announcement I was privileged to make at St. Clair College in Chatham for $7.7 million last year to provide the infrastructure for job training.

This leads one to ask about the government's responsibility to eventually balance the books.

I am glad that during the times of economic growth our government saw the necessity to pay down the national debt to the tune of $39 billion. In fact, before the 2008 crisis our debt to GDP ratio was approximately 27%, the lowest in decades. Today this stands at approximately 35%, still far lower than all other G8 members. As a result of our prudent fiscal management, we will continue to grow our economy and restore our fiscal balance by 2015.

We will begin immediately to lower expenditures in our own House. The Speech from the Throne stated that MPs' salaries would be frozen and members on both sides of the House were asked to freeze their budgets. I have met with my staff and we are implementing a strategy to do just that.

The Speech from the Throne talked about building jobs and industries for the future. That is why I support the vision of this government in job training to support skills development, apprenticeships and training for Canadian workers. That is why I support this government's plan to fuel the efforts of our best and brightest and bring innovative projects to the market. That is why I support the laws that protect intellectual property and copyright.

The speech also talked about continued reduction in taxes for businesses which will make Canada a place where companies want to set up shop and which will create jobs, not like the NDP plan and the Liberal plan to increase taxes. We often hear the NDP talk about taxing those in our economy who are the most profitable. I suppose the NDP thinks, as Ronald Reagan once said, and I paraphrase, that if it is profitable, tax it until it is no longer profitable and until it needs help, and then we can subsidize it.

I am thankful for the banking sector and an oil industry that are profitable. I am glad that we have a strong service sector that profits from our government commitment to free trade agreements. I am excited about a resource sector that is a world leader.

I am glad that the Speech from the Throne mentioned our government's continued commitment to free trade agreements. These result in jobs and opportunities for us, and those at the other end of the agreement as well.

The Speech from the Throne also mentioned our government's commitment to the forestry sector, fisheries management, supply management in our agricultural industry, as well as small and medium size businesses. It also mentioned our plans to grow our nation's shipbuilding industry. This has a significant interest in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex.

The town of Wheatley in my riding has the largest freshwater fishing port in the world. In that harbour there is a shipbuilder, Hike Metal. For years the people at Hike Metal have been building boats, both large and small, from ferries to research vessels, firefighting ships and police vessels. I am glad to hear, as is Andy Stanton, the owner of Hike Metal, that our government will support the industry through a long-term approach to federal procurement.

The Speech from the Throne also mentioned our government's commitment to family. I suppose as a father of 8 and a grandfather of 20, this strikes home for my wife and me. We see firsthand the struggles that young families endure and the necessity to support them as they raise their children.

I am glad that we will strengthen the universal child care benefit of $100 per month to also assist sole-support and single-parent families. Every week when I go home to my riding, I get to experience firsthand the business of family life when the grandchildren come over to visit on Sunday mornings. It gives me a renewed incentive to get back to Ottawa every Sunday afternoon.

The past few months have witnessed two horrible earthquakes that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives in Chile and more than 200,000 lives in Haiti. Canadians' hearts went out to the devastated victims and they offered generously in terms of money and aid.

Our military was there to help in reconstruction, which again demonstrated to all of us here at home what an excellent organization our armed forces is. We are so proud of the men and women in our military, their professionalism and bravery in relief efforts and in places like Afghanistan. Our government has been committed to providing them with the necessary tools.

I was so pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that we will continue to honour these brave men and women by correcting unfair rules that restricted benefits to military families in the past.

We will also initiate a program involving private citizens, businesses and groups to build community war memorials. The throne speech also made a commitment to establish a new veterans charter and an ombudsman to look after our valiant veterans who have served us in the past.

The Speech from the Throne touched on many more areas, but unfortunately I cannot comment on them all. I have tried to elaborate on a few that have a special significance in my riding, but it is impossible to address them all.

One last thing I would like to talk about is the Speech from the Throne's important reference to our shared history. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the upcoming celebration of the War of 1812. This has significant importance to my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, for it was on the banks of the Thames River where the battle was fought between the British and the Americans, and the brave Indian chief Tecumseh died. The people of Chatham-Kent—Essex are proud of our history and would like to invite everyone to celebrate this important event in our riding.

This is a great country with a great history, and as was so well expressed in the Speech from the Throne, it is a country with a great future. Let us build it together.

[Liberal Party of Canada, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, students across the country are sad to see the end of the March break and so is the Liberal leader.

In this House we have taken care of what matters to Canadians. We have implemented our jobs and growth budget that will protect the jobs of today while creating the jobs of tomorrow.

While we work to create jobs, the Liberal leader's tax and spend road show promises to kill jobs. The Liberal leader can take as many breaks as he likes, but it will not change the fact that his alternative to our jobs and growth plan is higher taxes. We know this because he said it. He told Canadians, “We will have to raise taxes”. Canadians know that higher taxes kill jobs.

When the Liberal leader chooses his tax and spend road show over the work of this House, he proves what we have been saying all along: the Liberal leader is not in it for Canadians, he is only in it for himself.