James Rajotte

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question specifically relates to government business.

The Prime Minister referred to was Bill C-66, the energy rebate bill. He said that it would give rebates for some low income Canadians. It is a bill that we and the NDP would like to see passed, even though there are imperfections with the bill. However, the Prime Minister specifically blamed the opposition parties for the bill being unable to pass if the election were to occur eight weeks earlier.

Here are the facts. The government pulled this bill on October 19, 24 and 27 from debate in the chamber. Further, it has not put the bill at the top of the order of precedence. Yesterday, it did not put the bill forward first. We debated animal cruelty on Monday. The government knows that a majority of MPs in the House support that bill and would gladly see it pass even though it is an imperfect legislation.

How can the government continue to state to Canadians that we on the opposite side of the House are not being constructive and are not willing to pass legislation? How can it pass on the argument that seniors will not get rebates because of the opposition early election, an accusation that is clearly false?

I would like the parliamentary secretary to stand up and address that bill specifically. Why did the government pull it at least three times and two more times not subjected it to the top of the list but to second on the list? It is the government members who are not passing the bill, not the opposition parties.

[Fuel Rebates, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that not one cabinet minister has made a speech in this House on the issue of energy payments to low income Canadians. In addition, the three opposition parties are willing to pass the bill. The bill being put forward by the government has been pulled again today to put forward legislation dealing with animals, an issue we have debated thousands of times already.

The fact is that a majority of MPs have supported the legislation from the beginning and it has been pulled by the government not by the opposition. Why is the Prime Minister using that as a false excuse to not have an election?

[Fuel Rebates, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that energy payments for low income Canadians have not been a priority for this government. In fact, the government has postponed debate on the bill that would authorize these payments, Bill C-66, three times over the past month. This is a bill that has had majority support of the House since it was introduced.

Will the Prime Minister admit today that he did not give a second thought to low income Canadians in their struggle to pay their bills until he was threatened with an election?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. David Dingwall violated the lobbyists' code of conduct by failing to register as a lobbyist. He also received a kickback for $350,000 after lobbying for a Technology Partnerships Canada grant for Bioniche. He has been punished for neither of these. Instead the government actually is considering giving him a half million dollar handshake.

Could the industry minister stand in his place and explain to Canadians why Dingwall has not been held to account for either of these wrongdoings?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the secrecy surrounding the Dingwall case and TPC is unacceptable.

Last week the industry committee demanded that the minister release the names of the five companies that have already been identified as being in breach of contract and the amount of illegal payments made by each of these five companies, one of which was Bioniche, which we have not received from the government.

The lobbyist registrar furthermore has confirmed that he is conducting eight investigations into violations of the act, but did not disclose who was being investigated.

Will the industry minister confirm whether or not Dingwall is being investigated and is he involved in any of these other five companies that have breached their contracts?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it took less than a month to complete the audit of David Dingwall's expenses at the Mint. However, it has been more than a year since a compliance audit of Technology Partnerships Canada was begun and there is still no final report.

The TPC audit deals with contingency fees. Mr. Dingwall openly declared that he would be receiving a contingency fee as a lobbyist, which is strictly prohibited. Why is it taking so long to complete the audit of TPC?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is there is another issue with David Dingwall that this government is choosing to ignore. He registered to lobby TPC for Bioniche. He openly declared he would be receiving a contingency fee, which is prohibited. The company in question was forced by the government to pay back this fee. Then Dingwall insisted before a House standing committee that he did not receive a contingency fee.

There is a direct contradiction here. Either the government has wrongly forced a company to repay $460,000, or Dingwall did not tell the truth to a standing committee of this House. The industry minister knows what the truth is. What is it?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a question of fairness between a senior who qualifies for the GIS and receives this payment and another senior at exactly the same income level, who gets to that level through a different pension, does not receive the payment. That is a question of fairness and of equity. The government is ignoring that, and, yes, I will stand and criticize that because it is the wrong thing to do.

Second, as I and Statistics Canada have pointed out, many people who are eligible for the GIS do not get it.

The payment system which the government has set up is wrong, and I will criticize that. I will not stand here and applaud something that is unfair and inequitable to seniors.

In terms of Liberal accounting, I will give members one example. In the last election campaign, the finance minister stood and said that we could not afford a Conservative platform, that it was too expensive, because there was only a $1.9 billion surplus. Months later, what happens? The government had made a mistake and the surplus was actually $9.1 billion. Does the member want me to applaud that? I will not. It is massive overtaxation of Canadians and it is wrong to mislead and misinform Canadians as to what the actual level of the surplus is.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

In regard to my colleague's numerous questions, Madam Speaker, let me say first that my colleague is absolutely correct in the sense that this legislation completely ignores rural areas. It completely ignores the reality that most rural people often have to drive a great distance to and from work or even to town to get groceries in terms of their daily lives. This legislation will not reduce the cost of gasoline for them whatsoever.

He also mentions quite correctly that many people are dependent on utilizing gas, people such as taxi drivers and truck drivers, and he also points out the importance of the trucking industry, frankly, in our national economy. Again, this legislation does absolutely nothing to address that. There is no assistance and there are no tax cuts whatsoever to allow these people to somehow bear up a little better under the increasing costs of fuel payments.

Third, in terms of this new office, some members on the other side have been calling for it for years. It is ironic that the current Prime Minister, as finance minister, cut it in his 1995 budget. If the Liberals want to introduce it again, I do not see a big problem with it. I do not think it will actually do anything. I do not think it will help anything. I think that the Department of Natural Resources should actually be collecting this information as well as or even better than private sector people like MJ Ervin and Associates.

The second point is the investigative powers. Frankly, in my view the Competition Bureau has enough in terms of investigatory powers. Perhaps it needs more revenues. That is the way our party would deal with the issue.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

First, Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is absolutely right in the sense that this bill picks winners and losers. It differentiates among various groups of lower income Canadians facing energy costs. There is the example of the person who gets topped up by GIS and gets to a certain level, and the person who actually does not get any GIS, who receives a pension, let us say, but is at the same level. The person getting GIS gets his payment. The person who gets a pension on his or her own and is at the same level does not receive anything.

As well, he pointed out quite correctly that there are many people who are eligible for GIS who do not register and therefore do not receive it. Under this legislation, they will not receive anything. I do not know how the government can say that is fair or equitable to people, especially when they seem to be in the same categories of need.

Obviously our view is that the government should introduce some broad-based measures that actually help all Canadians, because it is lower income Canadians who are going to be dealing with a lot of these costs, but also, frankly, there are the people in the agriculture sector who have some real challenges in dealing with the higher costs of energy. They are not helped at all in the bill. There is nothing whatsoever for them. There are just too many people left out.

With respect to the industry if a cut were actually provided, let me note the fact that gasoline pricing is probably one of the most transparent forms of pricing. It is set everywhere. I would encourage anyone to go to MJ Ervin and Associates and to websites that actually cover gasoline prices, because we can actually monitor quite closely what happens with prices. If the federal government were to provide a tax cut by eliminating the GST that is applied to the federal excise tax and the other taxes, we could immediately see whether the industry in fact increases its prices or not, because it is so transparent.

I know that members of the government have argued that the industry has done this in the past. I would like to see evidence of that. Before committee last year, the Competition Bureau actually said there was no evidence of this.

That is what our recommendation is. I think it would be the best broad-based approach to actually reduce energy costs for Canadians.