James Rajotte

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, obviously the CO

2

pipeline sequestration is a huge issue that addresses CO

2

generally. In terms of the auto sector, I think incenting consumers to buy hybrid vehicles is a legitimate policy suggestion that we would look at quite favourably.

There is capital cost allowance. It is kind of abstract. People may ask how this would impact the environment. In fact, if we were to allow companies to write-off their machinery at a quicker pace and allow them to replace and upgrade their manufacturing process at a quicker pace, they would move to more environmentally sensitive machinery and assembly line processes. That is how the auto industry has reduced some of its emissions from the plants.

Another issue that the auto industry has raised is that Canadians drive their vehicles for longer periods of time in Canada because of the disposable income gap between Canadians and Americans. It was highlighted by Don Drummond in his recent report for the TD Bank. If the government were to reduce taxes on an overall level, it would give Canadians more disposable income which in turn would allow them to replace older vehicles with newer vehicles that are more fuel efficient and better for the environment.

Those are three policy options I would suggest the government should take a serious look at. I do have to tell my hon. colleague that when we were on the industry committee we studied the plan in 2002 and, frankly, it was not much of a plan at all, but even the good things that were in the plan, the government has done nothing whatsoever to implement them.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this very lively debate. It is good for the House to be debating this issue.

At the outset, I want to read the motion from the NDP into the record:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

As my colleague just said, we certainly recognize that smog is a problem, a huge problem, particularly in our larger centres. We need to recognize that sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide are the main contributors to this.

Our party supports, and in fact our environment critic, the member for Red Deer, has called for, a clean air act and environmental legislation that would address this. We put this forward before the last election, calling for the government to take action on NO

2

and SO

2

in particular. In fact, we should not stop with clean air; we should address clean water and obviously some of the land issues as well.

Before I get to the specifics of the motion, I want to address the issue of Kyoto because we have just heard from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources. Members of the Bloc, of the NDP and certainly of my party have pointed out that the government in fact has no plan. It was basically admitted by the Minister of the Environment as recently as this week in an article in The Globe and Mail . The article stated:

The federal government admitted yesterday it has no plan in place to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol....Ottawa had promised to have a comprehensive implementation plan ready no later than next week's budget, complete with the regulatory or tax measures needed to meet the Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

But [the] environment [minister] said yesterday it will be “several more weeks” before anything is ready. Cabinet ministers have made no firm decisions, he said.

That is completely unacceptable. The government signed on to Kyoto in 1997 and ratified it in 2002 and still has no plan.

The government references a plan from 2002. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and the member from Windsor know full well, because they sat on a committee that studied the implementation plan at that point, that even members of the government would have to admit the plan was lacking in detail. The then minister of the environment was before us as we were asking about things like whether there would be tax credits for vehicles to allow people to buy hybrid vehicles. The response was that the government did not know if it was going to do that.

There was a mention in the plan of a CO

2

sequestration and pipeline. What is the government planning to do with this? This could actually reduce CO

2

emissions substantially. The minister at the time said he did not know what was being done with that and that the government would have to see where that goes.

We will have to see where that goes? These are the sorts of answers that the committee received, which basically revealed that the government has absolutely no idea what it is doing on Kyoto, and it has caused some serious problems. It is a matter of international standing when one signs on to an agreement with absolutely no idea of how those commitments are going to be fulfilled.

The government should be honest with Canadians and start to address environmental problems as a whole issue, as I was mentioning about the gasoline industry. The gasoline industry has reduced sulphur, and we certainly support that, but in doing so it increased some of the CO

2

emissions. We need to look at addressing environmental issues overall, especially the more noxious toxins like NO

2

and SO

2

I want to address some specifics of the motion. My colleague from British Columbia raised this earlier. I think NDP members should perhaps in their future speeches talk specifically about what they are calling for in the motion with regard to greenhouse gases, NO

2

and SO

2

, with some plans, some specific mandatory measures to be put in place. As members of the House know, there already are a lot of mandatory measures on that industry. In fact, the industry would argue, and I think this party would agree, that there are too many regulations on this industry. There are too many regulations that are different from the North American regulatory market.

Why are we only addressing this industry? Why the focus on this industry, particularly in regard to the members from Windsor? We should look at why we are only addressing and targeting the auto industry, particularly when the two members from Windsor have an awful lot of auto workers in their ridings who rely on this industry. Why are they targeting it and singling it out for what is in my view unfair attention? Why only vehicles sold in Canada? This is something that I think the members should look at closely: “legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada”.

Members should know that 80% to 90% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada are exported primarily to the United States. Is the NDP arguing that we should have two assembly lines, one with regulatory emission standards for the 10% to 20% of vehicles sold in Canada and the other with different standards for the 80% to 90% of vehicles that are exported? Perhaps members opposite could clear that up with respect to the motion.

In our view there is a need for regulatory harmonization with this industry. I would like to quote a spokesperson for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association who said it very well in 2002 when he addressed the fuel efficiency target of 25%. Mark Nantais, president of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, said:

The government's choice of a 25% target, without due diligence for what is achievable in the stipulated timeframe, given the other very important considerations of consumer safety, technological feasibility, and economic impact, is a major concern. It creates, quite frankly, unrealistic public expectations for both government and our industry. If we put it another way, we're being set up for failure.

That was said back in 2002 when members of the industry and others were raising this issue and saying that it was an unachievable target and that it would harm the industry. The government, unfortunately, did not listen to their concerns and did not recognize what the industry had already done.

The member for Oshawa, the chair of our auto caucus, pointed out very well what the industry has already done in a proactive way to address its emissions. Emissions coming out of its assembly plants between 1990-99 and the energy intensity of its plant operations were reduced by nearly 18%. We should recognize that and celebrate the fact that the industry has taken action by and of itself.

We need to understand that the automobile industry in Canada is within the context of a North American industry. However, the NDP, with its motion today, seems to have no clue that we are within a North American market and that we do export most of our vehicles to the United States. It would be nonsense for us to create further regulatory disharmony between our regulations and the regulations in the United States. It would harm the industry and the workers in Windsor, Oshawa, Cambridge, Alliston and elsewhere. What the NDP does not understand and will never understand is that to create regulatory burdens on the industry drives people out of work.

Let me address some solutions. We in the Conservative Party do support a clean air act. We would deal with nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide. Our environment critic will be here this afternoon and he can present it to members then.

We support infrastructure spending. We have called for the government to share the federal fuel tax with communities across Canada to address the issue of congestion. One only has to go to areas like Windsor, Toronto and Edmonton to see the congestion caused by a lack of available infrastructure.

There are three approaches to the environment that the government could take. First, it could impose further regulation on the industry, but we believe that would harm the industry and not lead to overall economic growth or environmental stewardship.

The second approach would be through program spending. Some program spending may be necessary. The government will be outlaying $3.7 billion. Members of the environment committee are studying this issue. I know the member for Essex is also involved in this. However the government has not been very forthright about where the money is going.

The third approach could be through incentives. I am speaking about incentives to encourage the industry itself to innovate and change consumer habits. The Conservative Party believes the government should head in that direction. We think providing tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles would be a sensible thing. It is something the government should do and we hope the government will do so in the budget. It should encourage people to change their habits and reduce some of the emissions.

Another thing that could be done by the government, which I referenced earlier, is that instead of putting $3.7 billion into these various funds and having the people go to it, the government should work with the industry, particularly those in western Canada, and look at a CO

2

sequestration and a CO

2

pipeline.

If we were to combine that with a clean air act that addresses NO

2

and SO

2

, we would address the CO

2

by sequestering it and using it to filter out more of the oil from the ground. This would actually address CO

2

emissions in a very substantive way and it is something we hope the government looks at as a solution to environmental challenges, rather than just focussing on Kyoto, and in fact not focussing very well by not in any way tabling a reasonable plan.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, one area where our party does agree with the NDP and the Bloc is that the government has no plan whatsoever, has never had a plan, and has absolutely no intention of tabling a plan, which is quite clear to all of us.

However, the other problem is that the government is so focused on greenhouse gases that it is ignoring all the other environmental problems. It is ignoring problems like smog. I want to ask the minister a very simple question to see his awareness of this issue. He talked about reducing sulphur in gasoline. Is he aware that to reduce sulphur in gasoline, it actually has to be refined more which actually increases the CO

2

levels? It shows that we have to address environmental problems in a holistic sense, address the whole environmental issue, rather than just focusing on one like CO

2

which is what the government is doing but not even doing well because it is not tabling a plan.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like some clarification from the government on its actual position on this motion and on mandatory standards.

I thought the parliamentary secretary to the minister indicated that the government would be supporting this motion to legislate mandatory improvements of vehicle efficiency, but perhaps that is not the case.

However would the government clearly state whether it supports voluntary or mandatory fuel efficiency measures for vehicles manufactured in Canada?

[Constitution Amendment, 2005, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to support the motion proposed by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington to abolish the powers of disallowance and reservation.

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the reaction of the other parties. I thought this was something to which they would have responded very positively.

I first want to address the whole issue. My colleague who just spoke and for whom I have a great deal of respect, said that this is not the way to go about amending the Constitution. That was reflected in the Liberal member's comments as well. I find that very surprising because there are really three options.

One option is to amend it in a macro way, to do what was done in 1982, to do what was tried under the Mulroney government with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. We could put together an omnibus constitutional package and hope the entire country would accept most of it and therefore vote for it, or most of Parliament would vote for it. However, we have seen particularly in reaction to the Charlottetown accord that Canadians are very uncomfortable with that macro way of trying to make constitutional amendments. They would rather deal with things in a more detailed specific way and not have to vote yea or nay on an entire package, some of which they may like and some of which they may not like.

The second alternative is to not do anything. The former prime minister had this reaction. He felt that Canadians were tired of the Constitution so he did not do anything. What was the reaction in not doing anything? The reaction was that unfortunately we almost sleepwalked through a situation in 1995 where the country could possibly have broken up.

Those are the two options used in recent history, either doing things in a massive, macro, omnibus package, take it or leave it, to parliamentarians and Canadians, or doing nothing.

There is a third route proposed by my colleague. His proposal says that the Constitution is a living document and perhaps we could amend and improve it as sensible citizens and parliamentarians over time. This shows the maturity of a democracy.

I would encourage members who spoke against the motion to think very seriously about how it is they want us to amend the Constitution. I do not think the best way is to do it in a macro way or to do nothing. The best way is what is proposed in this motion, which is doing something very sensible, in a small piecemeal basis to improve the document that governs us overall.

I want to also address the whole issue, and I forget which colleague mentioned it, about there being no observable consensus in support of it. That is simply not true. The member has provided documents to us and I am sure he would be happy to provide them to all parliamentarians. There is a wide consensus in support of the motion. I would like to quote from some of the distinguished Canadians of all political persuasions who supported this in the past. John Diefenbaker in 1960 said:

My feeling was, and I think it is soundly based on Canadian constitutional development, that the federal government...ought not to exercise this power against the legislature of any province. The legislatures are elected by the people of the province and whatever one's views may be with regard to the legislation [which some MPs are asking me to disallow], to do otherwise would be to place the federal government in the position of a judge over the legislation passed within the competence of the legislature, something that no longer is considered a proper and reasonable attitude for the federal government to take.

I would like to quote from another prime minister. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau wrote in his famous work Federalism and the French Canadians :

A Bill of Rights could be incorporated into the constitution, to limit the powers that legal authorities have over human rights in Canada. In addition to protecting traditional political and social rights, such a bill would specifically put the French and English languages on an equal basis before the law. The protection of basic rights having thus been ensured, there would be no danger in reducing the central government's predominance in certain areas (for example, by abolishing the right of reservation and disallowance); at the same time, this would have the advantage of getting rid of some of the constitution's imperial phraseology.

It was supported in 1970 by Noel Lyon and Ronald Atkey. It was supported by former NDP premier Roy Romanow in 1975:

It can be safely predicted that if the federal power of disallowance were to be reactivated, there would be a strong reaction from the provinces.

The Trudeau government again in 1978 supported it. The Pepin-Robarts report of 1979 stated:

We would eliminate the two methods by which provincial legislation can be blocked by Ottawa. [B]oth methods have gradually faded from use and now are considered dormant. To eliminate these two powers would not only recognize a situation which exists, but would recognize the ability and right of the provincial governments to act as responsibly as non-subordinate bodies.

I will quote from a 1980 document from the Liberal Party of Quebec, which was signed by Claude Ryan, a very distinguished Quebecker and Canadian, I would say:

Such anachronisms and infringements of the fundamental principles of federalism must be completely and unconditionally set aside. These powers, conceived at a time when there was a concern for possible immature legislative actions by the provinces, have become obsolete and no longer have any place in a pluralist country with a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights.

That was from “A New Canadian Federation” of 1980.

I will quote the Supreme Court of Canada from 1981:

[R]eservation and disallowance of provincial legislation, although in law still open, have, to all intents and purposes, fallen into disuse.

This was included in the Victoria charter and in the Charlottetown accord and has enjoyed support from distinguished Canadians from all political persuasions. I think members of all parties should take a serious look at this motion.

I think what has happened here, frankly, is that perhaps members have not quite fully understood the entire motion. Therefore they should take a second look at it. I would encourage them to do so.

I would perhaps, as a way of concluding, talk about exactly why it is that my colleague is bringing this forward. There are two arguments that are used in opposition to this as well. These powers are not really being used any more, so therefore why should we worry? Why is there a need for action?

If it is truly the case that these powers are not being used anymore, then the other question presents itself: why is there any opposition to removing them if these powers have fallen into disuse and they will not be used again? If the federal government has no intention of using them, then why would any federal political party object to them being removed? It would actually just be a matter of cleaning up the Constitution.

Then the second question is asked. If these powers are just dormant, as my colleague said--it is either the fact that they have fallen into disuse and will never be used or the fact that they are dormant and they may be used--then that is a more dangerous thing. The federal government could in fact step in and use these sections under the Constitution to disallow provincial legislation. I think he spoke very well in saying that we are a mature democracy. We have provinces in this country that are as mature as any democracy across the globe and they need to be respected as such. For a federal government to step in and disallow provincial statutes is unacceptable today.

I would counsel colleagues on all sides of the House to look at the issue seriously. If these powers have fallen into disuse and are no longer necessary, then let us clean up the Constitution and remove them, but if in fact a federal political party actually believes that in some cases they may be used that party should stand up and say so. In our view, the Conservative Party's view, these powers should not be used in a mature democracy and therefore we strongly recommend and urge all members on all sides of the House to remove them and support this motion.

[Supply, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I should correct the member. I am not the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam. He is known as “James the greater” and I am “James the lesser”, and everyone can understand why.

I am not against institutional day care. However, I do believe that if the citizens of a province, Alberta for example, such as has been done in Quebec, feel that they want to make this option more available, they want to fund it more, then they are free to do so, at the provincial level. What I believe is that it should be funded at the provincial level.

What the federal government ought to do is do all it can to leave more resources in the hands of parents and allow them to make the decision as to what type of care they want.

Whether institutional day care is funded across the country, it should not be funded by the federal government. Instead it should be funded by the provincial government as reasonably requested to do so by the citizens in the province.

[Supply, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not proposing to do that. I am just recognizing the reality as it is. I think the member misspoke.

I find it a little ironic that the member would criticize the Ontario provincial government for downloading on to the municipalities when the finance minister, the current Prime Minister, was the ultimate downloader of all time.

If the member wants to talk about a fiscal imbalance, this is the fiscal imbalance: the federal government raises two-thirds of the revenues across Canada but provides one-third of the services. That is a fiscal imbalance. The fact is that the Liberal government in the mid-1990s downloaded everything on to the other two orders of government. That was the basic problem with the fiscal imbalance.

In terms of which order of government, which level should actually do child care, I have been very clear in saying it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

What the federal government ought to do is get its own house in order. It should deal with citizenship and immigration, get the border open to our beef and our softwood, repair our national defence, none of which the government is doing. It has failed miserably on every one of those counts. Instead it interferes into provincial jurisdiction. It interferes with municipalities. It should get its own house in order. It should leave these areas of social responsibility to the provinces, which can better deal with them.

[Supply, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, actually there are not three levels of government. There are three orders of government. The municipal level is not recognized within our Constitution. I think the member--

[Supply, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to address the motion put forward by our leader which states:

That the House call upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents.

At the outset I want to outline the Conservative Party position. We do recognize that parents are in the best position to determine how to care for and educate their children. They are the ones who make the best decisions, not the federal government and not any one political party.

Also, there is no one size fits all system of child care that could possibly be created by any government to meet the needs of all Canadian families and children. The fact is we stand for choice. We stand for alternatives which would include obviously some form of day care, but would include other forms, such as day home, which a lady in my office uses. It would include one of the parents in a partnership making a choice to stay at home to care for their children, especially in those early years. It would include the issue of choice.

It is not to say we could not do more to assist parents and children in finding care and in expanding learning opportunities. Access to quality early learning programs and child care is critical to the future of a person's development and to the future of our society.

Unlike the government, we in this party realize that these programs can be delivered in a number of ways, including direct payments to parents through deductions and other policy measures. We do support some of the basic initiatives that have been put in place by the government, such as the child tax benefit, which goes mainly toward lower income families. For all families, for all parents, we want to see a level of choice that enables them to make the best decisions for their children.

The previous speaker raised the issue of provincial jurisdiction. The member opposite raised the question should the federal government be holding the provincial government accountable. The fact is the provincial government is the level of government closer to the people. It is the level of government, according to the Constitution, which has been given responsibility for more social programs. It is a level of government which in the past has been the most innovative and creative in dealing with social issues.

The federal government can, through the child tax benefit, through providing a tax credit, allow parents to make a choice. It can enable parents to make decisions for their children by providing more fiscal room for them to do so. The fact is we should respect provincial jurisdiction in this area.

The member who spoke previously also pointed out that the federal government has a number of responsibilities on which quite frankly it has been failing. Federal responsibilities are outlined in the Constitution.

Citizenship and immigration is one of them. Can we honestly say that this is being well handled by the government? Eighty per cent of the case files in my office are immigration files, frankly because the bureaucracy is in a complete flux over the number of cases that are brought before it. Is the whole issue of national defence being handled well by the federal government? On international trade there are issues with the beef industry and with softwood lumber.

Those are the issues on which a national federal government should be focusing. It should not always be delving into and interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I want to touch upon some of the issues relating to federal policies and the family. There is not one department that deals with this issue. There is instead a set of diverse policies, such as tax policies, social assistance policies, industrial policies, health policies and education policies that work in tandem to support all types of families.

The Conservative motion we are debating today highlights changes in tax policy as one way to help children. This is something the federal government could legitimately do to assist families in the raising of their children. It is an important point.

As Don Drummond from the TD Bank has recently pointed out, the take home pay of the average Canadian worker has stagnated during the Liberal government's time in office. Between 1989 and 2004, real after tax income per worker rose just 3.6%. That is an absolute shame, as the member behind me just said. That is frankly one of the biggest problems.

Most of my friends have kids. They face these challenges and choices all the time, where to allocate resources and what kind of decisions to make. The fact is they have felt the crunch. Even though government members stand up and talk about a $100 billion tax cut, which was really only $47 billion over five years, these people actually feel the crunch. Don Drummond, bless him, actually revealed that it was a 3.6% income rise over the last 15 years.

Beyond this, the Vanier Institute reports that two-thirds of Canadian families are short of cash at the end of the year. They make tough choices during the year, but at the end of the year two-thirds of them still come up short.

At the prebudget hearings in the finance committee witness after witness talked about the importance of personal tax cuts but not in some abstract sense about helping the economy, which it would do. They talked about tax cuts in a real personal sense of allowing individual Canadians and families to better allocate their own resources, to have more control over their own lives because they would have more control over their own resources.

The fact is we look at taxes in sort of an abstract way in the House, but they should not be looked at that way. They should be looked at as taking a person's life energy. For people who work 40 hours a week, the government takes 20 hours of their life energy that they pour into their jobs. They would like to use that for their kids, their families and their own pursuits but it is taken away. That is actually taking a person's life energy away, not some abstract concept.

The fact is that tax cuts and the resulting increase in disposable real income, which has not risen over the last 15 years, allows families to make real choices that address their needs. They are choices such as obtaining dental care for their kids, allowing their kids to play on a soccer team or a hockey team, purchasing a new computer, sending their kids to nursery school. These are the real choices that people could make if they had more income in their pockets.

I challenge the Liberals on the opposite side to ask any parent the simple question of who they would rather make the choice as to where they spend money. Would the parents rather it be the federal government or themselves who decide how to allocate resources? Every person I have asked, especially people of my generation who have children, who he or she would like to make this decision, has answered that they would make the best decision in the case of their children. That is basically the philosophy behind this motion, to really gear more disposable income toward parents to allow them to make the choices.

My party believes in a strong education system to support our society. I am the son of two teachers. I can say that it was an absolute blessing for me to have two teachers as parents. It was an unbelievable blessing. They certainly taught me the importance of education not only for me as a person but for our society, our social fabric.

The reality is our education system could be improved by working with the provinces. Education is primarily a provincial responsibility.

The minister often speaks about the first six years of a person's life being the most important. Most people in the House would agree that the first six years, if not the most important, certainly are the ones that determine to a certain extent how a person will turn out. They are very important and should be addressed. Children who enter school ready to learn are more likely to continue on a positive path during their entire school year. Early childhood education programs like nursery school, play groups, home study programs and formal day care are part of this network.

Each child learns differently and each family has different needs and wants. These differences could be genetic, cognitive, economic or cultural. No two families are the same. We as policy makers must be sensitive to these differences. Parents should have choices as to programs available to their children, including if they choose to do so, staying at home with them.

If parents choose to stay at home, they should not be punished for making that choice. The key is that the option should be available, day care, day home, or staying at home, and parents should not be punished for the decision they make.

In conclusion, the overall philosophy behind the motion is to give parents the means and resources to make the decisions and allow them to make the choice and for the provincial and federal governments to respect the choices they make.

[Gasoline Prices, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 165, and I would like to read the motion into the record. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take action with regard to gasoline prices by: (a) setting up a petroleum monitoring agency responsible for preparing an annual report on all aspects of the industry, including how prices are set and competition issues, whose director would be independent and appointed for a three-year term after consultation with sector representatives and the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology, and that the Committee be tasked with considering the report; and (b) by bringing forward amendments to strengthen the Competition Act, including measures to ensure that the Competition Commissioner has the power to launch investigations, summon witnesses and ensure confidentiality.

As a member of the industry committee that studied this issue, I want to provide some background for members of the House. The committee studied it extensively. It issued a report in November 2003. The committee recommended something similar to what is in part (a) of the motion, although as the member just pointed out, something not quite as extensive.

With respect to part (b) of the motion, it is true that gas prices in Quebec tend to be higher than they are in Ontario. Members of the Bloc have claimed for a long time that there is collusion in the industry and that gas prices should be regulated.

However, it is important to point out that no evidence of collusion has actually come forward. In fact, the Competition Commissioner pointed out that the industry had been studied 18 to 19 times on that basis and each time it was found that there was no collusion, except in minor cases at the local retail level, not at the crude oil price, which is a world price, nor at the wholesale level, which is done within the North American context.

As well, I should point out as the government has done on a number of occasions, rightly, that the regulation of gasoline prices in Canada can be done at the provincial level. Provincial governments are free to regulate gasoline prices. In Quebec, if it feels a need to do so, the provincial government can certainly step in and regulate gasoline prices if it feels it is in the best interests of their citizens.

It is important to point out, though, that Canada ranks very low on the list in terms of gasoline prices across the world. These figures are free to anyone who wants to surf them. International Energy Agency points out that in 2003, when this study was done by the industry committee, Canada had the second lowest gasoline prices to the United States and the world at that time. If we took the comparative levels of taxation out from both the American side and the Canadian side, Canada would rank the lowest in terms of our gasoline prices. To put it into perspective, it is important for us to realize that.

I also want to provide some background on the price. People look at the price as they drive by, but they do not understand what goes into setting that price.

First, there is the international price of crude oil as set by global supply and demand. This is what people are referring to when they are talking about the cost of a barrel of oil. Obviously, that price has been very high in recent years for various reasons.

The second component to look at is the wholesale or the rack price which is the finished gasoline product used by cars and involves refining by oil refineries. For us in Canada, the price is set within a North American context.

Third is the local price that we see when we drive into fill up our vehicles, and this is a regional market price. It varies from city to city, province to province, region to region. It is a very locally driven price. However, the retail price includes taxes to which we in this party have certainly drawn attention.

I would like to point out that the standing committee report, which was done in 2003, pointed out that over the long term the price of gasoline, excluding taxes, increased by 50% while taxes on the price of gasoline increased by 67%. Taxes are the fastest growing component of the final price of gasoline, a fact that should be clearly understood by all of us.

The tax burden at the pump has been raised as one of the reasons why prices are higher in Canada than in the United States. In fact, once the taxes are stripped out and do the exchange rate, the price of gasoline is very similar, even lower in Canada than it is in the United States.

I would like to remind my colleagues on the government side that they promised to look at the whole policy of taxation on gasoline from the GST standpoint, but also in terms of the 10¢ a litre excise tax and sharing that with the provinces and municipalities for infrastructure. That has been promised for two to three years. It should certainly be fulfilled in our view.

In terms of returning to the issue of whether there is collusion within this industry, members of the standing committee listened to witnesses from all sides. Members of all parties had the opportunity to bring forward their arguments. The evidence was clear that collusion was not the cause of the increase in the price of gasoline in early 2003. This issue has been investigated 19 times. I think it is important to actually quote the competition commissioner who stated at that time, “We have never found any evidence of any kind of collusion, except at a very local level, which is usually a bunch of stations getting together and trying to maintain the price at a certain level. Those we have prosecuted with some success”.

Even those who testified that they believed collusion was possible in gasoline pricing offered no concrete evidence. The Quebec consumer coalition was unable to offer any proof except its belief, not the actual data that it presented to committee, but just a belief that there was a strong possibility of a price fixing arrangement. A possibility is not a fact.

One thing that should be emphasized here with respect to part (b) of the motion is that the Competition Bureau currently has all the powers it needs to investigate collusion. Those Canadians watching the debate who feel there is collusion should get five of their friends to write specifically about whether it is two stations or three stations they suspect and submit that to the competition commissioner. If people have a suspicion, they should gain a little bit of evidence and submit that to the Competition Bureau to deal with it.

The Competition Bureau did say to the committee that it is hampered by resources. It obviously has a finite level of resources and could use more resources to fulfill its mandate. Our party would be willing to look at that. However, we do not feel that the proper thing to do here, based on the fact that it has investigated this 19 times and has found no evidence of collusion on a grand scale, is to give the Competition Bureau more authority in this area. We feel it has enough power as it is.

Nevertheless, we have called for the industry itself to do more in explaining the actual price, to do more in explaining about the components of what goes into the price in terms of the crude price, the wholesale price, the retail price and the taxes. The industry has made some efforts in that area, but it could certainly do more.

As I mentioned, if the commissioner feels there are too many cases being presented and the bureau needs more resources, we would look at that.

I want to say indirectly, just as support for the member, that there was a report done in 2003 and the government talked about setting up some form of information commissioner. We supported that even though frankly we did not see a great need for it. That is why I asked the member if he questioned the data that was available from MJ Ervin & Associates. This information is available and every Canadian can monitor the price of gasoline across Canada. I encourage them to do that to obtain more information about how prices fluctuate across Canada.

Nevertheless, the industry itself would even support having a petroleum information commissioner who would provide information to Canadians on a regular basis. We see it as a double bureaucracy and is not necessary, but if it would give more credence to the argument that the gasoline industry is not colluding, then maybe we should look at that.

The main point we would make is that those who would want to launch an accusation of collusion ought to do so by bringing forward specific allegations against that industry. We should be very hesitant about launching accusations against industries within this country unless there is actual data. If there is such data, it should be submitted to the Competition Bureau to investigate it.

In our view, and going back to the main point in the committee report, the fastest growing component of gasoline prices is taxes. Our party called for a reduction in taxes and certainly the GST in a 2003 report. That simply has not been implemented by the government. We would encourage it to do so immediately.