Bill C-454 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Competition Act to authorize the Commissioner of Competition to inquire into an entire industry sector. It also provides for the imposition of an administrative monetary penalty in respect of cases of abuse of dominant position, and for an increase in the amount of administrative monetary penalties in respect of deceptive marketing cases. It repeals all provisions dealing specifically with the airline industry and criminal provisions dealing with price discrimination, predatory pricing, discriminatory promotional allowances and geographic price discrimination. The enactment also provides that the court may make an order requiring a person who made a false or misleading representation to compensate persons affected by that conduct and may issue an interim injunction to freeze assets where the Commissioner of Competition intends to ask for such an order. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Price of Petroleum Products

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether the hon. member is going to make representations to his party to ensure that Bill C-454 gives the Commissioner of Competition the ability to launch inquiries, without necessarily having to supply proof of collusion.

Will he support us so that this bill is passed at the earliest opportunity, thus providing us at least with a tool to deal with price increases and obtain recommendations on the measures that should be taken?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised to hear my Conservative colleague criticize the Bloc's Bill C-454, since his own party voted in favour of it. It asked to have the bill referred to committee to be examined.

The Bloc's intention is not to say that this is a cure-all, but it is a tool. The Bloc is taking action to try to solve this problem with gas prices. One possibility is to give the commissioner of competition the right to conduct investigations without having to prove collusion among companies, in order to analyze the market, make recommendations and come to the House to propose changes. The member and I are from ridings where the manufacturing sector is currently experiencing economic difficulties, and where the price of gas and delivery costs to the United States are making businesses less competitive.

Could he not participate in this debate today and say that we need to move forward with measures that will help us take control of the situation? It is not about controlling the prices. It is about making sure that we take control of the situation so that once and for all we are no longer dependent on oil, and so that we can move forward, help our industry, help the people who are struggling, and find ways to show our citizens that we are there to solve the problems they are facing and not just to look at them in the mirror.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today during this emergency debate on the price of gas. I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Obviously the high price of gas is of concern to all Canadians and all members of this House. We all know that rising gas prices are having an effect on the economy and on Canadians, both individuals and businesses. Motorists, truck drivers, taxi drivers—everyone is affected by gas prices. No one wants to pay more for gas, or anything else, for that matter. But as parliamentarians, we need to be clear about what we can and cannot do about this.

First, I would like to note that the federal government does not directly regulate retail gas prices, except in the case of a national emergency. The provinces have the power to regulate gas prices. As I am sure everyone knows, four provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have decided to limit retail gas prices. At the same time, Quebec has chosen to set a minimum gas price.

In addition to not wanting to interfere in a provincial jurisdiction, our government believes in competition and the market forces that have allowed our economy to prosper. Competition leads to innovation and economic growth. Canada has achieved sustained economic success thanks to privatization, free trade and deregulation. By relying on competition and market forces, our economy has grown.

Our government is determined to create the type of competitive environment that will make Canadians more prosperous. Nonetheless, we know full well that governments are not the source of prosperity. In our opinion, it is our government's job to create the conditions that will allow for innovation and entrepreneurship. Within such a framework, it is the private sector that will innovate, take risks and create wealth for the good of all Canadians.

Our government is fully committed to ensuring economic leadership for a prosperous future. To achieve that, we have developed our long-term economic plan, Advantage Canada, and other initiatives such as our science and technology strategy.

As we indicated in our recent economic statement, we will build on this by introducing important new measures that will help Canadian companies remain competitive, attract new investment to Canada, increase productivity and create more and better paying jobs for Canadians.

I also wish to point out that in July 2007 our government announced the creation of the Competition Policy Review Panel. This group's mandate is to examine two Canadian laws, the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act. The panel must submit its report by the end of June 2008. We look forward to receiving their recommendations, which I am sure will help us ensure the effectiveness of Canada's policies on competition and investment and allow us to promote even more foreign investment and create more and better paying jobs for Canadians.

I just mentioned the Competition Act. Every time we talk about the price of gas in Canada, the Competition Act and the role of the Competition Bureau inevitably are mentioned. Since their roles continue to be misunderstood, I think it would help to take a moment to explain what the Competition Bureau is.

The Competition Bureau is an independent agency that contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting market competition, and allowing consumers to make informed choices. Led by the Commissioner of Competition, the bureau investigates anti-competitive practices and ensures compliance with the laws under its jurisdiction. The commissioner is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act. The act contains criminal and civil provisions that deal with mergers and abusive behaviour by those in a dominant position, for example.

With regard to gas, the Competition Bureau examines wholesale and retail gasoline prices to determine whether those prices are the result of market forces, especially during times of major fluctuations in prices. With respect to the petroleum industry, or any other industry for that matter, the bureau tries to determine whether the Competition Act has been violated. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the act has been violated, the bureau investigates and takes the appropriate action.

Over the years, the Competition Bureau has undertaken six major studies on the gasoline industry. The Bureau's investigations resulted in 13 criminal trials linked to gasoline and heating oil prices. Eight of these trials led to convictions.

In other words, the Competition Bureau intervenes when a factor other than market forces influences the price of a product such as gasoline. In general, by allowing supply and demand to determine prices, we obtain optimal resource distribution, which sends the right messages to producers and consumers. Higher prices indicate supply restrictions, encouraging producers to produce more and consumers to consume less.

Regulating prices or setting other restrictions would cloud these indicators and thus lead to poor resource allocation, which ends up hurting all consumers.

I would like to speak briefly about a Bloc Québécois private member's bill that is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Bill C-454 proposes a number of amendments to the Competition Act.

The Bloc has made a clear link between Bill C-454 and the issue of high gasoline prices. In addition, the Bloc has stated that adopting Bill C-454 would solve the issue of high gasoline prices. That is not the case. None of the current amendments contained in Bill C-454 would impact gasoline prices as the Bloc has said.

Allow me to quickly give an example. At this time, with prices rising, the Competition Bureau often receives complaints from consumers who feel exploited by prices they feel are too high. Businesses are usually free to set their prices based on what the market will bear. Just because prices are rising does not mean that there has been an offence under the Competition Act or that someone must intervene to regulate prices.

High prices concern the bureau when they result from anti-competitive conduct contrary to the Competition Act, such as a conspiracy to increase prices. As I indicated earlier, when the Competition Bureau finds evidence of violations of the Competition Act, it takes the appropriate action. The Bloc included a provision in Bill C-454 to deal with price gouging. The Bloc indicated that this was needed to deal with gasoline prices that are considered too high, regardless of the reason for their increase. As we all know, there are various domestic and international factors that affect the price of gasoline.

Despite everything, the Bloc decided that there should be regulation of the gasoline sector with respect to prices and profit margins. The provision put forward in Bill C-454 would effectively mean that the federal government would be responsible for the regulation of gasoline prices.

As I said at the outset, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the direct regulation of retail gasoline prices except in the event of a national emergency. The provision in Bill C-454 would mean that the Competition Bureau would have to determine every day whether the price of gasoline was fair or too high.

As well, under Bill C-454, the Competition Bureau would have to make the same determination for practically every other product on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like a really effective solution to you?

As for the Liberals' suggestion to bring in a carbon tax, all that would do is drive up the price at the pump.

Although I believe that some members of the House would like the price of gasoline to be lower, we must be very careful that the proposals put forward do not have unforeseen consequences by opening huge sectors of the economy to price regulation by the federal government.

In conclusion, in contrast to the Bloc, I would like to make a helpful suggestion to Canadians. The Competition Bureau website contains information to help consumers understand the gasoline market. For additional information, I recommend Natural Resources Canada's website, Fuel Focus. This site provides clear, timely information about fuel prices and markets and ways to manage energy costs. Current, factual information on changing prices will help Canadians understand how world oil markets affect their lives.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Indeed, as far as the Competition Act is concerned, we introduced Bill C-454. The purpose of the bill is to be able to investigate to ensure that competition is healthy and that businesses do not make unfair profits. We therefore hope that this bill is quickly returned to the House and that, when it is, it has everything needed to help us resolve this complicated issue of the price of gas, to help us parliamentarians take appropriate action and ensure that oil companies do not rake in unfair profits.

Furthermore, it is a fact that the price of gas has an impact on all goods. Today's news reported that even boarding schools, cafeterias and other schools are being forced to increase their menu prices because of the rising cost of food. Of course, all the transportation costs involved drive up the cost of all consumer goods.

The people of Trois-Rivières are wondering what they will do when they are forced to choose between filling up their car and feeding their children. We must consider the fact that as costs rise so quickly and dramatically, with family budgets so tight already, it is becoming even more difficult for families to make ends meet. Of course, as parliamentarians, we must send a clear message to show that we do not want to let this situation continue.

Last year, we had the same debate just before the summer holidays were about to begin and still nothing has been resolved. We must really tackle this issue in various ways to try to find some solutions. We must really look at where the problems lie and discipline the industry, but also force the population to consume less energy.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, the price of gasoline has reached record highs. A litre of gasoline has never been this expensive: in 2002, it cost 61.3¢; in April 2005, it cost $1, a psychological barrier we never thought we would reach; and yet, in May 2008, it has reached $1.40 in Trois-Rivières.

This situation threatens the financial stability of households. Citizens are calling on us to take action. That is why the Bloc Québécois has asked for this emergency debate. It is time to act as quickly as possible and before the situation deteriorates and leads to a serious economic crisis. The economic outlook is increasingly grim and every analyst is talking about a slowdown or even a recession, but Quebeckers must not also bear the brunt of the oil industry's greed. Every dollar a Quebecker spends on fuel impoverishes all of Quebec.

Let us remember that the government does not get richer as the price of gasoline climbs. Quebec imports all the oil it consumes. Every time the price of fuel increases, more money leaves Quebec and that impoverishes our nation.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing concrete actions. We are proposing a three-part response to this problem.

First, we need to keep the industry in check with Bill C-454, which was introduced by my colleague from Montcalm, and which strengthens the Competition Act with respect to oil companies.

Second, we need to make the oil industry contribute. We have to put a stop to the flow of wealth from Quebeckers and Canadians to big oil companies. Ottawa must include oil revenues in equalization formulas. The federal government must put an end to tax breaks for oil companies. The government must also cap greenhouse gas emissions and support the creation of a true carbon exchange.

Third, we must reduce our dependency on oil. Oil is making Quebec poorer, and we have to put an end to the blood-letting. The Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to become a leader in clean and renewable energy. Now I would like to elaborate on each of these points.

I began by saying that we need to keep the sector in check. Our first response to the problem is based on simple logic: a competitive industry is more efficient economically. The Conservatives, staunch defenders of the free market and the virtues of competition, should agree. The oil industry, both in Canada and around the world, is anything but competitive.

The Competition Bureau has to be able to use the Competition Act to protect citizens from being taken advantage of by an industry that is reaping the benefits of a non-competitive situation. Every time the price of gas skyrockets, the government says it cannot do anything because, according to the Competition Bureau, oil companies are not involved in price-fixing.

The problem is that the Competition Bureau has never conducted a full investigation of the oil industry. The bureau cannot conduct an investigation of its own accord. The minister must call an inquiry, or citizens must complain. And it is very difficult to find evidence.

Our competition bill sought to force disclosure of documents and to protect citizens during a review of this matter. The bureau has these powers when conducting an investigation. However, investigations must be ordered by the minister—which is highly unlikely when the minister is on the payroll of an oil company friendly party—or following complaints.

That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-454, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill was adopted in the House, at second reading stage, on April 28. It gives the Competition Bureau the authority to conduct its own inquiries into the industry. As I was saying earlier, it can summon and protect witnesses during these inquiries. It can increase fines significantly, henceforth making them a deterrent. If there are agreements among oil companies, they will have to prove to the commissioner that they are not detrimental to consumers.

However, despite the Bloc's and my own efforts to speed up adoption of the competition bill at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, no other party in this House wanted, in committee, to support our motion that the bill be passed as is by the committee and be submitted again to the House for adoption before it broke for the summer.

We know that, oddly enough, the price of gasoline always increases at the pump with the onset of summer vacation. I would remind my colleagues that the price of crude oil has increased by more than 30% since January and that it has doubled since last year. The Bloc Québécois does not understand why the other parties are refusing to add teeth to the Competition Act before the summer, thus giving our citizens some breathing room. When we return to our ridings, all we hear from our constituents are complaints.

Bill C-454 is a first step in the right direction and we must take this step as quickly as possible given that, traditionally, oil companies have no qualms about increasing prices when summertime rolls around.

The second part of our solution consists of having the industry make a contribution. We know that the oil industries are making record profits and that the higher gas prices only benefit the industry. Since the beginning of this year our economy has been suffering while the oil companies are profiting. This is a direct transfer of the public's wealth to an industry that is shamelessly taking advantage of the situation.

How do we believe we should limit this transfer of wealth? By adopting a tax system that stops being so generous to the oil companies. We have to put an end to the tax giveaways. The industry has to pay its fair share of taxes. That is what a responsible government must do, but the federal government is doing precisely the opposite.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are responsible for the current situation. From 1970 to 1999, Ottawa paid the equivalent of $79 billion in direct subsidies to the fossil fuels industry; and even though those direct subsidies have been decreasing since the late 1990s, the oil industry is benefiting from a more generous tax system. This situation makes the industry exempt from paying hundreds of millions of dollars in tax—hundreds of millions of dollars. I wonder how consumers and our economy can keep carrying this burden.

Whether we are talking about the Liberal government of 2003 with Bill C-48, which favoured the oil companies, or the current Conservative government with its accelerated capital cost allowance for the tar sands, this industry has always had a formidable ally in the federal government. And even though the accelerated capital cost allowance will gradually come to an end by 2015, the oil companies will have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in tax by then.

How do we justify this to our fellow citizens? How can I justify this to the people of Trois-Rivières to whom working far from downtown without public transit is an incredible burden? This takes a bite out of their paycheque and their family budget.

When the price of oil per barrel is closing in on $140 U.S. and the price per litre is around $1.40 in Trois-Rivières, how can we justify having a tax system that is so generous to the major oil companies? What message is the government sending to the people of Quebec?

The federal government is doing very little about the crisis in the forestry and manufacturing industries, but it is using our taxes to subsidize an industry that has been padding its pockets for years. Need I remind hon. members that every litre of gasoline consumed in Quebec is imported; that every increase in the price of fuel is a collective impoverishment for Quebec; that the federal tax system benefits the oil regions and the oil industry and does nothing for Quebec? This is a ludicrous situation.

While Quebec gets poorer because of gas prices, the Conservative government is giving tax breaks to oil companies out west. From 2008 to 2013, oil companies will line their pockets with approximately $8 billion in government giveaways.

The Conservatives even have the audacity to finance the cleanup of these major polluters of the planet—$250 million for a carbon storage pilot project. It is beyond belief. Quebeckers and Canadians endure the oil companies' greed, endure the pollution of these major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and on top of that they have to finance the oil industry's cleanup.

The Bloc Québécois is saying that it is time to put a stop to this travesty. We are proposing that there be no more giveaways to oil companies; that there be no subsidies to help with pollution they create themselves; that the Liberal bill which unduly benefited oil companies be repealed and that the accelerated cost allowance benefit in the oil sands, which is supposed to last until 2015, be cancelled.

In addition, we are proposing a reform of equalization payments. Rising gas costs do not affect everyone equally. Quebeckers are getting poorer while oil-rich regions are getting richer. It is a true transfer of wealth—devastation in Quebec is benefiting other regions. Equalization can correct this situation.

Currently, Quebec is being penalized in four different ways by the government's policies. First, rising prices for petroleum products are costing Quebeckers a great deal of money and making them poorer while at the same time benefiting oil-rich regions. Second, the rise in value of the petrodollar is making Quebec companies less competitive, which is making Quebec poorer. Third, the tax breaks the government is giving the oil companies are being paid for by taxes on all Canadians, which is making Quebeckers poorer. Fourth, oil revenues are half-excluded from the equalization formula, but hydroelectricity is not, which is making Quebeckers poorer.

We also propose to create a carbon exchange. It is another way to offset the impoverishment of Quebec, which has opted for clean energy and chosen to comply with the Kyoto protocol. Quebec companies have made a valiant effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and Quebec has also opted for hydroelectricity, which is clean energy. A carbon exchange would enable Quebec to reap the benefits of its energy choices.

We are holding an emergency debate because the current situation demands that we take action. I would like to quote some figures. The price of a barrel of crude oil was $26 in 2002; in 2006, it was $65; in 2007, $71. Between January and April 2008, it rose to $111, and on May 14, 2008, it was $120. This is a major problem.

As for oil companies' refining profit margins, we know that refining costs from 3¢ to 5¢ a litre. We were told that when it cost 4¢ to 7¢, the companies were doing good business. In May 2007, the refining profit margin rose to 28¢ a litre. Today it is 9¢. We must therefore pay attention and monitor companies to make sure profit margins remain reasonable.

The combined net profits of six major integrated oil companies in Canada—Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, Husky Energy, Petro-Canada, Suncor, etc.—were $12 billion in 2006, up $5 billion or 70% from 2004. This is a huge increase.

What are the answers? There are many answers, some of which were mentioned earlier. We also need to think about energy conservation. Certainly, we need to increase public transit use. We need to increase home energy efficiency. We need to reduce the number of homes and industries that heat with oil. We need to reduce the size of transport vehicles.

We definitely have a problem , but as parliamentarians, we can find solutions, make a start, show that we are concerned and that it is important to really do something about the price at the pump. Our constituents demand it.

In conclusion, I want to say that our economy is starting to falter. Some people are even fearing a recession. It is not acceptable for some companies to get richer at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians.

We all lose when gas prices are high. If this government believes it is more important to protect the interests of the big oil companies than to take care of the concerns of the people, my colleagues and I will pass the message along to our constituents. We will tell them that we have had enough with oil companies making huge profits. We think we need to discipline this industry and take the necessary action to rectify the situation.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing a number of solutions. I can answer questions and speak more about what we have in mind. The Bloc Québécois wants all of our colleagues from all the parties to remember that we are here to represent the people in our ridings and that we should in no way be enabling a small group of oil companies to get rich off our constituents. People have had enough, and they are right. It is up to us to act; it is up to us to react.

Gasoline Prices

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-454 is in front of committee. That is what the hon. member, who had proposed the bill, had requested. It is being studied by committee.

We will take the measures that we took yesterday with respect to Measurement Canada to ensure there is honesty at the gas pump.

In addition, one thing we will never do is succumb to the sort of Liberal leader's gasoline tax being proposed by the party opposite.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order for it to go into effect by summer vacation, the Bloc's Bill C-454, which seeks to strengthen the Competition Act and expand the powers of the Commissioner in order to keep oil companies in line, must be adopted quickly.

Does the Minister of Industry agree that Bill C-454 should go into effect before the summer?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Certainly.

I remind you that Bill C-454 amends the Competition Act. This bill was examined during the last Parliament. The Bloc Québécois supported the proposed legislation, although it found the provisions rather meek. It proposed some amendments, but the bill died on the Order Paper.

In our opinion, the Competition Act needs to have more bite. We have a duty to intervene, even if it doesn't resolve the gas pricing problem fully. Since this bill was passed in the House, we could deal with it quickly with a view to disciplining the industry. In our opinion, it is rather unusual for the oil companies to supply each other with gas, rather than compete head-to-head. In order to prove collusion, we need to have the necessary mechanisms. Since we agreed on the principle of the bill, my motion calls for us to take action quickly in an effort to come up with some solutions.

Competition Act

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have risen earlier last Monday to prepare and move his motion. Now it is too late. Bill C-454 is before the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology, where it will be examined. Once that is complete, there will be discussions. But now, today, it is too late.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons unanimously passed, at second reading, Bill C-454, which strengthens the Competition Act and gives greater powers to its commissioner, which would make it possible to keep oil companies in line.

Does the government agree to pass this bill through all the stages so that it can be implemented before the summer?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's fine, but I will comment, as it is my prerogative to do.

The person who moved the motion in fact is no longer here, because as chair I've allowed us to go ten minutes over time. I stand by my ruling that it's not related to the study of science and technology. I would encourage members: if they want to bring motions forward, that's fine. But on this study I would encourage us to stick to a study of science and technology policy in general. That's what scientists and researchers and institutions across this country want us to do. It's certainly what I've heard as the chair of this committee.

I think that's a valid public policy question. It will be brought forward in a motion, but with respect to the rules, and I'm advised by the clerk, it is a substantive motion and needs either 48 hours or unanimous consent. It did not get unanimous consent; therefore, it will not be considered today. If Ms. Nash submits it, it will be considered, I suspect, on Tuesday.

I'll also remind members that we have a subcommittee meeting at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, so Monsieur Vincent or Madame Brunelle—someone from the Bloc—will present Bill C-454.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think it was on division, but it was adopted by the House.

The bill has been referred to the committee, but this is a substantive motion with respect to discussing when we are going to look at Bill C-454. So I need direction from the committee on whether they want to bring this up today.

We have two panels today of fairly substantial witnesses. Does the committee want to do this at the end of business? I guess this would be at the end of panel two today.

Mr. Carrie.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This is Bill C-454, and it was adopted by the House on Monday.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I would like to add an item to the agenda. I would like us to discuss Bill C-454, that deals with the Competition Bureau, at the end of our meeting today.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand. Things like that can happen in the House; it is called democracy. I was waiting patiently.

I am pleased to participate once again in the debate on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. I have already made two or three speeches on this subject. To avoid repeating what I have said, I will focus in this speech on the need to reduce our dependency on oil, which obviously also has to do with the use of biofuels.

The bill itself does not contain any standards. It authorizes the government to adopt regulations, which is basically how biofuels would be monitored, with respect to standards and their impact. In the medium term, this bill can help us reduce our dependency on oil and significantly decrease greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, depending on the type of biofuel used and, of course, the type of transportation used with these biofuels.

The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions are produced when petroleum products are burned. To reduce these emissions and fight climate change, naturally, we also have to reduce our oil consumption.

Of course, Bill C-33 is not a binding instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; it is a measure to promote the development of alternative fuels. The best instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the only binding one, is the Kyoto protocol, which the Conservative government unfortunately rejected out of hand. Instead, this government is helping the oil companies, which have responded with a price at the pump that is close to $1.40 in the Montreal area. The other day, I saw $1.37. A litre of regular gasoline is selling for nearly $1.50.

In Canada, the oil companies, which recently again announced profits in the billions of dollars, pay less tax than in Texas. When we see that, we wonder what this government's real intentions and real priorities are.

Between 1970 and 2000, the hydrocarbon industry received $66 billion in direct subsidies from the federal government. For your information, Quebec developed hydroelectricity all on its own, without the federal government's help.

The Bloc Québécois suggests that the government stop giving special treatment to the oil industry, which has no need of government tax breaks. It is not a matter of shutting down the oil industry. We all understand that we need oil, but the idea behind this sort of policy or concern is to stop giving tax breaks to companies that do not need them in the least.

I have a few figures that prove this. Petro-Canada's net profit for the first quarter of this year was $1.1 billion, an 82% increase over the same period last year. This is no laughing matter. In 2007, Shell, the second-largest oil company in the world, had a net profit of over $30 billion. A net profit of more than $30 billion for a single oil company, even one that operates all over the world, is quite something.

Instead of helping the oil industry, the federal government needs to levy a surtax on oil extraction and production industry profits. The revenues from this surtax should go toward measures to promote reduced consumption of petroleum products. This would be a smart policy if we really want to reduce our oil use.

One of the ways we could be less dependent on oil is by improving energy efficiency and using cleaner modes of transportation to move goods. Take trains and ships for example—these two types of transportation account for 8% of oil consumption, compared to trucks, which account for 92%. This is an absolutely incredible difference.

The benefits of increasing our use of trains and ships include reducing our consumption of oil products and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which we will come back to. What is more, when we take greater advantage of our seaways and rail system, we scale down traffic by reducing the number of trucks. We have all been stuck in traffic. I am not saying that the problem will be fixed immediately, but cutting down on the use of trucks will certainly improve the situation.

We must also move away from fuel oil and favour cleaner energy sources, for individuals as well as businesses. We have been looking at all kinds of alternative fuels and alternative energy sources. Now we must promote the use of these products in order to keep reducing our use of fuel oil, a serious pollutant.

In Parliament, the Bloc Québécois is actively trying to minimize the impact of the rising price of gasoline. This is not the first time we have done so. We are once again on the attack. For instance, this week, we moved forward with deliberations at second reading of Bill C-454, introduced by my colleague from Montcalm. The bill made its way to second reading this week and was the topic of debate. The bill aims to give greater powers to the Competition Bureau.

I would also like to touch briefly on the objective of Bill C-454. It is absolutely crucial that the government strengthen the Competition Act in order to better combat the exorbitant increases in gas prices that average Canadians must face every time they fill up. To achieve this, the government must give greater powers to the Competition Bureau so that it may conduct a real investigation, particularly of the refining sector.

At present, the Competition Bureau does not have the power to launch an investigation on its own initiative. The legislation must therefore be changed. When it does conduct a review, its mandate does not allow it to discipline the industry, but simply to determine how it generally operates. Furthermore, it cannot force the disclosure of documents or protect witnesses during such a review. Thus, clearly, it is very broad and above all very fluid. This does not impose many restrictions.

In short, the Competition Bureau has its hands tied and is in no position to fight the oil companies, which are unscrupulously fleecing consumers. I have more examples. Profit margins in refining can reach 20¢ per litre of gas, which represents $10 for an average fill-up of 50 litres. And 50 litres is exactly the capacity of my car's gas tank. That is definitely excessive—not my gas tank, but the profit margins in refining as high as 20¢ per litre of gas. I would like to reiterate that this means as much as $10 for the average fill-up.

Generally, it is businesses, taxi drivers, farmers—since we are talking about the bill studied by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—and consumers who pay the price. Oil companies already benefit from preferential tax treatment.

Obviously, in light of all this, oil company executives are laughing merrily. In fact, the Competition Bureau does not have the tools to ensure that prices are not artificially inflated. When a very few companies almost completely control a market as large as the gasoline market, someone has to keep an eye on them. You see the same signs when travelling through cities, villages, or almost anywhere. There are only so many oil companies. We are referring primarily to the major oil companies that control the market.

Oil refining comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Thus, it is up to the House of Commons to ensure that the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-454 is passed as quickly as possible in order for the Commissioner of Competition to take the necessary steps to prevent excessive gas price increases and oil company practices that are contrary to the public interest.

With the approach of summer it is possible that consumers will once again suffer because of the inordinate price of gas. Our bill must proceed quickly and unimpeded if we want it to be in force before the summer holidays. Not that we are in a hurry for them to arrive—but they are coming. We know that gas prices escalate suddenly and mysteriously in the summer.

Our dependence on oil is also a contributing factor to Quebec's trade deficit. Between 2003 and 2007, Quebec exports rose from $64 billion to $70 billion compared to imports, which rose from $64 billion to $81 billion. We therefore have a trade deficit of $11 billion.

What is Quebec's largest import? Of course, it is oil. In 1998, Quebec imported $2.5 billion worth of oil and last year it imported $14 billion worth, which is an increase of 457%. The price per barrel of oil explains the astronomical increase. Last year, in 2007, not long ago, the price per barrel was roughly $70 and now it is over $100. It was $119 last time I checked. Unfortunately the price goes up more often than it goes down.

Quebec has a policy goal that all fuel sold will include 5% ethanol by 2012. It has already invested $6.5 million in building two cellulosic ethanol production plants in the Eastern Townships, one in Westbury and the other in Sherbrooke. That is not so far from my riding. Cellulosic ethanol is the way of the future. I have already talked about this, as have a number of my colleagues in this House. The process promotes the use of agricultural residues, such as straw, and forestry residues, such as wood chips, along with trees and fast growing grasses, such as switchgrass. Bill C-33 will allow the emergence of this new generation of biofuels.

Biodiesel is another type of preferred biofuels. There is a biodiesel plant in Sainte-Catherine, Quebec.

Beef producers currently have to dispose of their specified risk materials. That is a Canadian standard beef producers have to comply with. We are not against it, but we would like to see reciprocity with U.S. standards. But that is for another debate. One thing is certain for now, producers have to get rid of these materials, which end up in the landfill. Often, unfortunately, producers have to pay out of their own pockets to get rid of these animal materials that can no longer be used, not even to make feed for other animals.

If we gave these materials added value by turning them into biodiesel, we could kill two birds with one stone. We could turn these materials into fuel. That is what sustainable development is all about. Instead of throwing out the material, burying it or paying to have it removed, we could pay for it once it has value and turn it into biodiesel. The technology already exists and this is already being done. Biodiesel is currently being made out of animal fats.

The Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec has studied the feasibility of setting up a plant to process animal carcasses and slaughterhouse byproducts into biofuel. Strategic partnerships and help from the government are needed to get that kind of project of the ground.

We have Bill C-33, but we will have to go much farther than that in developing a policy to promote biofuels that have few negative environmental impacts, or at least far fewer than petroleum and fewer than the foods we could use to make biofuels.

According to the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec, we have to ensure that the life cycle of renewable fuels offers true environmental and energy benefits compared to oil products. That is why we should support the federation's project.

I have also talked about the training and recycling centre, CFER, in Victoriaville in my riding. In cooperation with 10 restaurants, this organization recycles used oil, the kind used for french fries, among other things. They are recycling it to make fuel. A pharmacy in Victoriaville even uses this kind of fuel in its delivery vehicle. Here in the House, I joked about how when one is driving behind the delivery vehicle, one does not necessarily get a smell of french fries.

Obviously, that is an important way to use it, a way that will not necessarily consume more energy in transportation. If the vehicle that collects this used oil goes to each of the restaurants and runs on used oil, itself, and if they manage to sell that oil at the pumps one day, that will be a huge energy gain. They are not yet at that point. It is still experimental, but the vehicle works very well.

Let us take this one step further. For example, sludge from sewage treatment plants can also be transformed into ethanol. Quebec's national scientific research institute came—once again—to Victoriaville.

I do not know if they did a very exhaustive study, but one thing is sure: the institute said that sludge from the Victoriaville sewage treatment plant could be transformed into ethanol. This is the kind of project we should be encouraging if we really want to reduce our oil dependency.