Debates of June 1st, 2006

Opposition Motion—Gasoline Prices

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my honourable colleague's question.

Earlier, we finally spoke of refinery capacity in Canada. In my speech, I never said that refinery capacity in Canada had decreased. On the contrary, since 1990 it has risen by 23%. Refineries in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada have been modernized and thus the supply of refinery products is greater than in the 1990s. This can affect price at the pump.

There is a great deal of talk about taxing oil companies so that the price at the pump is as low as possible. You will see that there is no relationship between a tax on oil company profits and the price of gas at the pump.

However, there is a clear relationship between the world price of crude oil and the price of gas at the pump. The January 2006 study by the Cato Institute, covering the period between January 1984 and January 2005, clearly showed the obvious relationship between world crude oil prices and pump prices. The study concluded that 85% of changes in gas prices can be attributed to the world crude oil price. This shows us that the market is competitive.

What is rather more surprising is the Bloc Québécois assertion that the true solution may be to control or regulate prices. My colleague knows quite well that setting gas prices falls within provincial jurisdiction.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister, the member for Beauce, for an excellent speech. I also want to thank Quebeckers for sending individuals like the minister we just heard, a new member of Parliament and a cabinet minister, to this House. His constituents should be very proud of him. People across the country are recognizing the minister. He has a very bright future as he continues to represent his constituents, his province and his country.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion which calls for action to be taken in response to the negative effects of gas price increases. This is an issue Canadians are dealing with. Canada is a very large country geographically and we do a great deal of travelling. Many people depend on their vehicles. We need fuel for our businesses. We need it for our families. Sudden increases in the cost of fuel and energy make our lives more difficult.

Many of the constituents in Crowfoot make their living in the agricultural sector. I am also involved in that sector. Our input costs are high. The input cost of fuel is high. The cost of fertilizer is high. For example the cost of fertilizer which was $10 to $15 an acre 10 years ago is now $30 to $35 an acre and a lot of it goes back to the cost of energy.

There are many different factors that affect gas prices. Our government is concerned about higher gas prices. We know that hard-working Canadian taxpayers who are trying to raise their families are being challenged by these prices. The retail price of gasoline reflects the record cost of crude oil on the global markets. There is strong demand growth not only here in Canada and the United States but in developing Asian countries. That combined with tight supply conditions has led to significantly higher prices of energy commodities and also industrial metals over recent years.

On the one hand higher commodity prices boost incomes and ultimately lead to higher investment, higher levels of employment and higher levels of output in the commodity sector. The commodity sector is a very significant and important contributor to Canada's strong economy.

On the other hand, petroleum and its derivative products are also primary inputs in Canada's sizeable manufacturing, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, for example. As a primary input, fuel costs force an increase in the cost of production and reduce margins and exacerbate competitive pressures.

These are challenges that all governments in every part of the world must come to grips with. In Canada we are a net exporter of these valuable commodities. The point is that in considering all of the foregoing factors, the effects of oil markets are wide ranging and have a profound impact on many fronts.

We have some of the lowest levels of taxes on gasoline prices compared with our major industrialized competitors.

What has our new government done to help Canadians with the recent jump in gas prices? All Canadians recognize that we are reducing taxes. Competitive business taxes are a cornerstone of a strong economy which is necessary to generate the revenues the government needs to fund the social programs that Canadians need and want.

As a government, we know that an efficient and competitive business tax system is critical to encourage investment that improves productivity, that generates economic activity and that creates well paying jobs for young Canadians, for Canadian families, for all Canadians. Countries around the world recognize the importance of competitive business taxes and have been reducing their taxes, as our country has tried to do as well.

Our recent budget creates an environment for jobs and growth by doing a number of things. It reduces the general corporate income tax rate. Our budget creates an environment for jobs and growth by eliminating the federal capital tax. Our recent budget creates an environment for growth and jobs by eliminating the corporate surtax. Our budget even commits to establishing a meaningful advantage over the United States in the overall business tax burden on investment, which brings me back to the motion we are discussing today.

The motion suggests that as part of a plan to counteract the effects of increases in gas prices, the government should implement a surtax on the profits of major oil companies. I cannot support that. I do not think Canadians want that, and here is why.

Canada's oil companies are significant contributors to the strength of the Canadian economy. They provide jobs to tens of thousands of Canadians. As a proud Albertan, I can say that this is evident not only in Fort McMurray and Calgary but in places like Stettler, Hanna, Oyen, Camrose and Three Hills, all throughout the riding of Crowfoot.

Those companies contribute significantly to provincial and, to a lesser degree, federal revenues. These revenues support the health and social services that Canadians expect from their governments. Unlike the provinces, the federal government receives virtually no resource royalties for oil and gas. For production in the provinces these revenues are off limits to the federal government under the Canadian Constitution.

Corporate income tax revenues from the oil and gas sector are higher, reflecting rising profits. They pay higher taxes when profitability goes up. That is how our income tax system works. That is how our income tax system is intended to operate.

A recent study by ARC Financial Corporation estimates that the oil and gas industry will pay some $5.1 billion in federal corporate income tax for 2005. What is important to note is that the study estimates that provinces will be the major benefactor. They are expected to receive some $21.5 billion in income taxes, royalties and exploration fees.

It seems odd to me that the Bloc's motion would work toward reducing the tax revenues for the provinces and for Quebec. Yet, according to the study of tax revenues, that would be one of the major results of this Bloc motion. Good luck selling that one at home. Good luck selling that in Quebec, in Alberta, anywhere.

Our government has a different approach. Unlike our predecessors, our approach is to promote growth. Our approach is to create jobs. Our approach is to reduce taxes, not introduce new ones. We need a system that encourages investment, not one that discourages it. Our government is encouraging investment and growth in all sectors, traditional sectors like oil and gas, as well as emerging sectors like renewable and alternative energies. Therefore, our tax system encourages investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

We even have an excise tax exemption for ethanol and methanol in blended automotive fuel and for biodiesel. In fact, to further promote alternative fuels, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources have recently launched a new process for a national biofuels strategy. They have initiated discussions with their provincial and territorial colleagues to establish a minimum of 5% biofuels content by 2010. This will reduce emissions from an environmental perspective and ensure that the agricultural producers participate in this growing economy.

I thank the Bloc for bringing forward this motion, because it shows that the Bloc is missing the mark on how fuel prices are adjusted or how Canadians are affected by--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to ask a question of my good friend and colleague from Crowfoot. We have worked on a couple of other files in the past and dare I say, with some success.

I agree with the hon. member with respect to the proposition about the surtax. As he now knows, our party will not be supporting the motion unless it is amended. There are two other important areas within that suggestion by the Bloc that require further study.

I know that his constituents including many others in his province would agree with some of the concerns that have been raised by his own premier, that there is a lower refining capacity.

As of about 50 minutes ago, we learned that the wholesale price in my region in Toronto is about 17¢ wholesale margin for refined product. It costs 3¢ or 4¢ a litre to turn crude into refined product. The American average for similar gasoline is about 13¢. In Toronto it is 17¢.

I am wondering if the hon. member could enlighten the House as to whether he believes what many people in Alberta certainly do when they see the gas prices are a little higher with less tax than they are in Toronto in some locations. Could he indicate whether or not the premier of Alberta is correct that attempts have to be made to restore not only competition in the industry but more importantly, as he quite readily recognized, that we have to build more capacity in order to serve the domestic market more adequately?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the ability to refine more, to bring on more refineries is a very important part of the pricing of fuel. When refineries go down because of hurricanes or other natural disasters, we automatically see a rise in the price of fuel. I think it is frustrating to all Canadians.

One of the things that dismays me is the amount of facilities that can refine oil here in Canada. We have seen very little growth in refining capacity over the last number of years. For one reason or another, in the last 13 years we have not seen a lot more refinery capacity. This is why it is so important to put in place a corporate tax structure that would encourage this kind of activity in Canada. I want the fuel, energy, gas and oil that comes out of Alberta or Saskatchewan or all of Canada refined here. I do not want it shipped somewhere else to be refined. That is why we want to make sure that the tax structure is such that there will be incentives to refine here.

I keep on saying that this motion talks about adding a surtax. We are lowering taxes. The record of this government is not one of sitting back looking for new taxes to add. There are some parties and some governments in the past that never saw a tax they did not like. They never saw a tax they did not hike. We are looking to lower taxes. We are looking at bringing more competition to the sector. The more that happens, the more young people in my constituency will be working. Right now there is a labour shortage in Alberta and in Canada because we have a booming economy.

A tax like what is being proposed would stifle that. I would really question why anyone would bring forward an idea that would say that things are going too well and it is time we slowed them down. I thank the member for signifying that he will not be supporting this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the question and comment period over?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There is one minute remaining in the question and comment period.

The hon. member for Gatineau. May I remind the hon. member that he has one minute to ask his question and get his answer.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of a statement made by the Minister of Industry during the election campaign. He said that oil prices were rising because of environmentalists.

I would like to hear his thoughts on this.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what most people are saying about the industry minister. He is the minister who steps up to the plate and gets the job done. The minister comes to Parliament as a new member of Parliament and learns his file extremely quickly. The minister sits down with the softwood lumber issue and, with other ministers, works toward the solution of the problem that has taken the prior government years. The minister travels across the country with the same kind of message that Canadians are ready to hear. The minister is an incredible minister with a very bright future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, government orders be extended today by 16 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out that I will have the pleasure of sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Laval.

I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion that was introduced today by my colleague, a motion that I will read for the benefit of all hon. members of this House:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a plan to counteract the negative effects of repeated increases in gas prices, specifically including: a surtax on the profits of major oil companies, the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency, and the strengthening of the Competition Act.

I am always pleased to rise in this House, but it is always very surprising to so do after hon. members of the government.

As hon. members know, during the last Parliament we discussed the problem of increasing gasoline prices. We had a Liberal government at the time; now we have a Conservative government. It is quite amazing to see what power can do to distance us from the public.

I am trying to understand. All day long I have been listening to hon. members from the Conservative party try to convince us of the merits of the oil companies' profits, when the public is fed up with being exploited by the oil companies.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives have yet to successfully explain to the public why, when there is a disaster that will affect the delivery of gasoline three weeks or a month in the future, we immediately see an increase at the pump. The Conservatives can say what they like here, in this House, but they will have to face the harsh reality eventually. The public does not understand them, and rightfully so.

That is why the members of the Bloc Québécois, men and women, are working in the interest of Quebeckers. That is the only reason why we are here, in this House. We are here to defend the interests of the public, of Quebeckers. No need to look any further than that. In the meantime, we are defending the interests of Quebeckers.

One of the worst interests that all federal governments currently defend, whether Liberal or Conservative, is the price of gasoline and the profits of the oil companies. We can understand that there are increases in the price of crude. As a result of all the analysts saying so on television, people know very well now that there are four factors behind fluctuations in the price of a litre of gas. First, there is the crude oil. We can understand that the oil companies have to pay for crude. It is like the stock market. It may go up that morning. We can understand that. The second factor that makes gas prices fluctuate at the pump is refining; the third is the profit of the people who sell gas at the pump; and the fourth is taxes.

Since the very beginning, the Conservatives have been trying to tell us that they are reducing the GST by 1% and that is where there will be big savings in lower prices for a litre of gasoline. Forget that. The oil companies have understood and will increase their refining profits by 1% before July 1, an increase that has already started. I can announce it without any chance of being wrong.

The statistics come from the industry itself. There are experts who follow this and watch how the oil companies make their profits. Their raw material goes up and they immediately increase their prices by about the same amount. That is what experts tell us. In this way, their profits never stop rising.

Their profits have increased by more than 300% since 1995. That is apparently not because of the price of crude because when its price goes up, the oil companies pay that amount the same day. They are therefore not supposed to be making any profit on it. When their profit goes up, it apparently comes from somewhere else. It is simple, it is on the refining. It is not on the tax because they all pay the same amount. We all agree on that. This tax, the GST, will be reduced by 1% on July 1.

Therefore profits are not generated on the retailers’ margin. Retailers have to sell hamburgers and hotdogs to try to make ends meet. That is the reality these days. That is why they are opening variety stores in service stations. Retailers are not making any money. If the oil companies are not making their profits on the crude, where are they making it? It is on the refining.

I hope that my Conservative colleagues understood this. If not, they should go and meet with people at the pumps this afternoon. They should go and talk with people at the pumps. These people will tell them where the oil companies are making their money. It is on the refining.

This is where the Bloc Québécois wants to take action. It does not make any sense. Competition laws have to prevent these companies from talking with one another. On average, they all take the same amount.

These figures are provided by experts, not by the Bloc Québécois. In 1999, the average refining margin was 5.5¢ per litre. In 2003, it was 9¢ per litre, in 2004 11¢ per litre and in 2005 9¢ per litre. How do they make their profits? Every day they play tricks on us. Recently, April 18 for example, they took 18.7¢ a litre for refining. On April 19 it was 19¢. On April 20 it was 19.5¢. When, for any number of reasons, there is a fluctuation in the price of crude, what do our little pals in the industry do? They call each other.

It is true that the number of refineries has been reduced. But you can increase their number as much as you want, these people will continue to talk to each other and sell each other petroleum. In fact, they sell it and trade it amongst themselves. They buy it from the industry, from their competitors, as close as possible to their distribution network. They have an agreement among themselves: everyone knows this. I hope my colleagues know it as well. They reach agreements and buy each others’ products, from the nearest refinery. Even if the refinery is owned by a competitor, no matter, because agreements are in place. That is how they come to their daily arrangements on the refining profit. That is where the problem is.

Why does the Bloc Québécois want to create a petroleum monitoring agency? To compel them to officially disclose all of these prices, everything they are taking in refining and the profits they are taking from the pockets of the consumers and citizens who elect my hon. colleagues. They come for that money every day, and every three months they pay dividends to shareholders. Perhaps the oil company shareholders are all your clients, but I would be surprised if they all elected you. Usually it is the elite who own stock. Perhaps you own stock? Personally, I do not have such luck, and neither do I want it. Let them carry on with their money. I want none of it, because to me, that money is not well earned.

They manipulate the market and they make their arrangements. The Competition Bureau talks about the Competition Act and says it does not have the power to impose certain things on them. Every time a complaint is filed under the Competition Act, the bureau says it cannot prove there was real collusion. In the end, the citizens who complain must pay a little more for their litre of gas, even though the bureau has studied the problem, run the legislative maze and exhausted recourse under the Competition Act.

What the members of the Bloc Québécois are asking of the government is simple: stop the oil companies from making fools of us. Stop oil company CEOs from giving themselves bonuses because they have increased corporate profits. All shareholders have increased their profits every three months. This is not why we were elected. We were elected to serve the people. So it is the people we have to serve. If we are in a position to get them a daily reduction of 10¢ a litre for gas, it is our responsibility as members to do so. At least that is the responsibility of Bloc Québécois members. We are proud to defend Quebeckers. We are proud to be here and to tell the government that it is mistaken. We have to sit down and create a real petroleum monitoring agency with a Competition Act that has teeth.

In the meantime, because oil companies are making so much money working the system, we should impose a special tax on them. That is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. Once we have cleaned house and the oil companies are making a reasonable contribution, if the member and the minister do not like the special tax, we will abolish it. Everyone will be happy. The Bloc Québécois is asking the members to work for the people, for once, and to stop working for oil company owners. We have to vote for this motion. The Bloc Québécois would be very pleased if all members of the House sent a unanimous, heartfelt message to the oil companies telling them to stop taking advantage of the system. Enough is enough. The people can no longer take it. We understand how it works and we will not take it any more. That is the clear and simple message I am sending. We hope that our Conservative colleagues, who claim they were elected to defend the interests of the people, will prove it by no longer defending private interests and using their votes in this House to defend the interests of the people.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this issue and how there is no way that I could possibly support a motion that increases taxes rather than actually decreasing taxes as the government is trying to do. We have talked about a reduction in the GST and that party laughs at us. It is $5.2 billion in the pockets of everyday Canadians. That is the way that the government makes the standard of living for Canadians better.

My question for the hon. member is with regard to some of the biodiesel and ethanol strategies that the government is actually putting forward. We listened for years on how the former government would do things, the approaches it would take, and the promises that were made. The previous government never came through on any of its promises.

In the first 100 days of government the Conservative government has already moved forward on a national strategy to lower taxes. This is what I think the member should be supporting. This is what I think his party should be addressing.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, have I correctly understood my colleague? Is he trying to tell me that the Conservatives did something good for the environment in their first 100 days? Is that really what he is saying?

I think that to ask the question is to answer it. At any rate, the newspapers have not fallen for the Conservatives' rhetoric.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated when I hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues shout from the rooftops, as they are doing now and did during the election, that they are defending Quebec's higher interests, as if their way of thinking is clearly unique and must reflect what Quebeckers are thinking.

My colleague just indicated that, after running an election campaign, cutting taxes and the GST and listening to what Quebeckers asked us to do, we on this side of the House delivered the goods.

So I am always surprised when I hear my Bloc colleagues say that they are defending the interests of Quebeckers. To my way of thinking, if they are defending Quebeckers' interests, they should be able to deliver the goods too. The fact is, they have never been able to deliver the goods.

My question is this: can my colleague explain how his actions and his positions have helped get things done for Quebec?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am learning something from my colleague today. During his election campaign, I did not see him defend the oil companies' profits as he is doing today. I did not see that, and I do not think the people saw the transport minister and all his Conservative colleagues do what they are doing today: defending the oil companies' record profits at Canadians' expense. I did not hear them talk about this issue. They were very careful not to do that and not to say that.

Once again, I am proud today to defend the position of the Bloc Québécois, which is asking the government to revise its laws. In the meantime, the government must introduce a surtax on the profits of the oil companies that are shamelessly bending the law to make bigger profits at the expense of Canadians.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this issue has been brought before the House. We had a full day of hearings on this issue last year at the industry committee. One thing kept coming back despite all the talk of refining margins, marketing and so forth, and that was that the price of gasoline is predominantly controlled by two major factors: first, the price of crude is internationally set and we really cannot do much about it except maybe explore some more; and second, taxes. The government in its wisdom has cut the GST, cut income tax, et cetera to help consumers.

Does my hon. friend support more tax cuts by the government to help consumers across the board? This year it may be the higher price of fuel and next year it may be the higher cost of something else, so maybe we should just cut taxes in general to help people out. Does he support the government in its approach that tax cuts should be general?

One thing I have heard from Bloc members is their continual cry about carbon dioxide et cetera. They know that the most effective way to cut it is by implementing a carbon tax which would be a tax on gasoline. Does his party support generalized tax cuts as a major priority and does his party support a carbon tax on gasoline?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would ask the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to give a very brief answer.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer very quickly.

The premise of my colleague’s question is false because one element was forgotten. The refining cost helps determine the price. In my opinion, that is the problem with all the Conservative members. They forget that the money made by the oil companies is found in the profit made on refining. Also I realize that no one wants to talk about that on that side of the House.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the Minister of Industry and my colleagues across the floor, I would like to begin my address by reading to you a few excerpts from an article that appeared in the Journal de Montréal this morning, written by Yves Séguin.

Producers, refiners, distributors, traders, all of them, nearly every day now, give us countless reasons explaining the rise in the price of oil.

If the price of oil increases, so do profits. The world demand for oil is rising and production is not sufficient to meet consumer demand. That is the basic explanation given by the industry to justify the skyrocketing prices. But is that what really explains this extraordinary rise in prices?

Rex Tillerson, president of Exxon Mobile, the world leader in oil production, recently gave an interview to The Economist in which he shed some interesting light on the issue, completely contrary to the official line. Mr. Tillerson maintains that the high price of oil does not have anything to do with the feared shortage of oil.

In 1998, the barrel of oil was $10; today it is about $75. Exxon’s profits have risen in the latest financial statements to the colossal amount of U.S. $36 billion, or almost the equivalent of all the revenue collected by the Government of Quebec.

...

Mr. Tillerson even affirms that the current skyrocketing prices do not have anything to do with an oil shortage. The traders speculate and want to make the price of oil rise by having us believe in a future shortage. Mr. Tillerson explained that Exxon has never been short of oil in its entire history and is now refining more oil than it is pumping. It does not expect any shortages either now or for many decades.

...

Exxon currently continues to drill in Qatar and in the United Arab Emirates. This, added to its present reserves, give it a pump capacity of 73 billion barrels of oil. This is a guarantee of 50 years of raw material. If Exxon has such substantial reserves, and its president, Mr. Tillerson, affirms that outright, why then is the industry letting on that there is a shortage of oil? Are we to believe the financial experts, interested in speculation, or the president of the largest oil-producing company ? At least Exxon is frank and does not hide the fact that it is making a lot of money. And its president, Mr. Tillerson, does not waste his time telling us stories like the one about the hurricanes that will supposedly soon cause a shortage of oil—

Reading this article highlights how essential it is that we show the oil companies that we cannot be fooled anymore. It is essential that we pass the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois.

You know, Mr. Speaker, how fond I am of seniors. My remarks will now focus on the problems faced by seniors because of these price hikes. As you know, 40% of seniors in Canada live in poverty. All those who live alone are poor. Yet, the maximum yearly payment in old age benefits is $5,815, plus $7,127 for the guaranteed income supplement, for a total of $12,942. With an average gasoline price of $1.08 a litre, a senior who fills up once a week has to spend $43.20 per week; that is $2,246 a year for someone whose annual income is only $12,942. But these seniors need transportation to go to medical appointments, get food, have prescriptions filled and do volunteer work. Seniors often have to cut back on their food and medicine in order to make ends meet at the end of the month.

And yet the oil companies made $17.6 billion in profits in 2005. In comparison, our 391,876 seniors living in poverty are receiving $5.072 billion. That is just over one-third of the profits of all the oil companies put together.

It is shameful.

How do you think low income seniors will manage? They have to use soup kitchens and more and more of them are doing so. In 2004, 800,000 people a month made use of soup kitchens. And the government is concerned about imposing a surtax on the oil companies, which make huge profits? What about these 800,000 people a month? These are people in my riding and the ridings of everyone here.

It is really sad. Seniors often visit food banks and discount stores. Many of them must spend their food money on medication instead.

According to the United Nations' human development index, Canada has dropped from being in first place in 1992 to being in eighth place today in terms of its quality of life in general.

In addition, the government owes $3.2 billion to seniors in retroactive guaranteed income supplement payments. Their volunteer work represents $60 billion for the economy annually to the various governments. In the meantime, the government gives the oil companies a tax cut.

It was mentioned earlier that in 2005 the oil companies paid $5.148 billion in taxes. That is true, but in 2007, they will pay only $2.362 billion, because each year their tax rate drops. This means a loss of $2.8 billion annually for three years.

The government feels it can do without $2.8 billion in taxes from businesses that make profits of $17 billion, but it refuses to return $3.2 billion to seniors, money it owes them. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Robert Pelletier, the chair of the 16th funding drive of a food bank, le Comptoir alimentaire Drummond, said:

New poor have arrived, people who work for minimum wage, but who, for all sorts of reasons, often related to increased costs of energy, including electricity and gasoline, suddenly find themselves in difficulty... A simple increase in the cost of gasoline pushes some people from self sufficiency into need.

To ensure money is better redistributed, the first step is to make sure that those who make the money pay their fair share. At this point, the oil companies do not pay their fair share. Only by supporting the Bloc Québécois motion can we hope for greater social justice for Quebeckers and Canadians.

This government can change the situation, but does not want to. Its close ties to the oil companies in the west cloud its judgment and colour its neutrality.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her address. She made some very relevant comments.

She spoke of the profound impact that these high prices have, often on old stock, on low income families, people who deliver into rural regions, taxi drivers, and others who are affected by the high price of energy.

It is literally a catastrophe, when we know that from 1989 through to 2004, the latest figures from Statistics Canada, 60% of Canadian families are poorer now than they were then. What we have seen are repeated failures on economic policy and money that is continually being sucked to the wealthy. As well, while we see these record levels of profits from the petroleum companies, we are seeing lower corporate taxes.

My question for the member is the following. She has spoken very eloquently about the impact. We know this week that those who have been perhaps most profoundly impacted by this are from Alberta. The income of Alberta farmers has plunged 50% in the past year, in fact more steeply than any other province. Yet, not a single one of the 28 Alberta members of the Conservative Party has stood up to defend Alberta farmers, even though many of those farmers have supported Alberta Conservatives in the past.

When Alberta farmers have been most dramatically impacted by this, why is the government doing nothing? Why is it ignoring Alberta farmers? Why is it leaving those Alberta farmers to hang by themselves?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

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

Unfortunately, I must inform him that it is not only western farmers, farmers from Alberta, who have been abandoned, but farmers from across the country. People having a hard time making two ends meet have also been abandoned. We have seen, with the bicycle industry, the textile industry and all manufacturing industries, that it is not only western farmers who are being abandoned, but everyone.