House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2025, with 44% of the vote.
The Environment February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to take action. The effects of climate change are omnipresent. The money is available as we can see from oil company profits.
Rather than insisting on defending the “poor”oil companies, why does the government not set absolute reduction targets, thus making it possible for a carbon exchange to be established?
The Environment February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, multinational oil companies had record profits in 2006, pocketing $12.1 billion, an increase of 25% over 2005 and 70% over 2004.
In view of these astronomical profits, does the government not think that it would be quite justified to have oil companies contribute between $0.58 and $1.16 per barrel to the cost of reducing greenhouse gases?
Tire Manufacturing Industry February 13th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Henri Massé, of the FTQ, contends that the Prime Minister does not want to provide any money to save the Goodyear plant because he is opposed to government intervention. Beyond any principle, a whole region is being threatened by the closing of the Goodyear plant.
What is the Minister of Industry waiting for to do his job and fight to save the 800 jobs at the Goodyear plant? Does he intend to act as he did with Boeing and allow market forces to decide without doing anything?
Tire Manufacturing Industry February 13th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, 800 jobs are on the line at the Goodyear plant in Valleyfield. The Government of Quebec is ready to do its part, the City of Valleyfield is ready to join in, but the federal government is dragging its feet over an interest-free loan that would still not be enough to re-open the plant. The time has come to act in order to save the 800 jobs at Valleyfield.
Why is the federal government refusing to put an offer on the table that is proportionate to the effort by Quebec and the City of Valleyfield?
Industry February 5th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the minister refused to do anything about the Boeing file because he said he did not want to engage in political interference. Is the minister planning to adopt the same attitude toward Goodyear workers, that is, use that as a pretext for refusing to intervene and abandoning them to their fate? The minister must know that it is his duty as minister to intervene.
Industry February 5th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, over 4,000 people demonstrated in support of Goodyear workers. The company is planning to cut 800 jobs over the next few weeks. The Save Goodyear Committee is preparing to go to the company's headquarters in Akron, Ohio, to persuade Goodyear to review its decision.
The Minister of Industry must be aware of what is going on. How does he plan to help the Save Goodyear Committee?
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I believe that the Bloc Québécois position is quite clear in this regard. We must do everything possible to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. These are attainable if the government takes concrete action to achieve real, tangible results.
In our case, this will come about with the measures recommended by the Bloc Québécois, such as the territorial approach, the carbon exchange—
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. I am not familiar with the issue raised.
However, I can say that the Bloc Québécois will fight to bring to an end the tax breaks given to oil companies, particularly the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands.
In view of anticipated investments of $31 billion by 2008, my colleague surely realizes that the oil companies will be able to write off an additional $15 billion over three years and not pay taxes on it.
The Conservative government is in a hurry to set targets so that the industry and the important players can take concrete action and invest their money in tackling climate change, which has a serious impact on our environment and our entire planet.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. Our message is that the Bloc Québécois is recommending and asking that the government set targets so that all the stakeholders can do their part.
It is not the Bloc's idea to call for targets in order to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal, for example. I will quote Rob Seeley, vice-president, sustainability and regulatory affairs, with Albian Sands Energy Inc. This man works in the oil industry, and he says:
—as the government goes forward and makes regulations with respect to greenhouse gases, it should consider what we would call market mechanisms in these regulations. The regulations need to be appropriate, but at the end, I think industry is preferable to what we call market mechanisms that would have emissions trading, and therefore reductions in CO2 could be considered as offsets. It's another way of funding or financing these kinds of investments.
I take a great interest in everything the Minister of Natural Resources writes and says, because I am the natural resources critic. As he himself said in the Winter 2006 issue of Canadian Natural Gas, “I do believe that while the government can offer support, it is the marketplace that drives and demands—.”
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.
I am pleased to speak today to the motion addressing climate change and the Kyoto protocol, particularly because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and we have spent the last three months examining the question of oil sands development in Alberta.
We did a serious study of this, in the course of which we held 29 meetings and heard nearly 100 witnesses. As part of that committee's work I even had an opportunity to visit an oil sands development site, Fort McMurray. I was able to get a concrete idea of the scope of that development and its effects on the environment in that part of the country.
We now know clearly that accelerating the development of this resource will increase greenhouse gases exponentially, and this will take us even farther from meeting the objectives in the Kyoto protocol, which is binding on Canada as a result of its ratification on December 17, 2002.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gélinas, told us, on January 18, it is very doubtful whether the reduction we have committed to under the Kyoto protocol can be achieved, unless the oil sands issue is considered a high priority and tackled head on. She also said that whatever measures the federal government may put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if the question of the oil sands is not addressed, all these efforts will have no effect, because the increase will continue exponentially.
Before proceeding, I would like to add a brief comment more directly related to Quebec. While the oil industry is said to contribute significantly to the economy of Alberta, its contribution to the economy of Quebec is less obvious. That industry alone is responsible for half of the increase in greenhouse gases since 1990.
Rising exports are causing the dollar to go up, and this in turn causes problems for the manufacturing industry as a whole. The never-ending increases in the price of fuel cost our economy dearly. In other words, what happens is a transfer of wealth from the economy as a whole to the oil industry, and the best way to remedy that problem is to make the oil companies contribute, through the tax system.
Before proceeding, I would like to remind this House of what this motion says:
That, in the opinion of this House:
(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;
(b) the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;
(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;
(d) the government must a establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and regulations for industry; and
(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.
I would remind the House that the Liberal motion before us today is in many ways a duplicate of the Bloc Québécois motion, which called for an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto protocol, and was passed in the House of Commons on May 16, 2006.
At the same time, it is unfortunate that, in less than a year, two motions addressing the Kyoto protocol have been debated in this House. This is a rather clear sign that the current Conservative government refuses to recognize climate change and does not feel bound by Kyoto. These debates are necessary because the Conservative government does not get it.
During the break, I met several primary school students and the first questions they asked me were: Why doesn't the government like the Kyoto protocol?
Why does he not understand that this is about our future, and that the most important thing we have to do is protect the environment?
Citizens have also contacted me about this issue. It makes no sense to them that politicians are still debating the importance of environmental issues, because it is perfectly obvious to everyone that climate change is threatening our planet and that the environment is in trouble.
It is perfectly clear to the Bloc, and that is why we made this issue a priority years ago. It is clear to us that humans are playing a major role in greenhouse gas emissions and that we are therefore very much to blame for climate change.
That is why we recognize that we have to act immediately and that is why we are constantly pressuring the current government—as we did the former government—to take concrete action. Speeches are all well and good, but our fellow citizens are demanding action. Seventy-six per cent of Quebeckers think that the government should do whatever is necessary to meet the Kyoto targets. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the Kyoto targets. Period. The people know it and the Bloc Québécois knows it, but the current and former governments do not seem to be clued in.
Everyone knows that the Conservative government is against the Kyoto protocol, which is not particularly surprising, given what the current Prime Minister said in 2002 when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance. He said:
Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry. Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. There are no Canadian winners under the Kyoto accord.
At that time, the priorities of the Alberta member for Calgary Southwest, now the Prime Minister, were obvious. The Minister of Natural Resources is in the same camp; this is what he said as a member of the opposition on December 3, 2002:
—I will start off with a very bold statement, that Kyoto should not be ratified. It is based on uncertain science with new doubts coming to light almost daily. It is based on poor economic models which hide the serious damage that will occur to Canada's economy.
On October 9, 2002, he said:
Kyoto will damage our industry but not rescue our environment. It is the worst of both worlds. Working Canadians simply cannot afford to lose $40 billion in such a pointless exercise.
It is not hard to see where the current Minister of Natural Resources' priorities lie when he talks about “our industry” and “losing $40 billion”.
Action taken by the Conservative government proves that its newly found interest in the environment is nothing more than pretense. The government is reinstating programs that it suspended, or even abolished, when it came to power, labelling them as inefficient. The Prime Minister has never wanted to give Quebec the $328 million needed for the Government of Quebec to attain the Kyoto objectives in its territory.
By digging in its heels and rejecting the protocol, the government lost face with countries that had ratified the Kyoto protocol. It refuses to establish clear targets even though the oil industry is asking for them. I quote Suncor's Stephen Kaufman:
Our comments regarding legislative provisions were that a policy to reduce carbon monoxide must be established with specific targets for emission reductions for the entire economy.
In closing, we will support the Liberal Party's motion as long as the credible plan called for includes the demands of the Bloc Québécois, that is respect for the Kyoto targets, a territorial approach—because Quebec already has its own greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan—, establishing a carbon exchange in Montreal and the $328 million needed by Quebec to attain its objective of reducing emissions to 6% below 1990 levels.