Guy André

[Forest Industry, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, more victims have succumbed to the forestry crisis. Following the definitive loss of more than 200 jobs yesterday in Saint-Michel-des-Saints, we learn today that another 200 jobs are being lost in Haute-Mauricie. Yet, no concrete measures were announced in the throne speech to support the workers, communities and families affected by this crisis. Instead of helping, the government is only adding to the crisis through its laissez-faire ideology.

Why does the government still refuse to introduce concrete measures?

[Manufacturing Industry, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Quebec manufacturing sector is in jeopardy, the government has once again chosen to do nothing. No concrete measure was announced in the Speech from the Throne to assist the manufacturing sector. This true blue government still thinks that the free market can solve everything and that any state intervention can only have negative effects for industry.

All the while that the federal government is telling us that it is doing the right thing by doing nothing, Quebec has been losing more than 60,000 manufacturing jobs, since the Conservatives came to power.

When will this government understand that the new challenges of globalization call for immediate and effective measures to be taken by the federal government? What the Bloc Québécois is asking it to do, instead of trying to minimize the effects of the manufacturing crisis, is to live up to its responsibilities and support the workers and businesses affected by this crisis.

[Festivals and Special Events, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that the federal government transfer to the Government of Quebec the $60 million allocated over two years to support festivals in Quebec.

We know the minister already has the criteria in place, as agreed upon by members of the cultural community, as well as the Government of Quebec and the Canadian festivals coalition. So, what is the hold-up, considering that the summer season is just around the corner and this is when so many festivals are held?

In Berthier—Maskinongé, we have two major events that have important repercussions on our community's economy, tourism and cultural life. These two events are the Festival de la galette de sarrasin in Louiseville and the Festival de la truite mouchetée in Saint-Alexis-des-Monts.

The worst solution of all is inaction. I therefore call on the minister to do whatever it takes to ensure that our festivals obtain the funds they need to survive, and before the summer season is upon us.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. Natural resource protection issues and environmental issues are not the forte of the ruling Conservative Party. If we look at the whole issue of oil sands development, we can see that, for this kind of right wing government, economic considerations take precedence over any social or environmental ones.

The concern Quebeckers have right now, a concern shared by my hon. colleague, which prompted him to put this motion forward, is that, in a context of trade relations between Canada and the United States under NAFTA, economic considerations take precedence over protecting our water resource and, more basically, ensuring our own survival. Water is essential to human survival and should under no consideration be treated as a commodity. That is what prompted this motion.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This report, tabled by my colleague the member for Sherbrooke, a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, recommends that the federal government:

quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

The reason the Bloc Québécois has proposed this motion is that we are determined to ensure that Quebec’s fresh water reserves and those of Canada never become the subject of bargaining and will not be sold to the United States, where the need for water is becoming more and more urgent. We are under pressure now from some American states that want water.

Before explaining our motion in more detail, I want to emphasize that in committee the Bloc Québécois received the support of the NDP and the Liberal Party, at least, we hope it is still there. However, we did not receive the support of the Conservative Party, which used all kinds of manoeuvres to try to sidetrack or derail the debate. The Conservatives even tried to delay adoption of the motion by all sorts of procedural strategies that bring shame on democracy. They have done the same with other motions in many other committees, as my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out, including the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

I must confess that it is rather disturbing to see the Conservatives using these partisan procedures with respect to a subject as important as water management. The reason we have proposed this motion is that we want to ensure that this vital natural resource is protected. For a number of years, more and more serious thinkers and economic decision makers from Quebec, Canada, the United States and Mexico have been meeting to discuss water exports. This is known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which is made up of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Other countries are beginning to covet our water. Several bulk water export projects have been developed in recent years, and other projects are now on the drawing board. All of these projects have been abandoned or will not be realized because they simply are not profitable. It is easy to believe today that the value of water will increase considerably when shortages become more serious and the pressure increases. The companies that are interested in exporting water will come forward with proposals for new projects. Economic issues will not even be a concern at that point.

The Conservatives say there is no question of exporting water. However, water scarcities among our neighbours to the south are appearing now as an increasingly important subject of negotiations. The importance of this motion becomes fully apparent in connection with NAFTA. We should remember that NAFTA is a free trade agreement applying to all goods and services unless they are explicitly excluded. For example, NAFTA does not apply to hydroelectricity generation or to products subject to supply management. They are explicitly excluded from the agreement. However, nothing in writing states that water is excluded. This means, therefore, that it is included under NAFTA. If it is not explicitly excluded, it is included.

It is important to know that this situation, which falls under federal responsibility, poses a danger to the provincial legislation currently prohibiting the exportation of water. Quebec prohibits exports of this kind. Water is under provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Quebec and eight other provinces have legislation prohibiting the exportation of bulk water. We want to preserve this valuable natural resource.

If water becomes a key issue in the United States and they are prepared to make a national security issue of it, it is easy to imagine the laws of Quebec and the provinces being challenged under NAFTA.

The Americans are going to want to bargain over water, and in return, they will lean on another free trade or export issue. They will bring pressure to bear on our economy and companies. We saw what happened in the softwood lumber issue. When the Americans put on the pressure to get something, they often get what they want.

Section 309 of the agreement states:

No Party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any good of another Party—

The laws of Quebec and the provinces protecting water and preventing bulk water exports would apparently constitute a prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale for export, as prohibited by NAFTA.

So long as water is not excluded from NAFTA, our legislation forbidding water exports can be challenged and possibly struck down.

Even though water is within Quebec's jurisdiction, international trade is always under federal jurisdiction. Free trade agreements are currently under federal jurisdiction.

We want the government to assume its responsibilities and immediately launch discussions with its NAFTA partners aimed at specifying in an accord that water is not included in NAFTA. This accord could take the form of a simple understanding—an exchange of letters among the three governments—stating that water is not included in NAFTA. This understanding would have to be viewed by international courts as an integral part of NAFTA.

The Conservative Party even tried to sabotage the work of the committee and prevent a witness from sharing his views on this issue. I suppose the Conservative chair of the committee did a good job of reading his manual on how to sow chaos and avoid dealing with subjects that do not suit the government. That is what he did to our committee when we introduced this motion on water.

It was in 1999 that the Bloc Québécois first asked the federal government to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. The response from the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has always been the same: it is pointless to exclude water from NAFTA because water, in its natural state, is not governed by NAFTA. Of course water in its natural state is not governed by NAFTA. In fact, no product in its natural state is governed by NAFTA or any other trade agreement. Since the Liberals already used this ridiculous argument, the Conservatives should have at least found another kind of sophistry to explain their opposition.

The Conservatives clearly do not have enough imagination to hide their inconsistency. Many seem to have grasped the fact that the Americans are not interested in water in its natural state. What they want is to take it south of the border. That water would no longer be in its natural state and would therefore be subject to NAFTA, as a commodity. That is precisely our fear.

To use the government's own examples, who would dare say that lumber, iron or fish are excluded from the scope of trade agreements? That is precisely what the government is saying with its ridiculous argument.

Water is a natural resource that must be closely and carefully protected. That cannot be negotiable.

We are calling on the Conservative government to stop repeating its arguments intended to mislead Canadians and take action to reach an agreement that clearly excludes water from NAFTA.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech on this bill that amends the Income Tax Act as far as trusts are concerned. Of course, as our colleague told us, we approve this bill because it contains some measures that are more in keeping with some social measures that we have put forward.

However, I would like my colleague to explain something. What is the public to think of a government that cuts programs for the poorest in our society—whether they are literacy programs, the court challenges program or women's programs—, a government that does not encourage people on EI but at the same time maintains a treaty that provides tax havens to rich companies?

How does my colleague explain this situation? What is the public to think about this lack of ethics on the part of a government that continues to help the rich while cutting programs for the poorest of the poor?

[Gilles Villeneuve, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week we are marking the 25th anniversary of the passing of the famous Quebec Formula 1 driver, Gilles Villeneuve, who lost his life in a tragic accident during the Belgian Grand Prix trials.

From a young age, Gilles Villeneuve had a real passion for automobile racing. With his great determination and immense talent, he quickly made a name for himself and climbed up the ranks of automobile racing before finally being hired by the most prestigious of the Formula 1 teams: Ferrari. His spectacular driving, daring and memorable passing manoeuvres made him a formidable competitor who was widely admired.

I would like to thank all the organizers and volunteers associated with the Gilles Villeneuve museum in Berthierville who, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his death, have staged an outstanding exhibition recalling the talent and achievements of this great Quebec race car driver.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Of course, the economy as a whole is threatened when gas prices skyrocket to levels as we are seeing these days. All of our policies, all of our social programs are threatened, because all families are getting poorer.

I know the member's concern for the well-being of families and for fighting poverty. The fact is that, when gas prices rise this much, the portion of a family' budget allocated to gasoline increases. This means less money for food, clothing and activities associated—

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member's question proves that he is not in an election campaign.

When there is no support for people who are being gouged by high gas prices, this shows a lack of willingness to help them, and it shows that we are definitely not in an election period.

I will remind the Conservative member of the testimony of Konrad von Finckenstein, Competition Commissioner, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on May 5, 2003. I would like my colleague to hear this, because he has certainly forgotten. At the time, if he was part of the Conservative opposition, he surely took it into account.

I quote:

—while the Bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being an investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the Bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study.

This was in 2003, but nothing has changed since then.

I quote again:

It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a study on the overall situation carried out by an independent body that would have authority, that would be able to summon witnesses and gather information.

He said he did not have the authority to act. I am not the one who said it, nor was it the Bloc Québécois. It was the competition commissioner appearing before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in May 2003.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. The motion we have introduced today concerns a very serious problem: the rise in gas prices. We must not forget that this has wide-reaching effects and is often very harmful to our economy. For example, the increase has a direct impact on the manufacturing industry, which is a major employer in my regional county municipality, in the county where I work and throughout Quebec. I hardly need remind this House that this industry is already in serious trouble.

Higher gas prices are driving up production costs and driving down badly needed investments in modernizing our manufacturing plants.

While our manufacturing sector is crumbling, our oil companies are continuing to post record profits, and greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. The combined net profits of the six largest integrated oil companies in Canada reached $12 billion in 2006. This is a $5 billion increase over 2004. Proportionally, profits are 70% higher than in 2004. We understand now that these figures are creating monstrous inflation in Quebec and across Canada.

What is the government doing to address these issues that are so vital to our economy? In both cases, it is using the same logic, which is simply to do nothing. We know that doctrinaire Conservatives believe that the free market can take care of everything and that any government intervention will only prevent the market from generating benefits. Unlike the Conservative government, we believe that it is possible to limit gas price increases, at least partially, which is why the member for Joliette has introduced this motion asking the government to amend the Competition Act so that the Competition Bureau can conduct investigations into the price of gas and the role of refining margins in determining gas prices.

Obviously, we are discussing gas prices today because they have jumped in recent days and weeks. Last week, the price of regular gas at the pump was $1.15 on average. Fluctuations aside, the price of gas is rising steadily in Quebec. In 2004, the average price of regular gas was 85.7¢. In 2005, it reached 96.7¢.

Why has the price of gas gone up? The price at the pump is made up of four main factors: the price of crude oil, which has gone up, taxes, the retailer mark-up and the refining margin.

A thorough analysis of the causes of gas price hikes reveals that the retailer mark-up has remained stable. Taxes have also remained stable. The rising price of crude explains the rising price at the pump to a certain extent, but it is clear that major increases are due in large part to the rising cost of refining oil, which is where big oil companies' outrageous profit margins have increased the most lately.

According to the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole, a reasonable profit margin at the refining stage is between 4¢ and 7¢ per litre. In April 2006, that profit margin was 19.5¢, and last Wednesday, it was up to a record-setting 27¢ per litre, the highest ever except for a short period following hurricane Katrina.

To understand this situation, we must remember that in 1990, oil companies downsized their North American refining operations. To cut costs, they closed several refineries.

As a result, supply soon matched demand. Therefore, when technical or weather-related incidents affect refining operations, price hikes are inevitable. That is not all. Slight increases in demand, such as during long weekends, often spur price hikes. For consumers, long weekends and summer vacations are not unexpected events. However, oddly enough, big oil companies never seem to be able to predict these periods and to prepare for them accordingly. They have nothing in reserve, and they tell us that the price increase is due to scarcity. We have seen this happen for years now.

The refining industry's inability—deliberate or otherwise—to respond to unexpected events raises a lot of questions. It is clear to us that the current structure of the oil industry leads to price hikes and market abuses. Although the industry is trying to persuade consumers that they are being treated fairly, consumers are, understandably, not convinced.

In short, one problem remains: there is lack of transparency, hence the importance of the Bloc Québécois motion being presented today. We have to discipline the industry and ensure that no middlemen, the refineries for instance, take advantage of the circumstances. To do so, we propose giving the Competition Act more muscle. For a number of years now we have been calling for this legislation to be changed in order to give the Competition Bureau real investigative power. This bureau could initiate investigations and call witnesses. It could also ensure their protection and study all aspects of the oil industry and propose solutions.

We also propose the creation of a real petroleum monitoring agency. This agency would be responsible for overseeing the industry by collecting and disseminating price data on refined petroleum products for all North American markets, and drafting annual reports on the competitive aspects. To date, the federal government has always refused to do this. These measures I have just listed are solutions that could be applied in the short term.

In the longer term, Quebec needs to take measures to reduce its dependence on oil. All the oil Quebec consumes is imported. In 2006, Quebec imported $13 billion worth of oil, which is up $7 billion in three years. At the same time, Quebec went from a trade surplus to a $7 billion deficit in 2006. The increase in the price of oil alone plunged Quebec into a trade deficit. Oil is making Quebec poorer. In the long term we have to invest in true alternative energies and launch a real initiative to reduce our consumption of oil for transportation, heating and industry.

Finally, I know that the Conservatives will not like these proposals but, in order to stop the oil industry from making us poorer as a society, we must redistribute resources and repeal the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in the oil sands immediately when the price of crude exceeds a threshold of somewhere between $40 and $50. The government announced this measure in its last budget, but it will not come into effect for another three years.

We have to make the oil companies pay for the environmental damage they cause. Refusing to stick to the Kyoto protocol is not going to solve these problems.

On all these matters we have to take action as quickly as possible, in order to save our jobs, our regions and our environment. Most of all, we have to leave room in society for future generations.