Look at them laughing, Mr. Speaker. Sure, they can go to cocktail parties with big business here in Ottawa, or in Toronto, Montreal or Calgary. The reality is that we have become nothing more than providers of natural resources, except for some high-tech sectors that are struggling to get by but have to face global competition. I have heard some talk about that from the aerospace industry and other high-tech businesses.
After listening to the speech by the hon. member for Halifax West, I have to admit that my charges of ingenuousness, naivety, or at worse, complicity, also apply to the Liberals. I can hardly believe that this member could claim that there was absolutely nothing to be done with respect to adding value to our natural resources, oil in this instance. I am going to give him some time to understand this as I give him a brief course on the subject.
In the petroleum marketplace, there has been massive consolidation at the refining stage. A number of Canadian refineries have closed, which has reduced the distribution of refined products and forced prices upward, as the refinery margins have increased. When a market is left to operate as it wishes, it tends to consolidate and become an oligopoly.
I cannot stop the hon. member for Halifax West, or any of my Conservative colleagues, from drinking the Kool-Aid they are offered at the cocktail parties they attend. However, I will not let them serve that Kool-Aid to the people of Canada, because I am convinced something can and must be done.
In fact, there are many countries on the international market that make Canada look like a Boy Scout in comparison, like a little boy in shorts getting bullied in the schoolyard. One day we will need to wake up because, while they savour their great success stories, when I go meet people in the field, as I did all summer long, and as I will continue doing this fall and winter, people talk to me about their concerns. They are afraid of losing their homes, they want to have a decent job, and they want their kids to have a future. That is the reality of the situation.
Let us talk now about the issue that concerns us, another part of the situation. The issue is truly important because the future of vast regions and populations that are very proud of their identity, their history, their achievements and, most of all, their way of life is at stake. We cannot place them in jeopardy just to address specific interests, or even one interest.
Let me tell you a bit about my childhood. I grew up in Saint-Rédempteur, which is now part of Lévis. That same city of Lévis, now unified, houses one of eastern Canada's very large refineries, the Ultramar refinery, which operates at full capacity. Over the past few years, it again invested hundreds of millions of dollars to improve production. My father, who was a carpenter, helped build the refinery in the 1960s and 1970s, so it is part of my heritage, in a way.
The reality is that the Ultramar refinery is fed, almost entirely, by imported oil. We can always discuss the merits and problems of importing oil, but beyond that, there is a very clear reality for eastern Canada, in that it is largely dependent on foreign markets for its supply of petroleum products.
This is the kind of debate the House should hold on other days. The problem must be taken seriously because it concerns our collective future and our quality of life. We must not ignore the fact that the world changes very quickly. Of course, Conservatives want, at all costs, to live like in the good old days, but life is change. Life is progress. Being progressive means meeting the challenges of everyday life head-on.
Regardless of what options are chosen following these debates about our energy future, we must realize that the oil industry is risky, in every aspect. I will use an analogy. Driving involves a risk. I regularly drive between Quebec City and Ottawa. That is a risk, but it is a risk that can be managed. Driving the wrong way on the highway, on the other hand, is a totally unacceptable, reckless and suicidal risk.
If we consider the goal that building the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal is intended to achieve, a goal tied strictly to export, that is like wanting to drive the wrong way on the highway. Why are the Liberals and Conservatives so intent on closing their eyes, letting things run their course and finding themselves with a fait accompli? Why let it get to the point of no return? We will be left with an unmanageable legacy.
We really have to think clearly on this. There will have to be a debate about the decisions to be made for bringing oil from the west to the east. We will have to examine options. In the case of the Gros-Cacouna port, the debate we are having today is precisely about putting quality of life in the balance, or even the possibility that we will have thousands of people living in a fragile environment. If I had more speaking time, I could have talked about the beautiful landscapes in Kamouraska and Cacouna, for example, with their lowlands that are bathed by the salt water of the river.
I recall a battle to protect the aboiteaus, several decades ago now. That shows just how interconnected the farmlands and the river are.
When we understand the river environment of the St. Lawrence, we know just how enormous the constraints of that environment are, with its currents and tides, and we know that a spill would be an immeasurable and virtually unmanageable disaster. It would affect virtually everyone from the Île d'Orléans to Matane or Sept-Îles.
We cannot disregard the fate of those communities to fulfill the wishes of a single very small group.
