Robert Vincent

[Manufacturing, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the oil industry is making record profits and the government continues to keep that industry in its good graces. However, the Quebec and Canadian manufacturing sector has been harshly affected by the increased price of oil and its impact on the value of the Canadian dollar. We are talking about some 38,000 jobs lost this year in addition to the 145,000 jobs lost in 2005.

Does the Minister of Industry intend to support the Quebec and Canadian manufacturing sector, thereby protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs?

[Manufacturing Industry, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the current government lacks consistency, in that it keeps saying one thing and then the opposite. On the one hand, the Conservatives are refusing to implement the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal designed to protect the Quebec bicycle industry, presumably to prevent a price hike; on the other hand, they are also refusing to act on gasoline prices, to the detriment of a much larger number of consumers, in order to protect the interests of Alberta.

While raking up billions in profits, the oil sector is in the good graces of the Conservative government. Yet, the manufacturing sector is directly affected by skyrocketing energy prices and their impact on the value of the Canadian dollar.

Raleigh Canada, in my riding, and Procycle Group, in the industry minister's riding, are among the victims. These two leading bicycle manufacturers have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to look into the matter. They won their case, but the government prefers not to act.

The government has to act; there are hundreds of jobs on the line.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada in 1986 when Bill C-45 was adopted, becoming the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Part III of this law provides for measures to protect the health and safety of Parliament Hill employees. However, 20 years and four prime ministers later, Part III has never been proclaimed.

Why has the current Minister of Labour not yet announced his intention to enact this law without any further delay?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. My question will be brief, as we are running out of time.

She said that the Liberals did not do a thing during the past 13 years, which is why poverty has increased.

Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives will do any better? I do not think so. I would like to hear what she has to say about this.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am allotted a little more time than when I asked my first question.

When the member says that it is disingenuous, is he taking Alberta as the standard of reference for industry? If so, I will point out to him that industry accounts for only 8% of jobs in Alberta. So, in terms of industry and competition, he did not pick the right jurisdiction. With respect to industry, Quebec and Ontario would be better choices. Enough with all the talk about Alberta. We have heard enough. Anyone serious about dealing with the real problem will look after industry, and, as I indicated, industry is mainly concentrated in Quebec and Ontario.

Therefore, as regards assistance for workers, I will raise two points, starting with the bicycle industry. The ruling party has left the workers in this industry in limbo, by stating that they get $67 less on each bicycle they make. This is encouraging to consumers. But when we put forward a motion on gasoline prices designed to encourage consumers, this government again encouraged an industry which just happens to be based in Alberta. What a coincidence, because that is all we keep hearing about.

Then, the government claims to help industries with a tax cut. I will point out that, in order to benefit from a tax cut, one has to pay tax to begin with. The fact is that many industries cannot benefit from a tax cut because they do not pay tax because they are not making any profits because the government is not looking after them.

My question is this: What will your government do for industry in Quebec and Ontario, so that these people can withstand the Asian competition?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I will have the opportunity to ask other questions later in the day.

I feel we are getting off topic. We are talking about education, but that is not the whole problem. Far from it. The problems experienced by industry are caused by competition from emerging countries, including China and other Asian countries.

What can we do to help these people? We need a policy to help companies be more competitive.

I would like to ask this question of the hon. member opposite. How does he perceive the Canadian industry that must face Asian competition? What measures does he propose to improve Canada's competitiveness with respect to Asian markets?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the member suggested that we had come up with our motion sitting around at Tim Hortons. He should know that not all caucuses meet at Tim Hortons to draft their motions and bills, as is now the practice of the Liberal caucus. If he drafted Bill C-19 while snacking on Timbits, that was not consistent with House usages, especially since we had to give the Liberals a hand.

With respect to Bill C-19, I should point out that this bill had to be strengthened in 2005 by raising the maximum fine for conspiracy from $10 million to $25 million and broadening the competition bureau's power to investigate, allowing it to investigate industries within its jurisdiction.

We had to give the Liberals a hand; otherwise, they would not have been able to do a thing.

I would like to say this to my hon. colleague. Even his own constituents should tell him that $1.08 a litre is still too high a price. In addition, taking position against allowing healthy competition is totally distressing for this member.

[Bankruptcies, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the program of help for workers is needed urgently. In Granby, in my riding, the company C-Plast has gone bankrupt, thus depriving its employees of their holiday pay.

Would the minister consider implementing this program as of the date of Royal Assent, which was November 25, so that workers in the riding of Shefford could recover their money?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on the subject of the price of gasoline. In my riding and probably all around Quebec, people are starting to feel fed up and even disgusted when they see the price of gas going up to $1.08 or $1.18 a litre. That is unthinkable for working people and young families earning the minimum wage. It has become a luxury just to drive to the service station and fill up. When it costs $50, $60 or $70 to fill the gas tank and a person’s gross wages are $200, it takes almost half his earnings. It is crazy.

If my colleagues are not hearing that in their ridings, there must be a slight problem. The same problem exists in industry, which is facing serious difficulties. Most industries heat with fuel oil, which has risen 10¢ a litre. In industry, that ends up making a difference in the profits. When there is a difference in the profits, two groups of people are likely to suffer, and it sure is not the industry itself. Either the problem is shifted onto the workers, whose wages are cut to help the company deal with the price of oil, or else the consumer pays. In both cases, we are the losers, and it is because of the increase in the price of oil.

There is no desire on the part of the members of this House, especially the Conservatives, to counteract this increase. With competition, there should be some ideas for a solution. We heard some all morning long. They are the best, because no one in this House, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, had any ideas for counteracting the increase in gas prices. Competition is one thing, but if the government supports the world price of crude, we are also colluding because we support this price.

In the Alberta oil sands, the price is now about $13 a barrel. Albertans rely on the world price. It pays. By selling a barrel at the world price of $73, they can make about a $60 profit on every barrel. That is why no one is revolting against the oil companies: they are making money.

There should be a tax, a surtax for these oil companies, since they make so much money on top of all the presents we give them. Two hundred and fifty million dollars is no trifle. That is what every oil company got last year.

Has the government thought about the young families who find out the government has granted a tax rebate of $250 million? It makes no sense. The people in my riding are incensed about paying $1.08 to $1.18 a litre, when the oil companies are making billions of dollars in profits and when, on top of that, the oil companies each get a little gift of $250 million. They claim these gifts are necessary and that the oil companies will reinvest the money in Canada. That is not how it works. The oil companies are quite capable of doing development where they come from, and they do not need us to do it. With their $10 billion, $15 billion or $20 billion, I do not think they need another $250 million from us.

If there is still too much money, if there are billions of dollars extra, we know where to invest that $250 million. We proposed solutions all morning.

This money could be invested in EnerGuide, a program taken away from the public. We must suppose that the government did not think it was all that good. Still, we think it is good. In fact, this program can be a good deal for people who take advantage of it and save money.

I am going to tell you how much you can save with EnerGuide. The Conservatives forgot about that. EnerGuide makes it possible to save a lot of energy. Owners taking part in the program reduce their energy bills by about 30%. That is not negligible, it amounts to $750, or about $18,750 over a period of 25 years.

EnerGuide is also an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a cost of less than $100 a tonne. We know what the consequences of pollution are. And we know that the oil companies are the biggest polluters in Canada.

But the government does not take that into account. Albertans are so nice. They have oil. They make profits. All that time, the government does nothing and just watches the boat go by. It says it wants to try and find a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, but I think the greater part of this plan already exists.

The oil companies are the biggest polluters that exist in Canada. What is the government doing for the people in the rest of Canada against these polluters? Absolutely nothing. It leaves them alone, saying that the industry must be left to develop.

The industry must not develop in just any old way or at any cost. If public health is harmed, the situation is not much better, the problem is diverted. And then, we hear there is a pollution problem that has to be dealt with. We have a double standard.

I understand that the government is in a spot. I understand that it wants to do nothing. I understand that it does not want people to steal oil. We do not want oil. We have electricity. That is clean energy. That is what it should be considering: how to go about getting renewable energy and clean energy. I do not think that it has considered this. Its only thought is to help out the oil companies. How wonderful. A few gifts here, a few gifts there, and there you go. But the lowly consumer gets no gifts and no benefits.

The modest worker gets no tax cuts. I am not sure that the little income tax cut and the little 1% GST cut will permit small families to buy a car. I heard the government exulting: with a 1% reduction, taxpayers will be able to buy themselves a car! Does it really believe that? If you are buying a $20,000 car, this 1% reduction amounts to $200. Does the government really believe that a family with an average income of $40,000 will be buying a $20,000 to $25,000 vehicle tomorrow morning thanks to a 1% cut in the GST? Come on! That is absurd.

The price of gas is nothing to laugh at. Today the price of a barrel, as I was saying earlier, is hovering around $73. At the pump, that means an average increase of about 37¢ per litre between 2002 and today. If we had pay raises equivalent to the increases in the price of oil, everyone would be happy. There would not be a single worker complaining.

It goes so fast. Here, all that we have for workers are wage freezes, wage cuts to be able to compete with other countries. And when the government has the chance to help the people, it lets it go by.

The best example is this one.

The government had a golden opportunity to introduce a surtax on the import of these bikes. But this is not a surtax. I am told its purpose is to help out consumers. We would have had this for only three years, not for a lifetime. It was a temporary three-year measure. After that, retailers would have been free to do as they wished.

[Bicycle Industry, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, although the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended that the government apply safeguards to protect the bicycle industry, workers at the Raleigh bicycle company run the risk of losing their jobs.

Does the Minister of International Trade realize what he is doing? The possible closing of the Raleigh bicycle plant and the ensuing loss of jobs will be caused primarily by his refusal to intervene on behalf of this industry, as permitted by the WTO and as recommended in the ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.