Serge Cardin

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate solution, which has never been tried or adopted, is really for Quebec to achieve sovereignty. As for the so-called defenders of Quebec on the government side, who come from Quebec, they are far from working for the interests of that province.

In every issue the Bloc Québécois gets involved in, developing programs to implement ways to improve efficiency, it always works for Canadians as well because, in most cases, what is good for Quebec is also good for Canada, and also for sovereignty in this instance.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must give a number of answers to my colleague across the floor, because he asked a number of questions.

When looking closely at the price of oil, we note that several factors come into play, including the price of crude. More and more, we must be aware of the fact that, around the world, people are becoming owners of the oil sector. They have more and more power to intervene in the fluctuating price of a barrel of oil. Naturally, more and more external factors are being used to make it fluctuate.

Of course, we do not have the tools to do this on a global level. However, we have certain options here in relation to the Competition Act and, above all, with the monitoring agency.

The hon. member seems to forget the following, and he should observe this at home: on four street corners, imagine there are four different oil companies represented and, in one minute, the price goes up. The next day, at the same time, the price goes down. This means that there is no competition between the retailers, between the oil companies. Therefore, there is no competition in this area.

With an organization that can be as flexible as a monitoring agency, which can follow market developments daily, if not almost hourly, we can determine who is putting money in their pockets at the expense of consumers.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk with people about the price of oil, gasoline or heating fuel, their eyes widen. In one there is a big dollar sign, and in the other a big question mark. At the same time, we can see smoke coming out of their ears. Do not worry, it is not greenhouse gases but steam from the rising pressure that the oil companies are putting on their daily lives.

For several years now, the price of petroleum products has been trending upward. The factors behind this increase are well-known: some are understandable, others less so, and some not at all. These increases have effects that cost the world economy, the Quebec and Canadian economy, the regional economy and also family economies dearly.

During this time, the oil companies have benefited shamelessly. They have record sales, and their net profits are therefore rising. In addition, the government is lavishing gifts on them.

Fortunately, we have the Bloc Québécois. It is there to tell the government what to do, as we did with the Liberal government, although the Liberals failed miserably, unfortunately, and wasted billions of dollars without having any effect on the price of oil and missing its target when it came to assistance for the most disadvantaged.

The price of oil has increased 13% since the beginning of the year, and observers tend to think that it will reach new highs in the weeks to come.

Despite the insistent attempts of the big oil companies to convince consumers that they are well served by the current market, there is still a problem: the lack of transparency.

As we all know, millions of Quebeckers and Canadians rely on transportation, whether public or private. Whether for work, leisure or family reasons, we need gas for our daily travels. But fuel is blowing everyone’s budget these days, especially low-income families.

There are frequent changes in the prices of gas and fuel oil. Media attention and the visibility of these prices make consumers especially aware of the fluctuations; especially aware, to be sure, but mostly especially worried. Every day millions of Quebeckers and Canadians see their travel costs rise. Every day they have to deprive themselves, make their calculations, without knowing what tomorrow will bring. It is even worse in winter.

In my riding, in Sherbrooke, people have joined forces and signed petitions in the hope that the government would come to their assistance. The government must do what it can to ease their burden.

How can we remain insensitive to this situation? How can we close our eyes, as the government seems to be doing, to the worry and distress of citizens who must sometimes deprive themselves of the basics so that they can keep on going to work every morning.

Some will say that the growing economy of the Asian countries has increased demand to such a point that oil inventories are down and that the small amount available is worth its weight in gold. Others will say that innovation and development in the Asian countries have markedly reduced the working inventory of crude oil and products needed to meet a given level of demand.

The demand is increasing. Drivers are unfortunately not trading in their cars quickly enough for less energy-consuming vehicles, though often simply because they cannot afford to.

To the Bloc Québécois it is clear that the development of clean energy is the best way for the future. Our dependence on oil has to be reduced. That is the real solution, but it requires time, collective awareness and real political will.

We have often raised this issue in this House, the use of oil and oil products as a source of energy is one of the major causes of the climate changes so harmful to the planet. We have to reduce our oil bill by reducing our dependence on this product.

Quebec is on the right track since, except for Norway, it is the only society in which oil is not the primary source of energy consumed.

The increase in the price of oil has also had some very harmful effects on the economy. One effect is to artificially increase exports from Quebec and Canada, causing a rise in the worth of the dollar, and causing problems for the entire manufacturing sector, which is already suffering badly.

All this time, the oil companies are making profits like never before. In 2005, sales for Canadian oil and gas companies rose by 333.2% over 1995. But the taxes paid by these businesses to the government will fall. They will fall because the Income Tax Act allows them to deduct the mining and oil royalties they pay to the provinces. On top of that, their income tax has been decreased.

The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to impose a surtax on oil company profits by increasing the current surtax applicable to corporate tax from 4% to 25.5%. That would represent additional revenues of $500 million, which could be invested in such things as clean energy.

And finally, they are entitled to a very special tax gift: the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands investments. The Bloc Québécois has denounced these tax gifts on a number of occasions and will continue to do so, because what we are seeing at present is an unprecedented transfer of wealth to the oil companies at the expense of the public. This must stop.

The price increases are being met with vigorous protests and widespread discontent. The government must take the necessary measures to control the situation, and in particular must ensure that no middlemen are exploiting their position or the circumstances.

The Bloc Québécois is asking that the government bring back an improved Bill C-19 to amend the Competition Act and give the Competition Bureau the power to undertake investigations on its own initiative, among other things.

The Bloc Québécois is also calling for a real petroleum monitoring agency to be created, as we proposed in our motion back in February 2003.

I am deeply concerned about the fate of the planet, particularly in view of the inertia—not to say backtracking—that this government seems to be encouraging when it comes to environmental issues.

I am deeply concerned about the fate of industries in Quebec that do not have enough leverage from the government to help them deal with today’s global issues, and that are also having to deal with the rising costs of transportation.

Most importantly, I am deeply concerned about the people who are struggling to make ends meet because the cost of gas and oil is cutting into their meagre incomes. I am talking about people in my riding—Sherbrooke—and people in all the regions of Quebec.

I would reiterate that the government has to establish a plan to counteract the negative effects of repeated increases in gas prices and reduce our dependence on oil.

[Buffet of Nations in Sherbrooke, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Sherbrooke help centre for new Canadians held its 35th Buffet of Nations on May 6.

The Sherbrooke help centre for new Canadians opened its doors more than 50 years ago, its purpose to welcome new arrivals to the region by easing their integration into the community's social, economic and cultural life.

The Buffet of Nations showcased the cuisine of 36 countries, and over 700 guests took part in this round-the-world gastronomical tour. There is nothing quite like it in Quebec or in Canada.

I would like to congratulate the staff of the Sherbrooke help centre for new Canadians and the volunteer members of the Buffet of Nations organizing committee.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Natural Resources and MP for Mégantic—L'Érable, a riding that is in the eastern townships. There is no doubt that discussions, intentions and lip service aside no one can oppose virtue. However, we heard pretty much the same speech from the Liberal government for a number of years before it decided to commit seriously to the Kyoto protocol.

If the parliamentary secretary knows things about the Conservative Party plan, it would be an appropriate time to tell us what it is about and what it is really based on. In terms of research, technology and energy efficiency, I would like to know what the plan is.

Are capture and storage to have budgets along the lines of those the government is allocating to expanding prisons and creating new prison space instead of fighting crime? In other words, instead of working to reduce greenhouse gases, the government will capture and store them. The main principle is not to go looking for gas, but above all not to produce it.

I would like to know whether the member is aware of his party's plan, given that he is arguing so much against the Kyoto protocol. Will the minister indicate at the summit her intention to continue to apply the Kyoto protocol while ensuring that the international community meets its objectives? I would like to know what the plan and its objectives are.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. It is in fact disappointing to see that the Conservatives do not have more initiative and more vision. They will pretty soon be held to account. In Quebec, 90% of the population supports the Kyoto protocol.

Is this protocol really unworkable and unachievable? I do not think that we can hide behind these labels. We have to reach a reduction of 32% to meet our commitments. If we give up, where will we be in five years from now? However, if we go ahead, if we innovate, we can get close to these objectives. We have the people to do it. It is through innovation, initiative and vision that the government has to get involved and it has to do it as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the first suggestion I would make to my Conservative colleague is to avoid being fatalistic and always making references to the past.

One would have thought that after many years of forced rest — since 1993 to be precise — a new and dynamic government would have shown more initiative. We could not imagine that it would want to work alone in its corner and that it would renege on the commitment to work to reach a common global goal to save our planet that was taken here in the House by the Canadian government.

There are ways to reach that goal through innovation, research, development and new technologies. However, we should certainly not try to protect someone somewhere. We should not do that.

We know that 81% of greenhouse gases come from the production and use of energy, at least 50% for oil alone. Right now, funds are available to do something about these greenhouse gas emissions. However, going back on one's promise is a sign of a marked disinclination to go farther and to innovate through development.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell you that I am going to split my time with my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

The planet is showing very obvious signs of distress. It is speaking to us. It is sending us messages that only irresponsible people simply refuse to hear.

On the eve of the Bonn summit, you, Mr. Speaker, and I and 90% of Quebeckers feel strongly that it is very urgent to take steps to counter the causes of climate change.

We have reached a turning point in human history and the well-being of future generations depends on what we decide now.

The Kyoto protocol is the fruit of many years of work and collaboration by the international community. For the time being, it is the most effective and comprehensive tool we have to counter climate change.

Quebeckers are in agreement that the objectives of the Kyoto protocol must be achieved, at the very least, or even exceeded. What concerns me is that, far from undertaking to keep the agreement, the Conservative government is trying to lull us by promising a made-in-Canada policy that, for the time being, has no form and even less content. Maybe the government should just tell us that it has turned its back on Canada’s responsibilities under this agreement, which was signed by nearly 160 countries.

Since the election of the Conservative government, the Minister of the Environment has never stopped saying that our objectives under the Kyoto protocol are unrealistic and impossible for Canada to achieve. However, other industrialized countries such as Germany and Britain, have successfully done what is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their countries.

Does the minister think that Canadians are less responsible, less determined, and less concerned about the fate of the planet than our counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic?

When they talk like this, the Minister of the Environment’s participation in Bonn at the UN conference on climate change—as its chair—serves only to discredit Canada internationally. In addition, the Conservatives’ election platform had nothing to say about the Kyoto protocol, which was missing as well from the Speech from the Throne.

In all sincerity, how can one say that there is anything reassuring at all about this preamble? How can we justify abandoning the objectives of the Kyoto protocol when anyone who is concerned about the collective good feels there is an urgent need to implement the measures that are supposed to be taken in the short run to reduce the negative effects of climate change?

Is it blindness, a desire to copy American policy, or just basic ignorance of the essential needs of the environment that leads the Conservative government to be so thoughtless and so lacking in vision with respect to a matter of such importance to us all?

Never have we heard this government show any creativity to improve energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the Canadian and Quebec economy.

Some people will tell me that the Conservative government just came into office. Yes, it just came into office. However, there has been nothing in its recent statements to offer any hope for a clear concern about environmental issues.

Never have we heard the government talk about promoting forms of sustainable development, whether in agriculture, renewal energy sources or technologies that are environmentally rational and innovative. Never have we heard the government mention, in any way, that it would limit or force the reduction of emissions of methane gas through its recovery and use in the waste management sector as well as in the production, transportation and distribution of energy.

On December 17, 2002, following a majority vote in the House of Commons, Canada committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 6% during the period 2008-12 compared to its 1990 level.

However, Canada's greenhouse gas emission record is far from being brilliant since it was producing 24% more greenhouse gas in 2003 than in 1990. Consequently, to reach the initial target, Canada must now reduce its annual emissions by 32%.

What we are hearing from the Conservative government is far from being reassuring. Since Canada has been hesitant and even timid in its initiatives, since this hesitation is putting us today in a situation where we are getting behind in reaching our initial targets, there is no reason to think that we will be able to catch up. Instead, I fear that the government will lead us further into an inertia that will cause irreparable damage to our planet in the long term.

In its recent budget, never have we heard this government mention in the list of its tax reductions or tax incentives that firms that go against the convention objectives, in greenhouse gas emission sectors, would be penalized.

In fact, the only concrete measure in this budget, in connection with Kyoto, is a tax credit for users of public transit. Grass-roots movements around the country clearly demonstrate more initiative in this area. Here is an example. People in my riding, Sherbrooke, have come together to find ways of making public transit free for the whole population. This idea came about under the leadership of the Université de Sherbrooke, which has offered public transit free of charge to its students for a few years now. Today the results speak for themselves. Twenty per cent of the students have given up their cars and are taking the bus. There are also some infrastructure savings due to the need for fewer parking spaces, in spite of an increase in clientele. That is what it means to have a vision for the future based on sustainable development.

It is precisely because initiatives in Quebec have shown their effectiveness that the Bloc Québécois is demanding that the federal plan be accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec, based on a territorial approach, which should provide the financial tools to enable Quebec to implement the most effective measures for reducing greenhouse gases on its territory.

Today, responsible countries make sustainable development not only a slogan but also a reality firmly rooted in their daily management. These responsible countries make every effort to apply the measures provided for in Kyoto in order to reduce negative effects to a minimum, such as those of climate change, repercussions on international trade and the social, environmental and economic consequences for themselves, their neighbours and all the inhabitants of this planet.

What is the government doing in the meantime? It is pushing back the deadlines. It is hesitating, trying to sell us a single policy to please its chief trading partner, which refused to ratify Kyoto. What is it basing itself on, this government, when it claims that it can do better by going it alone? What kind of message will we be sending the world if we persist in giving up before the greatest collective challenge ever faced by our planet? We will not be fooled, and neither fine words nor fine promises will succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Bloc Québécois, environmental stakeholders and Quebeckers who have chosen to go ahead with reducing greenhouse gases. Actions are what count and citizens are entitled to expect firm commitments from this government.

With only hours to go before the Bonn climate change conference, we are concerned about the negative impacts that such laxity on the part of the Conservative government cannot help but have in the international community. We are therefore sending a clear message to this government, asking it to make a commitment to respecting the Kyoto protocol, an international agreement to which Canada is legally bound and to which 90% of Quebeckers give their support.

In closing, some claim that the Conservative government up to now is doing what it promised, what it said it would do. In the case of the Kyoto protocol—Heaven forbid—let us hope for the good of the planet that above all it does not do what it said it would.

[The Environment, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in this very important file, as in others, the Conservative government seems to be taking its lead from the Bush administration.

Can the minister guarantee us that this will not be the case in the Kyoto file and that her plan will allow Canada to meet its Kyoto protocol targets?

[The Environment, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now, the Minister of the Environment has been promising us an implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol. In less than 12 days, she will chair an important conference, in Bonn, attended by Kyoto signatories. Yet, she still does not have a plan to present to us.

Under these circumstances, does the minister realize that she will seriously lack credibility if she goes to that conference without a plan for how Canada is going to implement the Kyoto protocol?