Serge Cardin

[Competition Act, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Shefford for introducing Bill C-452. The Competition Act is a very relevant topic, particularly with all of the news lately about oil. A huge quantity of oil is spilling into a natural environment and causing terrible pollution. I do not believe that such a major catastrophe has ever happened in our oceans. Those who authorize the construction of drilling platforms should make sure that they will be problem-free before construction begins.

The introduction of Bill C-452 virtually coincides with the study of Bill C-14. The Conservatives call this bill the Fairness at the Pumps Act, but that is just for show and yet another con on their part.

It is a little like the bill whose title referred to trafficking in children, but that contained nothing on the subject at all. That is how the Conservative Party operates. Calling it the Fairness at the Pumps Act is just a marketing strategy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act cover all measuring instruments, from scales used at the grocery store to weigh fruits and vegetables to those that weigh gold extracted from a mine. The acts cover all weights and measures. The Conservatives are calling this bill the Fairness at the Pumps Act because they want to look good in the public eye by positioning this as an issue that has a financial impact on Canadian and Quebec families.

The summer will soon be here. Some companies will get together to fix prices, because they know that gas use goes up in the summer. So they make the price fluctuate. Obviously, when we point a finger at the oil companies and say that there must certainly be collusion, proponents of economic theory and of the oil sector say that it is a result of the law of the market and the price of crude oil on the stock exchange, and even the price of gas on the stock exchange. I think it is a combination of faulty basic economic principles and people who speculate on the important issue of gas.

There is no doubt that we missed our chance, and that we have a problem with our dependency on oil. We must not be afraid to admit that society has failed. It is too easy to extract oil, but it is becoming a little more difficult. People are starting to think of alternatives. In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois has been saying for a number of years that we need to reduce our dependency on oil.

Right now, on the island of Montreal, the Shell refinery will perhaps force us to reduce that dependency more quickly. However, we must not forget that, as I was saying earlier, there has been a failure in terms of alternative and renewable energy.

The Competition Bureau still does not have the ability to launch its own inquiries. There must be a complaint from the private sector. Then, the Bureau can launch inquiries regarding potential collusion among oil companies, and even gas stations themselves, as we saw in the Eastern Townships two years ago. Time certainly flies.

We really have to change our attitude toward the oil industry and competition.

We need to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with oil price hikes. For some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been pressuring the government to take action to address the rising cost of petroleum products. We recommend a three-pronged approach.

First, we must bring the industry into line. That is the goal of Bill C-452, which gives teeth to the Competition Act. We should also set up a true monitoring agency for the oil sector.

Second, the industry must make a contribution. With soaring energy prices and oil company profits, the economy as a whole is suffering while the oil companies are profiting. The least we can do to limit their negative impact is to ensure that they pay their fair share of taxes. The Bloc Québécois is therefore asking that the government put an end to the juicy tax breaks enjoyed by the oil companies.

Third, we must decrease our dependency on oil. Quebec does not produce oil, and every drop of this viscous liquid consumed by Quebeckers impoverishes Quebec and also contributes to global warming.

Oil is making Quebec poorer, and we have to put an end to the bloodletting. All the oil Quebec consumes is imported. Every litre consumed means money leaving the province, thus making Quebec poorer and the oil industry richer.

In 2009, Quebec imported $9 billion worth of oil, a reduction because of the recession. In 2008, oil imports totalled $17 billion, an increase of $11 billion in the five years between 2003 and 2008. At the same time, Quebec went from a trade surplus to a trade deficit of almost $12 billion in 2009, not to mention that the increase in Alberta's oil exports made the dollar soar, which hit our manufacturing companies and aggravated our trade deficit. The increase in the price of oil alone plunged Quebec into a trade deficit.

Meanwhile, the oil companies are shamelessly taking advantage of this situation. They are posting record profits. In 1995, the entire Canadian oil and gas sector posted combined sales of $25 billion. By 2004, this figure had climbed to $84 billion.

Using and importing oil has a very significant impact on Quebec. Consequently, oil prices must be competitive and allow for alternative solutions to reduce our dependency on oil.

The best way to do that in the short term is to vote for Bill C-452, which would take fairness at the pumps beyond weights and measures and extend it to the oil industry as a whole.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at this in terms of geometry, we all know that parallel lines never meet. They are always the same distance apart. Indeed, parallel agreements associated with a free trade agreement rarely merge with the main point of that free trade agreement.

Furthermore, for all practical purposes, we should have taken the time to negotiate with the Uribe government, the government of Colombia, in order to send a clear message that we would be willing to sign a free trade agreement if the situation improves in terms of both human rights and of course environmental rights. We know very well how some mining companies conduct themselves here, so we can only imagine what they might do to the environment in a country like Colombia.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the dates do in fact seem to coincide. The new Liberal leader's attitude seems oddly similar to that of the Conservative government, particularly that of its leader and perhaps even the Reform ideology that permeates the Conservative Party.

I will never forget the support and backing we had from the Liberal Party in committee when we presented the report and the recommendations. We must be honest and transparent, and admit that the Bloc had the support of both the Liberal Party and the NDP. The Liberal Party supported several of the recommendations. Furthermore, regarding the main recommendation—calling on the government to ask a third party to assess the human rights situation and examine any positive changes—of course the Liberal Party supported us in that regard. Now it is doing the opposite. It wants Canada to sign the report and worry about the rest later.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is June 2010. Exactly two years ago, in June 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade published a report entitled “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia”.

All parliamentarians probably received a letter today from Canada's National Director of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. This represents a fair number of Canadians who are against the free trade agreement with Colombia. I will quote Canada's National Director of that union, Ken Neumann:

The United Steelworkers continues to support the 2008 recommendation of the Standing Committee on International Trade for an independent, impartial, third party assessment of human rights in Colombia before this legislation is signed, sealed and delivered to the Colombian regime.

This position reflects one of the main recommendations in the 2008 report, which stated that we would go along with a free trade agreement, provided that Colombia could show continued and stable improvement in the human rights situation.

Now we have a proposal from the Liberals, who are putting the cart before the horse. They claim to agree with the Conservatives that a human rights assessment should be done after the free trade agreement is signed with Colombia.

I remind my colleagues of some comments made in the dissenting opinion of the Liberal Party in June 2008:

A trade agreement with Colombia should be contingent on an independent human rights assessment which clearly demonstrates the progress of the Colombian Government on these important issues...It has long been the position of the Liberal Party that trade and human rights should not be done in isolation.

As it turns out, the Liberal Party is doing exactly the opposite of what it said. This change happened when the current Liberal Party leader took over and the agenda changed. We must not forget that even the United States has refused to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia and that it is still waiting for significant improvement in the human rights situation there.

It is clear that the government does not respect the will of parliamentarians as expressed in the report. Had we already begun the analysis and assessment process with independent human rights groups, we would already be in a position to describe with absolute certainty what has really been going on in Colombia for the past two years.

Have things improved? Are all of the necessary systems in place to foster continuous improvement? Given an opportunity to study a report produced by an independent group appointed to carry out the assessment, the majority of the House would already be prepared to support the agreement. However, I must repeat the following, just as I do every time I speak to the Colombia free trade agreement bill.

During the time that I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I never once saw a report that offered a credible assessment of the impact on Canada and Quebec's economy or that of the partner country, which in this case is Colombia.

We are all well aware and should not have to be reminded of what happened in Colombia. In terms of human rights, it was the world's worst offender. It may no longer be the worst, but it is probably close. The people are against this agreement because of the human rights situation in that country.

The committee listed a number of recommendations in its report to the Government of Canada. Clearly, the Conservative government did not respect the will of parliamentarians. The Canadian government flat out rejected some of the recommendations and made decisions based on ideology without taking into account the will of those who represent the people of Quebec and Canada.

I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois wrote a dissenting opinion. We confirmed our strong opposition to the signing and ratification of such a free trade agreement. We believe that the committee's report was misguided and biased and did not reflect the committee's opinion.

We disagree with this bill for several reasons. First, it is bad trade policy. The free trade agreement with Colombia has almost nothing to do with trade. It is mainly about investment. The investment agreement with Colombia looks strangely like the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. The government is trying to promote and protect investment.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of protecting domestic and foreign investments, but we know Canada is involved in developing Colombia's greatest resource: minerals. As an aside, the government says Canada needs to do business abroad and that since we began studying this report on the free trade agreement, trade with Colombia has changed for the better.

It is clear to us that trade between Canada and Colombia is limited. The agreement will therefore have limited benefits. This agreement is not about trade, as I said earlier. It is about investments in the Canadian mining sector.

When it comes to free trade agreements and especially the agreement with Colombia, the Conservative government has a deplorable attitude, like the one we saw too often in the early days of this vast world development. Companies went abroad and set up shop in the name of globalization. Multinationals tried to take advantage of poor working conditions, pitiful human rights recognition and weak environmental regulations. They wanted to make the most of the often negative discrepancies that leave countries' populations and economies unprotected.

Armed groups forced the displacement of huge segments of the population. More than three million people were displaced. Rebel forces stole people's land and took ownership of it. If the Colombian government wanted to put things right and restore land to the people who were displaced, the Canadian companies that bought that land would prevent the government from improving the human rights situation.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is convinced that these summits are important, but the costs should be reasonable. We would like to know what should be considered reasonable in the expenses submitted because $1.08 billion is a huge amount of money. It is 10,000 people being paid $100,000 each. I imagine they started working a long time ago and will finish well after the summit is done.

I realize that some money will be spent on things that will last. As one colleague stated earlier in the House, there are surely some things from the Olympic Games that could be reused.

To correct my colleague, I believe the cost in Quebec City was $100 million, for all forms of security. That amount provided security to 34 heads of state during the Summit of the Americas held in Quebec City.

I am wondering when the Prime Minister and the government are going to tell us that there were extra costs for all sorts of things, including incompetence, I imagine. That has a price and, in practical terms, it is more costly than competence. The government is trying to scrimp on competence, but that just drives up its budget.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the summits were held on a military base, they would not be as picturesque. The government wants to put on a show for the whole world. I imagine there will probably be some entertainment and fireworks.

It seems clear to me that the venue selection itself suggests a lack of planning. No doubt holding the summits in two different locations will double some of the costs.

The main purpose of the Liberal Party's motion is to find out whether the expenses are justified. My hope that the Prime Minister and the Conservative government will be able to justify these expenses may be in vain, but it is their responsibility to do so, and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ask for answers.

Surely you would like to know too, Mr. Speaker.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the news, needless to say, I burst out laughing. I laughed quite hard, and as Nelligan wrote:

I am glad, so glad, as I laugh aloud,

Oh! so glad, that I am afraid I will burst into tears!

And that is just what I did after my initial burst of laughter.

I thought the media and reporters were mocking the government and the Prime Minister, pointing to the government's excesses, showing its extravagance and amateurism, in essence showing that it had been affected by summit fever. But that is precisely what is happening. There can be no other conclusion. But as parliamentarians, we have responsibilities to the public, which is watching the government spend $1 billion to meet with friends it has met with before. The summary the leaders are going to sign at the end of their meeting is probably already being negotiated.

First, the government is meeting with eight others to set the table, have an aperitif and enjoy appetizers and the main course. Then it is going to meet with the 12 or 20 other governments for a little dessert, with port and chocolates, and hand them the declaration summarizing all the negotiations that have been going on for a month or two or even longer.

The government is going overboard; it is a simple as that. I started crying when I realized that this was costing us not an arm and a leg, but both arms and both legs. Essentially, it is costing us the earth. At the same time, many people in our society do not have enough money to meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. With $1 billion out of an annual budget of $225 billion, the Conservatives cannot hold too many parties every week or there will be no more money left for a lot of people, that is for sure.

My colleague mentioned some past summits. I would like to talk about one in particular. It was not the G8 or the G20, but the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, which was still attended by 34 heads of state or their representatives. It is not very easy to provide security in Quebec City, either, what with everything that has to be put in place. Security cost $100 million. Moreover, we have among us today the person who was essentially responsible for security at the time. Obviously, $100 million for 34 heads of state works out to a good average compared to the figure we get for the G8 and G20 summits.

I was reading what Richard Cléroux wrote in the Montréal Express: “One billion dollars is enough to pave the Trans-Canada Highway between Montreal and Vancouver, there and back, twice over, with $10 bills.” The Conservatives might as well have done that. That would get people's attention and it would have been easier to ensure security in Toronto.

As for the equatorial conference, with our old $1 bills, we could have gone around the equator's circumference 40 times. With $5 bills, we could have gone around eight times and with $10 bills, four times. Using $20 bills, we could have gone around the equator's circumference twice.

We know how many hundreds of millions of people around the world earn $1 a day. Imagine how generous the federal government could have been. This could have meant 1 billion person-days to help people.

The costs associated with these summits are completely outrageous, especially if we look at them from various perspectives. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas has been fighting for an income support program for seniors for years now. That much money could have paid for such a program for tens, if not hundreds of years.

The population is aging and many people are being laid off. That money could have been used to cover such gaps.

A Liberal member, when asking the Prime Minister a question, said that the firearms registry, which the Conservatives want to eliminate, costs only $4 million a year, which translates into $2,260 for each life that is saved. We need to talk about how absurd this is. One has to wonder what the Prime Minister and the Conservative government could possibly have been thinking, when they agreed to spend so foolishly. I wonder how much the excessive costs can be blamed on the fact that the summits are being held in two different locations.

The government is going way too far, in terms of both foolish spending and foolish cuts. The latest Conservative budget is a perfect example of this. Their foolish cuts have caused nothing but grief for many people and many organizations.

We know that security is critical. We are hosting people from the G8 countries, which represent more than 60% of the world's wealth. These people obviously need a great deal of security. I know people in my region who are close to governments, who have a rather large personal fortune and who spend quite a bit of money on security. However, they foot the bill themselves and do not take the money directly out of taxpayers' pockets. We do not deprive people just to put on a show.

As my colleague was saying earlier, conference calls are very effective these days, but there also is a need to show off publicly. I wonder what type of show they will put on in Toronto and the other place whose name escapes me. It was not necessary to hold the summits in two different locations. It would have made things easier to hold them in one location.

It was completely irresponsible of the government to fail to shed light on this as soon as possible. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion moved by the official opposition party, the Liberal Party. We need to know how much of this is excessive spending and how much of this is incompetence and at what point extravagance took over. These are all extreme examples of excess, extravagance, amateurism and lack of professionalism. Unfortunately, this government is caught up in summit mania.

[Étienne-Le Bel Clinical Research Centre, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the ongoing issues at Chalk River give us reason to worry about the future of the medical isotope supply, researchers at the Étienne-Le Bel Clinical Research Centre at CHUS and the Université de Sherbrooke's faculty of medicine have shown that technetium-99m can be produced using a cyclotron, which does not require highly enriched uranium and does not produce radioactive waste. Creating a decentralized cyclotron network would secure our supply of technetium. The Étienne-Le Bel Centre is already involved in building a new cyclotron, and the cost of setting up a pilot site in Sherbrooke will be just a fraction of that associated with nuclear reactors.

Not only are researchers at the Étienne-Le Bel Centre pioneers in this field, but they are also offering the government a solution on a silver platter. I support the Étienne-Le Bel Centre's proposal, and I hope that the government will be smart enough to do so too.

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits), May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to first say a few words about yesterday. The House was not sitting. Some provinces were celebrating a holiday that is their own. In Quebec it was National Patriots Day. In order to justify my absence from the House, I participated in the National Patriots Day to pay tribute to our Patriots, those of yesterday—and also those of today and tomorrow—because we owe it to them to remember. We also have a duty to pursue the Patriots' democratic ideal, which is the democratic ideal of a people. It is also the right to live free and independent in one's own country, namely Quebec. It was an action-packed and sunny day, filled with festivities and events.

Let us now deal with senators. It would probably be more interesting to talk about the Ottawa Senators hockey team, but we must address the bill and debate it. Senators are also people at the service of the Canadian government. That is why the government appoints them. There is nothing democratic in this process. The government looks for individuals who can best promote its causes, regardless of their area of expertise. I could talk about two senators specifically.

My Senate division—we might as well talk about a dukedom—includes Sherbrooke and is called Wellington. The word Sherbrooke does not appear in the Senate division of Wellington. Since 1867, there have been exactly 10 senators representing the Senate division of Wellington: seven Liberals and three Conservatives over a period of 143 years. I should add that, for one reason or another, the position was vacant for at least seven years.

In Sherbrooke, there is a senator who is not the senator for Sherbrooke, or Wellington, but who is the senator for the Senate division of La Salle. I am talking about Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. That individual has gone through hardships and we have a great deal of sympathy for him, but today he embodies a specific cause. We can definitely see why the Conservative government approached him to defend this cause, without worrying too much about details.

Ironically, the senator representing the Senate division of Wellington, or Sherbrooke, is Leo Housakos. Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who lives in Sherbrooke, represents the Senate division of La Salle, while Mr. Housakos, who is the senator for Wellington—or Sherbrooke—does not live in that region. As we can see, this institution has no dynamic or democratic link with the population.

Since 1867, the government has been appointing senators and keeping them for as long as they want to remain in the Senate. As I was saying earlier, in 143 years, we have had only 10 senators.

I would like to come back to Leo Housakos, who is the senator for the Wellington division. I said earlier that the government approaches individuals it needs to render specific services. Senator Housakos, for example, has services he can render. People said of him that he could raise tens of thousands of dollars in just a few weeks, thanks to a highly developed network of business associates in Montreal.

He is the one who fills the coffers before an election campaign. He is a token senator who renders services for the Conservative government and who has almost nothing to do with advancing Quebec and Canadian society.

A Conservative source, who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely, said that Senator Housakos was very effective. The source said that you are not appointed at 40 years of age if you do not keep your promises.

The source painted a certain picture of him and things that were happening in Quebec society. We hear about construction companies and the funding of political parties. We also know that Leo Housakos has close friends in engineering consulting firms and construction businesses.

He is also president of a company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the engineering firm BPR. That is another aspect that has been talked about.

People have also said that construction contractor Tony Accurso, who owns many companies and is involved in big business in Montreal and Laval, is an acquaintance of Leo Housakos.

We have also heard that Mr. Housakos and Mr. Soudas have been friends since childhood. These are people serving the government. More specifically, they are serving the Prime Minister directly.

Now we simply want to limit the length of term served by senators to eight years.

The Bloc Québécois is not terribly fond of the Senate. The Bloc is against the principle of Bill C-10 because for all intents and purposes, we could very well do without such an archaic institution given that senators are only there to help the government get re-elected. These individuals are, perhaps not manipulated, but at least directed to help the government win election after election and to ram bills through. Conservative senators toe the party line.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Conservatives want to reform the Constitution by going over the heads of the provinces and Quebec. On November 22, 2006, the Conservative government moved a motion recognizing the nation of Quebec. Since then, the Conservatives have systematically attacked the nation of Quebec and have rejected every proposal to solidify the recognition of the nation of Quebec.

The changes proposed by the Conservatives serve only to undermine Quebec and to punish it for not voting Conservative. Just look at the democratic weight of Quebec, Senate reform and the fact that they have called political party financing into question.

The Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. Accordingly, there are reasons why changes affecting the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made unilaterally by Parliament and must instead be part of the constitutional process involving Quebec and the provinces

In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the capacity of Parliament, on its own, to amend constitutional provisions relating to the Senate.

According to the ruling it handed down in 1980 about Parliament's authority over the upper house, decisions pertaining to major changes affecting the Senate's essential characteristics cannot be made unilaterally.

This means that Quebec and the provinces must be consulted on all reforms that affect the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled and the residency requirement of senators.

In 2007, Quebec's former intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, reiterated Quebec's traditional position when he said:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Regional Veto Act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

The same day, the National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Quebec feels that the division of powers must be reformed before the government reforms central institutions such as the Senate. We need to remember the 1978-79 constitutional decisions by the Lévesque government.

In addition, the government of the Liberal Party of Quebec, a federalist party, took part in the Special Committee on Senate Reform in 2007. In its May 31, 2007 brief, it stated:

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. But if the aim is to alter the essential features of that institution, the only avenue is the initiation of a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that fully associates the constitutional players, one of them being Quebec, in the exercise of constituent authority.

The Government of Quebec, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, therefore requests the withdrawal of Bill C-43 [elected senators]. It also requests the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4 [which became C-19, then C-10 on Senate term limits] so long as the federal government is planning to unilaterally transform the nature and role of the Senate.

This is a far cry from the position of Daniel Johnston Sr., who in Toronto in November 1967 called on the government to consider transforming the Senate into a true binational federal chamber.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Speaker?

[An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Gatineau, on his presentation. He has raised a number of concerns that I share. The Bloc Québécois would like to state certain reservations concerning this bill, in particular in respect of the thorny question of respect for Quebec’s territorial integrity and protection for its powers. I would like my colleague to clarify this aspect a bit for me.