Serge Cardin

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, as well as my colleague from Drummond, a riding that is very close to mine.

Today's debate is intoxicating in many respects. The microbrewery industry is quite important for Quebec and there is fair number of jobs at stake. Regarding Bill C-47 and the Excise Tax Act, the purpose of that act is to enable a government to levy taxes and to collect rather large sums of money. It is also used to manage and give direction to our economy.

In this case, we can see that it is the first element that guided Liberal members on the finance committee, including the chair. First, when we talk about modernizing the Excise Tax Act, which covers a multitude of products, we want to see to it that the economy and the industries related to these various products are as thriving as can be.

In this case, when 28¢ a litre of beer are charged to microbreweries, and we know what their situation is, while American microbrewery beers are taxed only 9¢ a litre, there are questions to be asked since we know that Labatt and Molson, the big Canadian breweries, basically control the distribution of imported beers.

When we examine the situation a bit more closely, we find that there is some collusion where, it must be said, the two main breweries control more than 90% of the beer market, and that includes of course imported beers that are taxed only 9¢ a litre. We realize at this point that there is a big problem in that regard. However, the government does not seem interested in helping microbreweries save their 2,000 jobs.

People must fight at every level. As for distribution, products must be of good quality. More and more, we find that microbreweries operating in Quebec and Canada have developed a quality product comparable to the best products in the world. Indeed, our microbreweries win more and more international prizes.

We find that the government is not there to support the microbrewery industry's development but rather to support mainly two big companies, Labatt and Molson. We cannot help thinking that there appears to be a conflict of interest here. It is crystal clear. It is not surprising that the ratings given by Quebecers and Canadians in public opinion polls to people in power for credibility and honesty are so low. When we see situations such as this, we cannot help but think like that.

Therefore big companies like Labatt and Molson are given preference. Globally, the objective of modernizing the excise tax act has not been reached. In fact, we are going in the opposite direction.

A number of issues could be mentioned, but one is of particular interest. What do Liberal members do when they have microbreweries in their ridings?

I have a microbrewery in my riding, in Lennoxville to be more precise. It is a small brewery called the Lion d'Or. It does not produce 300,000 hectolitres a year; it is really quite small, but it is extremely important and it is located in Lennoxville. Besides that microbrewery, I also have the Liberal member for Compton--Stanstead in my riding. So, he is one of my fellow citizens.

[Kyoto Protocol, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government may claim that it does not lack leadership, but the Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace and the Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique are all condemning the government's attitude.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to wake up and truly assume his role by expressing his government's determination to ratify the Kyoto accord in 2002 and take the necessary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Kyoto Protocol, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously showing serious signs of wavering regarding the Kyoto accord.

Does the weak position that the Prime Minister is taking not explain why a number of Canada's international partners, including G-8 members and the European Union, are extremely disappointed by Canada's attitude regarding the Kyoto accord?

[Cenotaphs, March 20th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that we do want, of course, to co-operate with the provinces, all of Canada and Quebec.

Since the government is basically allowing Quebec to ban the importation of waste, how does it reconcile that with the fact that even though we want to stop the importation of waste we do have an obligation under section 11 of NAFTA? How can we be assured that the importation of waste will not be forced upon Quebec and Canada?

[Cenotaphs, March 20th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, last November, the eastern townships as a whole were worried that waste from the United States might be buried in the region.

People were concerned that the eastern townships might become a dumping ground for the Americans should the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the proposed regulations of which will come into effect in 2003, apply to Quebec.

As we know, the new law contains several major changes, including sections 185 to 192, dealing with the exporting and importing of non-hazardous waste for final disposal. We know also that, under section 115 of the Quebec environment quality Act, Quebec has banned since 1988 the disposal of waste generated outside Quebec.

In view of the concerns people in the region had regarding this policy, on November 21, 2001, I put the following question to the Minister of the Environment:

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has enacted regulations banning the importation of waste material.

As for the Canadian government, starting in 2003, its Environmental Protection Act will allow waste material to be brought into regions such as the Eastern Townships.

Is the Minister of the Environment going to respect Quebec's environmental protection regulations so as to prevent areas like the Eastern Townships from turning into dumping grounds for our neighbours to the South?

The Minister of the Environment answered:

--I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian legislation will be in line with the new legislation in the province of Quebec. I can see no problem with differences between the federal and the provincial legislation.

I was not completely reassured. We know that consultations were ongoing and some were concluded, I believe, in February. The regulations that would apply have not yet been finalized.

It is never too late to ask the government what exactly it intends to do regarding the importation and exportation of waste material in Canada, specifically in Quebec.

I would like to be reassured regarding the exportation, and mostly the importation of residual waste and hazardous waste.

[The Environment, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the EU countries had already decided to share the burden of eliminating greenhouse gases.

Today, the minister speaks of consultations. Consultations, indeed. In Canada they have been going on for 10 years now.

Can the Minister of the Environment explain to us why his government has still not assumed its responsibilities by adopting a clear position on this?

[The Environment, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the environment, there is one fundamental and generally accepted principle: the polluter pays.

Why does the federal Minister of the Environment want to set aside this fundamental principle of polluter-pay in connection with the battle against greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we all know about the government's bogus consultations.

The sovereign countries of the European Union have come to an agreement on a fair distribution of the Kyoto objective and on the need to ratify the Kyoto protocol, yet the Canadian provinces, with the exception of Quebec, are incapable of reaching a reasonable agreement with the federal government.

How does the minister explain the fact that it is easier for sovereign countries to agree on protecting the environment than it is for the federal government and the nine provinces in the rest of Canada?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Minister of the Environment is responsible for signing the Kyoto protocol. If Quebec were a sovereign state, the Kyoto protocol would have been implemented a long time ago. Alas, this is not yet the case, but the time will come.

Does the Minister of the Environment understand that if he gives in on the issue of reducing greenhouse gases, we will wind up in a situation whereby the ones who made the right choices, namely Quebec, will be penalized, while those who chose to do nothing will be economically rewarded for their inaction by the federal government?

[Aboriginal Communities, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, February 7 marks the historic signing of the peace of the braves in Waskaganish between the Government of Quebec and the Grand Council of the Crees. This event will go down in history as did the signing of the Great Peace Treaty in Montreal 300 years ago.

The agreement seals a new partnership and a long-term vision of the development of nation to nation relations between the Cree people and the Government of Quebec.

By ratifying this historic agreement, the Government of Quebec is taking a further step forward in its recognition of the status of aboriginal communities and was held up as a model for all governments to follow by the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Matthew Coon Come.

The Bloc Quebecois also wishes to pay tribute to the exceptional leadership and work of Guy Chevrette and Bernard Landry, as well as of Grand Chief Ted Moses, whose open mindedness will further the development of his people as equal partners with Quebec. The peace of the braves is the embodiment of the new vision of dealing with aboriginal nations and, more than ever, will pave the way for more harmonious and dynamic relations, which respect and serve everyone's interests.