Vivian Barbot

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that remark.

Obviously this concept is implicit in the question, which I dealt with from another point of view. When we talk about health, in the long term we are avoiding much higher costs, and also avoiding a great deal of suffering for the population, which is entitled to breathe clean and healthy air.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell the member that we could start by talking about where this money must not be invested. I talked about jails. I can also talk about huge subsidies given to the extremely polluting oil industry.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to explain before my colleagues, the hon. members of the House of Commons, some of the reasons why I support the motion introduced by my colleague in the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, demanding compliance with the objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions established under the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to say, first of all, that my personal health status has a lot to do with the extreme importance I attach to this issue. Like thousands of our compatriots and millions of people around the world, I have asthma.

Members may have already heard me coughing here in the House, and although these untimely noises are beyond my control, I would like to offer my apologies to this kind assembly.

I do not want to base my presentation solely on my personal situation, which is not of much concern, ultimately, in comparison with the health problems that some of our fellow citizens face.

I should just say that I forgot to mention I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

It seems to me though, and people will certainly agree, that not enough attention is paid in the current debate to the effects that greenhouse gases have on our health and how urgent it is, therefore, to take action.

Sometimes I wonder what air those who put so much energy into polluting the atmosphere breathe or what world oil producers and other large generators of greenhouse gases live in. Do they not see the effects of all this pollution on their children, on themselves, and on the entire planet? Do they want a tomorrow for future generations?

We should all be implementing, and should have for a long time now, lasting solutions to a problem for which we are entirely responsible as human beings.

On the international level, we should be following the example of the European Union, which reduced greenhouse gas emissions by minus 1.4% in 2003, while Canada increased its emissions by 24.2%.

We could even draw inspiration from Quebec, which had the best record in Canada for greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 at 12 tonnes per person. That is clearly below the Canadian average of 23 tonnes per person.

Rather than building on all these positive models that are based on fundamental principles such as those presented by the Bloc Québécois—namely, honouring international commitments, fairness, and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions—the Minister of the Environment is considering joining the United States in the Asia-Pacific partnership.

On April 25, after a meeting with her American counterparts, the Minister of the Environment announced that her government would be taking a page from American successes in the areas of the environment and curbing air pollution.

Contrary to the claims of the Conservatives these days, the American approach to fighting climate change is not a model to be adopted. In fact, whereas greenhouse gas emissions totalled 23.4 tonnes per Canadian in 2003, they amounted to 23.7 tonnes per American.

What is it that the Conservatives really want to do? Reduce or increase greenhouse gas emissions? The question bears asking.

The Conservative government has indicated that it does not intend to attempt to honour the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, as it deems this to be an unrealistic and unachievable target. The tragedy is that the Conservative government has shown no intention of meeting the Kyoto target.

Not meeting the Kyoto target is tantamount to abandoning Kyoto.

The Conservatives must realize that their position has serious consequences for Canada's credibility on the international stage.

They have to realize that their position could call the whole issue of the viability and relevance of the negotiations and the signing of multilateral agreements into question.

The Conservatives have to realize that they must not limit themselves to spending taxpayers' money on building prisons. They must invest in measures that will ensure our safety, our health and our prosperity for years to come.

Climate and extreme weather conditions, while they cannot be changed, are the result to a large extent of human action. We must react now and stop putting the lives of future generations in peril.

Returning to health matters, I appeal to the conscience of the Conservatives in the hope they will follow the example of the European Union, according to which:

Air quality is one of the prime environmental concerns of European citizens and, accordingly, of the European legislature, in so far as it affects not only the environment but also public health. The latest research has shown that air quality is one of the main causes of the increase in respiratory disorders.

For this reason and for all the others cited here today, the Conservatives must honour the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, as the Bloc Québécois is demanding in the name of the 90% of Quebeckers who have given it their support.

[UNESCO, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that he and Jean Charest signed, for the first time, an agreement that gives the federal government, in writing, the right to make decisions internationally concerning areas of jurisdiction that have always belonged to Quebec?

[UNESCO, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself used the example of the francophone summit to illustrate how Quebec could participate in UNESCO, which implies a voice, a seat and a vote.

Since the Prime Minister could not keep this promise, should he not have moved forward on the Bloc Québécois' proposal and the Belgian model, which he referred to himself, since this is what most closely resembles the promises he made to Quebeckers?

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is rather difficult to speak about the situation in Darfur. We are talking peacefully and calmly in this House about thousands of men and women who are dying every day because they do not have anything to eat. Their food supplies have been cut off. They are also living in a war situation about which we apparently cannot do very much.

I find this very distressing. Of course we should support the pan-African forces in the field. But at the same time, is there no way for us to play a more active role, both in the negotiations and by sending troops so that this tragedy really ends? Does it matter that we feed these people more for a few days if, in the end, exactly the same thing happens as has been happening for so many years? People are dying before our very eyes.

Earlier, the hon. member across the aisle said that we did not want to send people to witness the tragedy that is unfolding. That is the question. We do not want to send witnesses; we want to send people who can take part in the search for long-term solutions.

We really need to take action in this matter with Rwanda in mind. It is most distressing to see us adopting more or less the same attitude. We observe the situation, we see that things are deteriorating, but we seem powerless to do anything that would really resolve the situation.

I know that it is very complex. But as Canadians, we can intervene more firmly with the various parties involved. We really need to instigate a movement that enables the local people to see that they have a future other than in the camps. In this kind of situation, they would truly be able to formulate plans for life rather than plans for death.

[Nycole Turmel, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on May 5 the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Nycole Turmel, will leave her position after six years of dedicated service at the helm of this major union.

A union activist for nearly 25 years, Ms. Turmel has been behind a number of PSAC's major achievements. She worked on the union's pay equity lawsuit against the federal government, which culminated in the payment of $4 billion to some 200,000 PSAC members in 1999.

She also created PSAC's social justice fund, which aids development projects to support and train workers, provide emergency relief and fight poverty in Canada and abroad.

The Bloc Québécois applauds Nycole Turmel for her hard work and the tremendous contribution she has made, both in Canada and abroad, to improving working conditions for all workers.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to transportation beyond our borders, one element of Bill C-44 has disappeared. I am referring to advertising of airline ticket prices. We felt that this was a perfect opportunity for greater transparency in ticket sales. In other words, the agency should have the authority to regulate advertising so that hidden charges, especially taxes, are included in the ticket price. Various consumer associations called for this.

There was also the issue of sales of one-way airline tickets that were conditional on the purchase of a return ticket. The former bill required that contract terms and conditions be posted on the Internet. This measure also helped the airlines because they could know exactly what to expect.

Consumer associations called for these measures. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about this.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a provision of the preceding bill gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to investigate complaints about noise and require the railways to take measures to reduce the harmful effects of noise as much as possible, during both the construction and operation of rail lines. Of course, this must take into account the operational needs of railway services and the interests of the communities in question.

I would like to know the hon. member's opinion on the provisions concerning noise.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni for his concern about violence. I too am very concerned by this issue.

I think it is worrisome that no weight is given to statistics. Statistics are tallied according to set rules. What is true today was true yesterday, in other words, not all crimes have been reported at all times.

Although I share this general concern about violence, I am worried about something else even more. I am worried about the presence of young people, especially young black men, in Montreal and Canadian prisons—when their only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We should put more emphasis on prevention. That way we would be paying attention to these young people, who are often the victims of discrimination, victims of racism, and victims of racial profiling. In any measures we might implement for preventing violence, particular emphasis should be placed on those who are ostracized simply because they belong to a cultural minority.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about this. What does he plan to do? What does he propose for helping these young people?