Yvon Charbonneau

[The Environment, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week two reports have drawn our attention to the environment, one from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and one from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The two reports emphasized the efforts made, sometimes leading to progress in certain areas, but they also drew attention to major problems, whether in implementing legislation or in managing certain of our commitments.

Any system which allows such vigorous and objective criticism is a healthy one, and offers the hope that we will be able to do more and to do better in the future.

As for those who, like the Bloc Quebecois, take advantage of this to say that the federal government has no right to be involved with the environment, I have two things to say to them. First, let them ask the Government of Quebec to take the time to hold an independent public examination of its environmental management as rigorous as this one, and the population will see how Quebec is sliding backward as far as the environment is concerned. The same applies to Ontario.

Second, the federal and provincial governments must work together, instead of trying to eliminate each other, if we want to be able to face up to our responsibilities as far as sustainable development is concerned.

[Asbestos, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned in the newspapers of the decision made by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe to completely ban asbestos.

Last week, as Canadian parliamentarians from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and both Houses of Parliament, as well as observers at this interparliamentary assembly, we ran into a wall of misunderstanding and faced total rejection of the Canadian position, which is the same as the one held by the Russians.

Instead of a comprehensive ban on asbestos regardless of type or use, the Canadian position is based on the following consensus: asbestos may be a hazardous product, but its use can be controlled by putting workers' and public health first.

This consensus is shared by all levels of government, industry and labour in Canada. Unfortunately, the vast majority of parliamentarians in the Council of Europe have remained insensitive to any argument that might have softened their position.

It is therefore important that the Canadian consensus be put forth again before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which will make a final decision on this recommendation.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I think future generations would not forgive those of us who are involved in national politics if we failed to deal with situations such as those that arose or with issues of jurisdiction or if we quibbled over matters of precedence at this or that level.

Work has to be done to define environmental responsibilities at the municipal level—because there are responsibilities there—and at the provincial level and come up with measures to protect our environment and our resources for future generations regardless of where fault may lie. If the municipal governments fail to assume their responsibilities, the provincial governments should be there as watch dogs. If the provincial governments also fail, then there should be measures that enable us to intervene in very specific cases. That is what we are working for.

A harmonization agreement has been proposed. I support it. Work has barely begun. Three chapters of ten have been written, but the work should continue and should lead us to better define our responsibilities, level by level, but not for the purpose of quibbling over final responsibility for our environment in the coming years and for future generations.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting on the House Standing Committee on Environment, and have had an opportunity to see some worrisome issues crop up in recent months relating to events in a number of regions of Canada, including the region of Ontario to which my colleague has referred.

I believe that there must be more focus on environmental protection in the years to come. In my opinion, this is a battle that must be fought every day of every year. There must be a constant monitoring of needs, for they are ever-present.

If we look at the means available to us, the position of the federal, and most of the provincial, governments on environmental problems and the need to protect or to repair the environment, the means available are definitely unequal to the needs we are faced with, in this situation as well as others.

This is our role, both as members of the environment committee, and here in public debate. Very soon, the committee will need to devote a great deal of time to determining needs and rallying public opinion, as well as the support of all of our colleagues in the various parties, in order to come up with the best approaches to be equal to our responsibilities.

Those approaches encompass funding, personnel availability and training. They also include legislation and regulation.

For this reason, our legislation includes a practical provision for re-examination every five years. This commitment has already been made by the Liberal Party. It is what we are doing at the present time, and we shall have the opportunity to re-examine all the issues and to enhance our understanding of ones such as my colleague has raised.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-32 to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This is an important bill, as my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, pointed out, because it changes the approach to environmental protection in Canada from one of reacting to one of preventing pollution and damage to the environment.

When we look at the overall evolution of the environment, it becomes obvious that we must change our way of looking at things and start with pollution prevention rather than waiting for damage to occur and then reacting.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Canadians throughout the country began demonstrating a growing interest in the environment. They began to become worried about the present, as well as the potential or future, effects of pollution on their environment and their health.

As a result, governments adopted relatively effective and rational strategies for the time, generally in the form of regulations to control pollutants after they had been created, but before they were released into the environment.

In addition, businesses improved their operating methods, based on the technologies then available. Basically, our philosophy of environmental management consisted in allowing pollutants to be created and trying to control them as best we could thereafter.

Therefore, from a historical perspective pollution control has been the main approach to environmental protection. It is true that by limiting the release of pollutants into the environment we have made a significant contribution to environmental protection.

As the Minister of the Environment told us in her speech, we have acted on some of the most dangerous toxins: PCBs, benzine, dioxins and furans.

We now know that more needs to be done. We are now much more aware of the impacts on human health and on the environment caused by every small amounts of substances that are toxic, that accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals and persist in the environment for very long periods of time.

For these reasons we have to shift our approach from pollution control to pollution prevention. The Liberal Party's first red book summarized the challenge facing Canada in precise terms. It stated:

In the past, environmental policy has focused on managing and controlling the release of pollutants entering the environment. This approach has had only limited success. Canada needs a new approach that focuses on preventing pollution at source—

A Liberal government will use the upcoming five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make pollution prevention a national goal—

Bill C-32 does exactly this and incorporates pollution prevention as one of its guiding principles.

Naturally, so that all stakeholders are aware of the rules of the game, we must provide a clear and accurate definition of pollution prevention. The bill gives the following definition of prevention, arrived at after a variety of stakeholders were consulted. The proposed definition is as follows:

The use of processes, practices, materials, products or energy that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste and reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health.

This could not be clearer.

Therefore, pollution prevention requires a totally different approach from environmental protection. It implies on-site reuse and recycling of materials, changes to existing equipment and employee training. It calls for a complete overhaul of our way of designing and operating our manufacturing plants, our oil refineries, our mines, our farms, our parks, everything.

Planning is at the heart of the pollution prevention approach. Under Bill C-32, a person can be required to prepare a pollution prevention plan concerning toxic substances. Pollution prevention on a voluntary basis in many other areas is also encouraged.

While they are preparing these prevention plans, managers can determine ways to avoid creating pollutants and waste or to reduce them to a minimum. They can also find ways to save energy and water and to use raw materials more efficiently. The preparation of pollution prevention plans provides the businesses with the flexibility they need to develop pollution prevention approaches based both on their needs and on environmental goals.

Bill C-32 supports pollution prevention planning by providing to establish a national pollution prevention information clearing house.

I am pleased that the government has already moved to establish the Internet based Canadian pollution prevention information clearing house to showcase environmental success stories and to demonstrate the economic benefit that can be achieved through the adoption of pollution prevention.

We want to increasingly encourage Canadian companies to take the initiative. Bill C-32 creates awards to celebrate achievements toward pollution prevention.

I think we agree that we ought to celebrate all that we achieve throughout the years.

To attract progress on the success of pollution prevention initiatives this bill includes information gathering powers that require industry to report on pollution prevention activities.

I support this bill, because it will help all of Canada to implement a pollution prevention plan that will be good for our environment, as well as for our international endeavours and our international trade.

As Albert Einstein used to say, an intelligent man solves problems, a wise man avoids them. I think that, based on pollution prevention principles, our future Environmental Protection Act, as renewed and revised in this bill, will rank among our wiser pieces of legislation.

[Canada-Lebanon Parliamentary Friendship Group, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to this House that a new parliamentary friendship group has been formed: the Canada-Lebanon Parliamentary Friendship Group.

Some 30 Canadian parliamentarians from both the House of Commons and the Senate established this group, whose purpose is to foster exchanges between Lebanese and Canadian parliamentarians, propose initiatives to promote better understanding of national and international issues and develop co-operation between our two countries.

As chairman of this friendship group, I thank my colleagues from both Houses who have agreed to join me on the executive of this group.

Let us hope that our parliamentary friendship group will help strengthen the bond between our two countries, Canada and Lebanon, which share tens of thousands of citizens and both consider themselves as full-fledged members of the French-speaking community.

[Division No. 112, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in considering Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget, it is important to remember that the 1998 budget marks a milestone in Canadian history, thanks to the support of and indeed the sacrifices made by Canadians during the past five years.

This year, for the first time in 30 years, a balanced budget was tabled. The crushing $42 billion deficit we inherited in 1993, the highest deficit in Canadian history, is now a thing of the past.

In addition, the budget affirms our commitment to balanced budgets over the next two years; this will be the first time in nearly 50 years that balanced budgets will have been tabled three years in a row including this year.

With only a few minutes to comment on this budget, one has to focus on one particular aspect and it is somewhat difficult to select one out of the many interesting facets of the budget. One would have much to say, for instance, on this successful effort to achieve what is commonly called a zero deficit while slightly reducing the debt, providing some tax relief and making targeted social investments. This in itself would deserve extensive comment.

One could also comment on the good news for Canadian families, particularly with respect to the assistance provided for children and education. This budget could also be addressed from the perspective of recovery, of high tech research, in response to pressing demands in that area.

It all boils down to this being a budget which reassures those who have to make investment decisions, the economic agents, as well as those who are looking for work or for a new job, even though the unemployment level is still too high.

I would like to address another angle in particular. My choice of subject is inspired by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who spoke yesterday on the budget. As we know, he is the Bloc Quebecois finance critic.

I heard him announce his intention to do everything possible to block the millennium scholarship program. He said “This is a program we detest because it encroaches, and shamelessly to boot, into an area of Quebec jurisdiction. It is a program totally unacceptable to us”.

He also said that he hated this millennium scholarship program so much that it would galvanize his energies, that he was full to overflowing with the energy to fight this budget, and this proposal in particular.

It is very sad to see an MP, his party's official critic for Finance, and a man who has a certain influence in Quebec, or claims to, calling for people to join forces to do battle, calling for Quebec to fight this measure, which he detests, and stating that he will focus all of his energies on hating it.

This finance critic also accused the government of having accumulated surpluses in the employment insurance account that are too large, in his opinion, while at the same time accusing it of putting $2.5 billion in this fiscal year, which are in a way part of that surplus, into the millennium fund.

On the one hand, he is unhappy because the government is accumulating surpluses in the employment insurance fund; on the other, he is unhappy because that money is being put into the millennium fund.

This critic needs to get real. He must admit that there are very direct links, very important ones, between access to higher education, access to post-secondary education, and the ability for young people to find jobs, and it is they who will be the primary beneficiaries of the millennium fund.

This hon. member needs to admit that there is a direct link between the EI fund surplus and the immediate investment—not in two or three years—in the millennium scholarships.

Instead of rejoicing over this investment in young people, the Bloc Quebecois critic is pouring negative energy into blocking this measure. It seems to me that these people, he and others, who went on in school and obtained advanced post-secondary degrees, BAs, MAs, have forgotten that there are others in their footsteps, that there are young people today who also want to go on to higher education because they know that that is the key to landing an interesting job. It is also the key to mobility throughout their career.

They also know that these scholarships will enable them to obtain Canadian experience, to see what is going on in environments other than their own, and to be able to acquire international experience, to study abroad, to find out how other countries see things.

It would look like members of the Bloc Quebecois have forgotten about others, or that they do not want others to have access to these forms of education, which are important for the careers of young people wanting to work.

The strategy at the heart of this budget is equality of opportunity. I think this is what bothers certain critics most, particularly the Bloc Quebecois critics, because it is an approach that directly targets the needs of people, young people in particular.

In his speech, the Minister of Finance said “Canadians know that there is more to taking care of the nation than simply taking care of the books. Canada is not just a marketplace. It is a community. Our country is anchored in shared risk and shared benefits, in lending a hand knowing that, some day, we too may be in need”.

These comments hurt people like the Bloc Quebecois critic, because they are about Canada-wide solidarity and exchanges. They are about sharing, supporting each other, and investing together a large amount—that will serve us for years to come, that will serve young Canadians, including Quebeckers—in a joint account in which there will then be money available to meet our needs.

The notion of a Canada-wide solidarity hurts Bloc Quebecois members, because they are always saying that everything must be repatriated to Quebec, that there is nothing good throughout Canada.

Equal opportunity is an important issue for us in the Liberal Party, in the government, because it is a matter of basic fairness and social justice. We strongly believe in it. We also know that learning must be the central part of any national jobs strategy.

There are a number of elements to this strategy. I have not got the time to list them all now, but there are seven important ones, the first of which is definitely the millennium fund. We were told that $2.5 billion would be taken from this fiscal year and used starting in the year 2000 and for several years afterward.

Other measures worth a total of $3 billion will be spread across seven programs over the next three years, for a grand total of $5.5 billion.

I think these are significant sums. Canadians have the right to know the truth.

The nine young people in the delegation of 18 that accompanied me to our convention last weekend in Ottawa said they were very happy. They were not turning their noses up at the scholarship program and other measures. On the contrary, they were very happy, and I think they are representative of Quebec youth, which is happy to have the federal government providing them with a considerable amount of money for the next decade.

Once again, we are talking about opening the door to co-operation. The federal government planned for negotiations with the provinces to avoid duplication and to reach an agreement on implementing this measure.

Instead of taking offence, pouting and trying to block everything, the government in Quebec and one part of the opposition here should try to co-operate. I think it would benefit young people in Canada and Quebec.

[Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the 28th annual meeting of the Canada-France InterParliamentary Association was held last week in France. Nine of our parliamentarians from both Houses attended this meeting.

Discussions focused on our health services, the Kyoto agreement, women and politics, the proposed multilateral agreement on investment, the building of the European Union and the role played by the Canadian Armed Forces during the second world war.

Our two countries share many concerns and interests: efforts to restore fiscal health through deficit reduction of course, but also through strategic social investments; the realization that some so-called national problems can only be addressed within the context of strengthened international co-operation, particularly as regards the environment; common values and interests to uphold in negotiating the multilateral agreement, with respect to the cultural exemption in particular.

Finally, we noted our French counterparts' conviction that the future of our societies is dependent on the strengthening—

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many people and organizations have raised some very serious questions about Canada's involvement in negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of International Trade, who has announced that public consultations will be held on the draft agreement. He also stated that he had set ironclad conditions for Canada's signature, in areas such as health care, social programs, education, culture, aboriginal peoples, labour and environmental standards, and supply management.

The minister also pointed out that Canada would sign only when satisfied with the conditions set and the exemptions obtained, and would, if necessary, not sign at all.

This is an illustration of the government's sensitivity to the representations made to it, and offers an opportunity for the people and groups concerned to make their points of view known democratically within a public debate.

[The Environment, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, the federal government and the provinces signed an environmental harmonization agreement in areas such as assessment, inspections and environmental standards. Quebec did not sign, because the Bouchard government decided to go its own way, in environment as in many other areas.

Under Lucien Bouchard, the former federal environment minister, Quebec is managing the environment so badly that it has been failed for the second year in a row by the Regroupement québécois des groupes écologistes.

“The Bouchard government sees the environment as an obstacle to economic growth. This government has failed to keep its major public promises with respect to the environment. The Bouchard government should stop following the lead of environmental Neanderthals like the Republican right in the United States and the Harris government”, said the ecologists.

Instead of funding Pro-Démocratie, the Bouchard government should practice democracy in all areas, including that of the environment. It should cooperate with the federal government and the other provinces instead of spending its time.—