Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in this House today to recognize Environment Week.
I agree with the Minister of the Environment that it is important to draw attention to the success stories of individuals and corporations that have understood how vital it is for our common future that we protect and enhance our biophysical environment.
Like the minister, the Globe and Mail noted yesterday the outstanding contribution to the cause of the environment of individuals like David Suzuki, NGOs like Greenpeace and Pollution Probe, and corporations like Cascade.
For my part, I would like to recognize the contribution made by all those who, while they may not win a prize for it, make sure, on a daily basis, to reduce their energy consumption, to recycle and to buy fewer overpackaged products, in a word, to act in a way that respects the integrity of the natural environment they feel responsible for.
I am confident that, in the near future, these Canadians and Quebecers will succeed in imposing their wishes and values on the government as well as on those corporations still refusing to make the environment a priority.
On the one hand, I share the minister's hopes to see environmental citizenship develop among Canadians and Quebecers of all ages. On the other hand, I must dissociate myself from him, when he talks about the most effective means to achieve our common goal.
In his speech, the minister referred to the 25th anniversary of Environment Canada. While it is true that, since it was established, this department has contributed to the protection of the environment, we must nevertheless recognize that what it has done mainly is cause a great deal of duplication and overlap, much as the minister stubbornly denies it. But interference by the federal government has been condemned time and time again by successive Quebec governments, along with the inefficiencies it causes and, more importantly, the lack of respect for regional uniqueness it reflects.
Documents, such as the environmental framework entitled Cadre de référence sur le partage des rôles et responsabilités entre Québec et le gouvernement fédéral en matière d'environnement et de faune published by a certain Liberal government in August of 1994, show the negative impact of overlap on the management of government responsibilities with regard to the environment.
In his speech, the minister referred to the future Canadian Environmental Protection Act and to the endangered species legislation he intends to introduce in this House by next year.
I hope that the minister has learned from past mistakes and that, in an effort to better protect our health and our natural heritage, he will consider the comments humbly submitted to him by the official opposition as well as by provincial governments, including that of Quebec, which fear another federal attempt to unilaterally impose its will on the provinces, which already play a credible role in this area.
The recent conference of federal and provincial environment ministers gives us some hope that Ottawa may adopt a new, more flexible approach.
The Bloc Quebecois is happy to see the positive results of that conference, including an action plan on climatic change.
Yet, the minister's recent comments before the standing committee on the environment suggested that the CCME was no longer a useful working tool for the federal government.
In closing, I would like to add that, in 1996, no government, department, business leader or other decision maker should ignore his or her responsibilities or, even worse, hurt the cause of the environment.
Each decision must therefore be made in light of its impact on the delicate balance of our global environment. The health of our children and of all future generations is at stake.