Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand up today to speak about Bill C-32, especially about the motions in Group No. 6.
I am particularly pleased to have accepted the invitation from my colleague from Jonquière today, since this debate falls on the first day of environment week.
First of all, it is important to mention that no matter what changes are made to Bill C-32 we are against it, at this stage at least. However, we never opposed the basic principle linking economic development to environment protection. It is a fundamental principle established many years ago by the United Nations commission for the environment, which was chaired by Mrs. Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway. That commission put forth a concept where economic development environmental protection go hand in hand.
This is all the more important because of the population increase of the last few years. With that population explosion and technological advances, economic activity has multiplied by 20 since the beginning of this century. Furthermore economic growth was directly linked to technological development all over the world.
Whether we want it or not, not only did that impact on the environment but it also impacted directly on our life. In this context, it is unavoidable that we will face many environmental crises. It cannot be avoided, it is part of reality. That is why we have to protect ourselves.
Obviously we have to protect ourselves with laws, a fact that has been recognised on several occasions, including at the recent environment ministers' meeting, where the Quebec Minister of the Environment, Paul Bégin, expressed his desire to protect the environment, while making sure that certain clear rules are obeyed. I will come back to this subject later on, but I thought it was important to mention it now.
Earlier, I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment who enumerated a series of announcements she or her minister made concerning the environment over the last few months. It is important to look carefully at the net results of the government's commitment.
I reread my notes from the time I was the Bloc's environment critic. On April 24, 1998, the Liberal government launched a vast publicity campaign in Canada to sing the praise of the Canadian government for its key role in the protection against climate change at the international level. The publicity said, and I quote: “To play a key role at the international level by contributing to the reduction of the causes of climate change in the world”.
When I came to this House and when I became environment critic, I soon realized that there was a lot of rhetoric on the other side, but very few results. A quick look at this government's and this country's record with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gases is enough to see that we do not fare well among OECD countries.
I think it is important to say so because, over the last two years, the government has not had a clear objective with regard to the environment and has not even been able to meet the commitments made by its predecessor at the Rio summit in 1992.
I think it is important to deal with the issue of climate change. For the past two years, the government, through its environment minister, has claimed it would play a leadership role in international fora, especially at the Kyoto summit. This issue is of the utmost importance since over the past few years we have been releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing global warming.
It is important to note that we in North America alone are responsible for a quarter of emissions. In view of this environmental situation, it is important to make international commitments and pass laws taking it into account.
At the Rio summit in 1992 the federal government agreed to the common goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. Canada agreed to it and so did Quebec through a motion passed by the national assembly. While the federal government was committed to acting as a responsible government, taking the necessary steps, and respecting the international commitments it signed, more than ever Quebec was true to its word on this issue at the international level. Its record speaks for itself.
I mentioned 1992, but there is also mention 1995, the Berlin international conference where the alarm was sounded to the world to the effect that the mere stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 would not be enough because it would not reduce the mortality rate nor the incidence of diseases caused by global warming and gas emissions.
At that time the message from Berlin was loud and clear. Governments that made a commitment in Rio in 1992 must not only stand by it, but if at all possible, go even further.
The Kyoto conference is another important event. Canada who, a year before, was bragging about being an international showcase and leading the way in gas reduction, is not acting upon its commitments although they had some merit. That conference could have allowed Canada to influence the future.
Instead, the federal government has delayed disclosing its commitments and its position with regard to a 3 per cent reduction of gas emissions by the year 2010. That is not enough. Quebec said so over and over again. Quebec was ready to commit to going twice as far as Canada in its initial position.
On the issue of climate changes, Quebec has met its commitments. Quebec was able to do so because it adjusted its objectives. It has undergone a change in its energy use thus enabling it to improve the situation in Canada as well as internationally.
While Western Canada kept investing in fossil fuels, Quebec gave greater place to hydroelectric generation and came up with policies in keeping with our quality of life needs both economic and environmental, which of course includes economic growth.
At this stage, we oppose Bill C-32 because it is conducive to overlapping and duplication and, especially, because the federal government does not respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over environment matters under the Constitution.