Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to participate in this debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
In the few minutes I have at my disposal, I will focus primarily on matters relating to sustainable development, beginning on page 19 of this week's throne speech.
In so doing, I will be able to demonstrate just how much the government is trying, in an underhanded way, to have us believe that the environment and sustainable development have now become priorities for this government. From now on, the new government, which is really just a rehash of the old one, wants to convince us of its intention to meet its commitments, both national and international, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in green technologies.
The first aspect addressed in the throne speech is the matter of climate change and the Kyoto accord. On page 19, the government states that it “will respect its commitments to the Kyoto accord”, and I emphasize the following:
—in a way that produces long-term and enduring results while maintaining a strong and growing economy.
I would draw the House's attention to the words “long- term and enduring”. Although the Kyoto protocol does not use exactly these words, it clearly clarifies the time frame for states to meet their targets, such as Canada's target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6%, not as a long-term strategy, but between 2008 and 2012.
Our concern with this throne speech as far as the implementation of the Kyoto protocol is concerned is whether Canada will use its prerogative to renew its commitment to a 6% reduction for the second phase. We know that Canada is already negotiating with some industrial sectors putting off emission reductions until the next phase, that is, after 2012.
What we would have liked the government to do is clarify when it intends to meet its commitments, and that Canada's commitment will respect the greenhouse gas emission time frame, that is a reduction of 6% in the period from 2008 to 2012, precisely so that the Canadian government does not put off its greenhouse gas emission reductions to the second phase, when that time frame is set.
We are also a little surprised to learn that:
It will do so by developing an equitable national plan, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders.
That plan is to have us believe that, in terms of sharing the efforts toward Kyoto, Canada has chosen a territorial approach to reduction. What we in the Bloc Quebecois want is to be able to tell each of the provinces that they have a reduction target of x % and that they can meet this target any way they want, considering the economic and industrial structure and the realities of the climate, which differs from coast to coast.
Although the government wants us to believe that it has a territorial approach, it has chosen a sectoral approach, negotiating greenhouse gas emissions with each of the industrial sectors.
The proof is that the government is already negotiating greenhouse gas emission reductions with the oil, auto, aluminum and paper industries, while Quebec is still waiting its turn to negotiate with the federal government.
There is a risk for us in Quebec. We were in favour of ratifying Kyoto.
But when we learn that negotiations with Quebec have not yet begun and that secret agreements are being entered into with the oil industry, the risk to Quebec is that we may end up bearing the brunt of the rest of the reductions and having to pay the price for certain industrial sectors' lack of effort in recent years.
The second important aspect concerns the famous environmental indicators. Building on the report by the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which presented us with air, water and forest quality indicators a few months ago—and expressed the wish that these be integrated with government decision making—we learn today that the government does indeed plan to incorporate key indicators on clean water, clean air, and emissions reduction into its decision making.
As far as the environment is concerned, the same problem exists as in the provinces in the health sector. People are hired to create indicators, but there are no resources in the field with which to properly assess the situation.
To give one example, I will refer the hon. members to the Canada Gazette for January 31, as reported this morning in the Journal de Montréal . Strange as it may seem, in Quebec, and only in Quebec, 39 of the 54 atmospheric pollution surveillance centres need to be replaced and need new ozone detectors.
There is something not right in Quebec. I stress Quebec—and I encourage you to read the Canada Gazette —because, in all other provinces the detectors and surveillance centres appear to be fine. Strange as it may seem, most of the ones in Quebec are obsolete. This means that the pollution indicators used to inform the people of Quebec and purchased and provided to the Government of Quebec to evaluate such things as atmospheric pollution and ozone, which are the causes of serious public health problems such as asthma and bronchitis, are inadequate.
Why is Quebec not getting its fair share of equipment, to ensure that the commitments in the Speech from the Throne are met and that reliable indicators are available? There is something not right here.
Especially since we know that, on May 19, 2000, in a speech that the environment minister delivered to the University Club of Toronto, he announced that he intended to do the following, and I quote:
We will double our support for the Air Pollution Surveillance Network. We will use the money to update monitoring equipment and manage important air quality information.
Investment was doubled, yet two years later, we realize that, in Quebec, nearly 80% of the equipment and Quebec's monitoring centres are obsolete. Where did the money go? This is money coming from the taxes Quebeckers have paid and are entitled to as part of the additional $1.2 million the federal government gave the provinces. It does not add up. Spending doubled for the monitoring centres and equipment two years ago, but 39 out of 54 centres in Quebec are obsolete.
This means Quebec did not get its fair share in terms of monitoring centres, testing units, air quality and air pollution testing equipment. This means—and it is not insignificant—this is equipment required to fight disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.
In my final minute, I want to add that it must be recognized that the Speech from the Throne is ensuring that, once again, Quebec will not get its fair share, not only with respect to past investments, but also in measures the federal government is about to announce.
We will wait for the budget because, after all, it will tell us what the funding will be for these measures. Rest assured, I will be back in this House and we will be here to make sure Quebec gets its fair share of the budget. We will make sure that funding comes back to Quebec.