Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. Before answering his question, I would like to congratulate him on the excellent work he has done throughout the debate on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

I wanted to include in my speech what is being done at present and will be done in future by Alcan in my riding. They are setting an example that ought to be followed by numerous companies, as well as looked at closely by this government in connection with its implementation plan.

What Alcan has been doing since 1990 is very important, in my opinion. Not only has it reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, it is also able to charge less per tonne for its product. If the government does not take into consideration what the company has been doing since 1990, its price per tonne of aluminum will go up.

To be fair, the efforts made that will help us attain our objectives more quickly must be acknowledged.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the people of Jonquière, who support ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Before I continue, I should indicate that I am splitting my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of ratification, because it is time to reverse the present trend toward global warming, which points to dramatic environmental damage. Canada must be involved in the international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly since this country is a heavy emitter, in fact the worst per capita, if Quebec is not included in the figures.

The people of Quebec want to see Canada ratify the protocol and there has been unanimity in the National Assembly in favour of this.

Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling upon the federal government to assume its share of the responsibility for greenhouse gases. The Bloc has always been in favour of adopting quantifiable objectives internationally in connection with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These objectives need to go hand in hand with legal constraints, so that the commitments entered into by the federal and provincial governments are met.

We think that it is both desirable and realistic that Quebec, the federal government and the provinces reach consensus to set ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets, but that must not further set back ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Why must the Kyoto protocol be ratified? First, let us talk about the effects of climate change: the greenhouse effect is a vivid term that describes how the atmosphere controls the temperature of the earth, making it a unique planet on which organisms grow and beings live.

Solar energy is absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans and the earth and converted into heat, which heats the surface of the earth and the air that surrounds it. A part of this energy is reflected and is lost in space, but our atmosphere traps most of it. Certain atmospheric gases insulate the earth, preventing the heat from escaping.

Greenhouse gases absorb the heat and reflect it back to the earth's surface. Without this natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be much colder than it now is, driving the average temperature of the planet down to a temperature too low to support life as we know it.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has risen 30% and methane has increased 145%. It is estimated that consumption of fossil fuels worldwide emits 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the key factor in climate change, into the atmosphere and this amount is climbing steadily.

The earth's average temperature has increased 0.6 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. In fact, the 1990s were the warmest years in recorded history. If nothing is done to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, the best forecasts indicate that the average world temperature could increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius over the next century. An increase in world temperatures will cause changes to other elements of the earth's climate system, which will influence atmospheric conditions.

Let us see what direct impact global warming will have on health. This impact will be felt when we go outside on an extremely hot or cold day. It will be increasingly difficult to breathe, because of heat stress and increased air pollution, particularly for those who suffer from respiratory illnesses. There will be an increased risk of heart attack and strokes caused by heat stress, and an increased risk of skin cancer caused by prolonged exposure to UV rays.

It has been established that pollutants are harmful to lungs and are responsible for a larger number of people being hospitalized for bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma. Pollutants increase chest pain and make it more difficult to breathe; they deprive the body of oxygen, because of an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration.

Why ratify Kyoto? On May 24, 2002, the motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly read as follows:

That the National Assembly ask the federal government to restate its commitment to meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals set by the Kyoto protocol on climate change, and urge the federal government to take an active part in the current efforts aimed at asking for negotiations so that as many states as possible ratify the protocol.

But there is a problem. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the most recent implementation plan presented by the federal government for the reasons that I will mention.

The Ottawa plan uses 2010 as the reference year for the specific reduction effort that will be demanded from each province or economic sector. This approach is unfair, because it does not take into consideration past and current efforts, and it encourages polluters to pollute even more until the year 2010.

In Quebec, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 4% since 1990, compared to 14% in Ontario, 31% in Alberta and 24% in British Columbia. For all of Canada, these emissions have increased by 19% since 1990.

The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with Ottawa, which is prepared to fund projects from the oil and gas industry. In the past, Ottawa has given to that industry direct subsidies that were 20 times greater than those given to other industries. Since 1970, Ottawa has paid in direct subsidies $66 billion to the oil industry and only $329 million for solar and wind energies.

The federal government's plan is unfair and it benefits the industries that pollute the most. It ignores the polluter pay principle, whereby those who pollute the most are the ones who must reduce their emissions the most.

The federal government evaluated the impact of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol on job creation. The plan is particularly unfair in this regard. Quebec, which pollutes the least, will lose more jobs, while Alberta, which pollutes more, will lose fewer jobs.

The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with how the federal government evaluated the impact of its plan on the revenues of each province. The results are that the federal plan is very unfair. Quebec, which pollutes less, will lose more, while Alberta, which pollutes more, will lose less.

Historically, Quebec has opted for non-polluting forms of energy, such as hydroelectricity. Since 1990, which is the reference year in the 1997 Kyoto protocol, Quebec has been model, in terms of the environment. Therefore, it should not have to pay more than the others, because the polluter pay principle must prevail.

Let me give the example of Alcan, which is located in my area. On October 17, 2002, Alcan Inc. announced that greenhouse gas emissions from its facilities in Quebec will be reduced by 285,000 tonnes compared to the 1999 levels, based on an equivalent production capacity. This new objective will be reached by the end of 2003.

In his statement, Jean Simon, the vice-president for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean operations, said, regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions:

--it is an objective that has been part of our operations management systems for many years. Alcan has been reducing its gas emissions since 1990 and has reduced them by over two million tonnes in the past decade. Therefore, the agreement is in line with our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our facilities all over the world.

In short, we make a clear distinction between ratifying the Kyoto protocol and implementing it. We are convinced of the merits of ratifying the Kyoto protocol, based on several principles that we value strongly and that will have to be reflected in the implementation of the protocol.

I say yes, let us ratify the Kyoto protocol for the future of our planet, for our children and for our grandchildren.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary and member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

In his speech, the member said that his riding had a lot of catching up to do since the 1930s and 1940s and that ratifying Kyoto was very urgent. According to him, if we do not take drastic measures, soon we will no longer have fish, birds or trees in our forests.

However, I would like to ask this to the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. He talked at length about the implementation plan. Why, to help his riding, should the polluter pays principle not be included in the plan? This plan favours polluters.

The member says that we must act quickly. Why is the polluter pays principle not included in his government's plan? Why does he not tell his Minister of the Environment to listen to what Quebec has been saying so that businesses, like the ones in his riding that produce steel or aluminum, in my riding, do something? Many businesses have already taken measures since 1990. If the government does not take that into account, these businesses will be in the same category as those that have not done anything.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether Canada has always believed in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. I think that, since 1997, opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, have had to put pressure on the government for it to commit to ratifying Kyoto by the end of 2002.

However, with regard to this implementation plan, I would like to ask the member why the federal government is always so unfair. Why does it not apply the polluter pays principle and use 1990 as base year instead of 2010?

If the government is so eager to go ahead with this, why does it not listen to what the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec have been suggesting, so it can be fair across the board?

[Health, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion condemning the centralist vision of the Romanow report. Jean Charest, Mario Dumont and Bernard Landry all agree: the federal government must immediately transfer funds for health to the Quebec government without conditions, without new bureaucracy and without Canadian standards.

The only obstacle to the long awaited reinvestment in health throughout Quebec and Canada, is the Liberal members in Ottawa. While everyone in Quebec is united on this issue, the only ones we are not hearing from are the federal members from Quebec. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, resolving this problem would require an investment of more than $100 million over three years, but the Liberal candidate stands in solidarity with the Liberal members and refuses to give us back our money.

Enough is enough. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, we want our money without any conditions.

[Health, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Romanow Report proposes certain mandates for federal public servants. These include: setting common indicators and benchmarks, measuring and tracking the performance of the health system, consultation and coordination, and of course reporting.

How, with all this red tape and bureaucracy, can the government think it is going to give people faster access to a physician or emergency care?

[Agropur Plant, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, until very recently, the Agropur plant processed millions of litres of milk produced by farmers in my region. Following an administrative decision, all of the processing operations will be moved outside of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

The survival of a region like ours depends on this ability we have to process our own raw materials in our own region. These are special circumstances and they require special support measures.

However, the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec is unable to provide speedy assistance. This is another example of the federal government's lack of interest when it comes to the survival of businesses in the regions of Quebec.

For the secretary of state and the Liberal government, it is clearly out of the question to help workers of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area.

[Telephone Service, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, while the federal government is proposing initiatives to connect certain regions to the Internet, hundreds of people still do not have basic phone service. This is the case with the residents of Saint-Michel-des-Saints in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm.

Yet back in 1999 the CRTC announced its intention to provide better service to areas where costs were high. Three years later, however, the CRTC is still busy negotiating service improvement plans.

In reply to a question I asked last week, the Minister of Industry admitted that he had no authority over the CRTC. This is a very serious matter. He is the one really responsible for the CRTC. Before promising new technologies to people in the regions, the minister ought to have made sure he had the CRTC fully on side. Before promising the moon to people in the Quebec regions, the minister needs to think twice before opening his mouth.

[Supply Management, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the egg producers of Quebec were pointing out the merits of supply management in their sector. They are concerned about the government's shilly-shallying and are calling for specific commitments relating to their production.

Will the Minister for International Trade finally admit that supply management mechanisms are essential for the development of the egg sector, and can he assure us that his position with respect to supply management bears no connection to the one set out in a memorandum to cabinet made public some weeks ago?

[Phone Service, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, while the federal government is proposing initiatives to connect certain regions to the Internet, hundreds of people still do not have basic phone service. This is the case with the residents of Saint-Michel-des-Saints in Berthier—Montcalm. Yet back in 1999 the CRTC announced its intention to provide better service to areas where costs were high.

What explanation can the Minister of Industry give for the fact that, three years later, the CRTC is still busy negotiating “service improvement plans”, and what does he plan to do—