Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by oral question period, I was referring to the Panel on Ecological Integrity report—and had reached the third statement:

The Panel concurs with the conclusions in the State of Parks 1997 Report. Ecological integrity in our national parks is in peril.

On the following page, the Commission continues as follows:

Parks Canada currently lacks the necessary capacity in both the natural and social sciences to effectively manage for, and inform society about, ecological integrity in national parks. With notable individual exceptions, all levels of Parks Canada lack a well-established culture for conducting, using and appreciating science as part of park management, interpretation and regional integration.

This eloquently and clearly demonstrates that Bill C-27, which we have before us, ought to clearly give priority to the mission of protecting the integrity of the natural environment instead of to visitor enjoyment, as clause 4 states very directly. This is yet another clause in the bill which shows a certain lack of concern for ecological issues. I refer to clause 8(2), which states:

8(2) Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority of the Minister in the consideration of park zoning and visitor use.

We believe that, in the French version of the bill, the phrase “s'efforcer avant tout” is not strong enough to ensure the ecological integrity of the national parks. This phrase is a joke when we know that currently the national parks system receives 14 million visitors a year and that, with a 4.5% expected growth rate, the number could double in the next 15 years.

This is why the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks is suggesting Parks Canada radically modify its corporate culture. The following are some of its recommendations:

That Parks Canada transform itself and change its training, staffing, decision-making and accountability structures to reflect the central importance of ecological integrity throughout Canada's national parks and make ecological integrity the core of every Parks Canada employee's job; that Parks Canada upgrade its social and natural science, planning and interpretation capacity to be able to manage national parks according to the principles of ecological integrity and better educate the public, and that Parks Canada cease the product marketing of national parks and concentrate instead on marketing in keeping with parks values and focused marketing when necessary.

Clearly, the concept of ecological integrity must be made the priority of the bill. Moreover, we must see to it that ministerial statements are translated into action in the field.

While calls for a change in the corporate culture of Parks Canada are coming from everywhere, year after year we see a steady decline in the financial resources Canadian Heritage is allocating its national parks system.

Before the Liberals took office, Parks Canada had a $410 million budget. Today, its budget is $350 million. Its staff has been reduced from 4,000 to 3,000.

Parks Canada paid dearly for budget cuts, as Kevin McNamee, of the Canadian Nature Federation, stated in evidence before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, during the study of the bill creating the Parks Canada Agency. He said:

I think it's important to recognize that there has already been a tremendous loss of experience in corporate knowledge from Parks Canada across this country. Three rounds of budget cuts, the Mazankowski budget cuts, the loss of Green Plan funding programs I and II, the reorganization of Parks Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage—all have had a toll on the agency.

I could continue quoting Mr. McNamee, but I will move on.

Furthermore, it is worth reminding the House that some people saw in national parks an opportunity to play petty politics. For instance, the November 22, 1972 edition of the Montréal Matin reported that, on November 19, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the current Prime Minister, speaking about the Mauricie park, had stated, on CTV, and I quote:

I used this park to break the Quebec government's back. And I tell you I am proud of this.

That is a quotation from the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and present Prime Minister. It was not me who said that.

Such attitudes are revolting. If we want to protect the integrity of the environment, we must do what it takes.

The proposed legislation also provides for the designation of historic sites. However, it provides nothing about consulting the provinces, and that is very disturbing. That is unacceptable. Clause 42 of the bill provides that the Governor in Council may set apart any land, the title to which is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, as a national historic site of Canada.

While generally it is only natural to do as we please on our own turf, certain initiatives must be taken in consultation with local people and their local and provincial elected representatives and in accordance with existing acts and regulations.

Recently, the transport department ignored the Quebec moratorium on road advertising and allowed one of its agencies to take out a lucrative contract for the installation of two dozen billboards along well-travelled roads in Montreal, thereby jeopardizing the safety of Montrealers and visitors.

The Bloc Quebecois will call for an amendment to that provision of the bill in order to ensure the conformity of federal actions with those of other levels of government.

In conclusion, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-27 in principle. But before principles can be turned into reality, there are often practical considerations that have to be taken into account, the first one being the respect of interested populations and their local governments. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will listen to the representations that they will make.

First and foremost, this bill cannot and must not perpetuate the overuse of national parks resources for recreational purposes. On the contrary, it seems to us in the Bloc that the preservation of the ecological integrity of these parks should be the priority in this bill.

The weather is nice and warm today. I encourage Canadians to visit their national parks; a word of caution however: respect the environment.

[The Environment, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is currently reviewing the Environmental Assessment Act, which it uses to interfere in all sorts of provincial matters.

However, this same government is refusing to submit major federal projects such as the export of nuclear plants or the import of plutonium to a full environmental assessment.

Will the Minister of the Environment agree to submit the export of nuclear plants and the import of uranium to a full environmental assessment?

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to address at second reading Bill C-27, the Canada National Parks Act. This bill is an overhaul of the existing act.

The main changes proposed in this bill are a new process for the establishment of future parks, a substantial increase in fines relating to poaching, and ways to restrict the development of communities located within park boundaries.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. However, it will listen carefully to the comments and proposals by the various groups appearing before the heritage committee. The Bloc Quebecois also intends to raise certain major concerns, including some that have to do with the wording of a fundamental provision of the Canada National Parks Act, namely clause 4, which deals with public use of parks.

The Bloc Quebecois also notes that while the Minister of Canadian Heritage claims to want to put environmental protection at the core of this legislation, she does not provide adequate funding to Parks Canada.

Indeed, when it comes to funding, the minister is more inclined to implement procedures that do not concern her department, such as the increase in fines and in lease rates.

Worse still, while Parks Canada is faced with an urgent need to radically change its culture to protect the parks' environment, Parks Canada's net budget will be reduced from $313 million in 1998 to $283 million in 2001.

I would like review the main amendments to the National Parks Act and, in passing, indicate the Bloc Quebecois' position on each.

Let us begin with the changes to the procedure for establishing new parks. The current legislation calls for any new national park to be created by legislative means. Bill C-27, however, proposes a new procedure involving an order in council. This is to be tabled in each House of Parliament and then referred to the appropriate standing committees, but they will not have much time to address it. Parliament will then be able to refuse to endorse it, and thus it will be rejected. As well, the area of a national park may not be reduced except by legislative means.

We have two comments to make on this section of the bill. First of all, we appreciate the fact that the government makes a commitment in clause 5 not to create any new park without provincial consent. This is very important. Respect for the sovereignty of Quebec over its territory is essential to the Bloc Quebecois' support in principle of this bill. We do, however, feel that the time limit for examination of the order by taxpayers and parliamentarians is too short.

In fact, clause 7 of the bill stipulates that, from the time a proposal for a new park or expansion of a park is tabled in the House, the House and the committee will have just 20 days—that is right, 20 days—to reach a conclusion on the proposed modification set out in the order. We do not think that is enough to enable parliamentarians to do their work and taxpayers to organize.

The bill also proposes the establishment of seven new parks: three in Nunavut, one in the Northwest Territories, one in Newfoundland, one in Manitoba and one in Saskatchewan. It also proposes the establishment of a reserve, at Pacific Rim in British Columbia. Finally, it proposes the expansion of the Point Pelee to include Middle Island. This park is located in Ontario on Lake Erie.

One important thing, the bill proposes to increase fines and establish new offences. The existing legislation provides fines for poaching wildlife. These fines vary from $10,000 to $150,000 and may involve imprisonment.

With Bill C-27, the fines for poaching would increase from $50,000 and/or six months' imprisonment on summary conviction to $150,000 and/or up to five years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment as the result of a charge.

These fines for poaching are in keeping with those found in the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, the Canadian Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

The bill contains a new offence for trafficking. This offence will apply to fauna, flora and natural resources. Thus the possession of rare plants and fossils for trade or barter and the possession of objects with the intention of trafficking constitute an offence. The maximum fine will be $10,000, but it could go as high as $150,000 with imprisonment when endangered or protected species are involved.

Bill C-27 also proposes penalties for repeat offenders. Its provisions allow for the imposition of fines for each specimen of wildlife species taken, and for each day during which an offence is committed. Finally, the bill will allow authorities to recover the costs of cleaning up the damage caused by substances spilled in a park. The Bloc Quebecois cares about the parks' environmental integrity and supports all of these measures.

The bill also seeks to restrict the development of communities. Currently, the existing act does not include any mechanism to restrict the commercial development of communities located in parks. The proposed new legislation corrects this flaw by providing that parliament will approve community plans that will become schedules to the act. These plans will have to be consistent with the management plan for the park in which the community is located and with any guidelines established by the minister for appropriate activities within the park community, provide a strategy for the management of growth within the park community, and be consistent with principles of no net negative environmental impact and responsible environmental stewardship and heritage conservation.

The plan will include a description of the lands comprising the park community, a description of the lands comprising the commercial zones of the park community, and an indication of the maximum floor area permitted within the commercial zones of the park community. This means that commercial growth will be subject to ceilings, and any change will require passage of a new act, which means a national debate in parliament.

Thus all opinions on the matter could be expressed at that time. We note, however, that the bill has nothing to say on many points relating to these communities. There is no reference to who will draw up these community plans, nor to how the communities will finance standard utilities. There is no assurance of an elementary respect for municipal bylaws or provincial regulations. This is a point of considerable concern to the Bloc Quebecois.

Clause 16, moreover, gives the governor in council considerable powers over the communities. It is stated in 16(g) states that the governor in council may make regulations respecting:

(g)the issuance, amendment and termination of leases, licences of occupation and easements or servitudes, and the acceptance of the surrender or resiliation of leases and the relinquishment of licences of occupation and easements or servitudes, of or over public lands

(i) in towns and visitor centres, for the purposes of residence, schools, churches, hospitals, trade, tourism and places of recreation or entertainment,

(ii) in resort subdivisions, for the purpose of residence.

This clause disconcerts us because there is a total lack of recourse for those living within national parks against potential abuse of such regulatory power.

The Bloc Quebecois intends to listen to what community representatives have to say when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meets. In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, their point of view must be taken into consideration, and a proper balance struck between their interests and those of conserving the environment.

Above and beyond this bill, a change in corporate culture is required. Unfortunately, the bill shows no evidence of this. In fact, the focal point of the bill, clause 4, states as follows:

4.(1) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that this bill puts the focus more on the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada than on the ecological protection of the national parks. The former appear first, while ecological integrity comes second. We should reverse the order of this provision and strengthen the wording to make clear the primary purpose of a park.

In fact, in a recent report, the auditor general pointed out that the national parks were used more for tourist purposes than to preserve their ecological integrity. He deplored the fact that the protection of the natural setting was at the mercy of visitor traffic.

Allow me to quote the auditor general:

Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks.

Thirteen parks reported that they did not have a fully completed ecosystem conservation plan. The management plans of the six parks that we reviewed did not provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives. We are concerned that in some instances, management plans emphasize social and economic factors over ecological factors.

Last month, the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks released its report in which it said:

The majority of the parks report today a considerable and growing loss of ecological integrity, particularly in the smallest parks and those located more to the south—

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interesting question.

There are currently several committees reviewing this issue. They are looking at voluntary labelling. Something good may come out of their work, and the Bloc Quebecois is confident it will, but we must respect the public's wishes. Labelling must be mandatory.

With mandatory labelling, consumers and farmers would be free to choose whether or not to consume genetically modified foods. We must respect the consumer's freedom of choice.

As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert pointed out, we do not want to cause a panic. We want to respect the consumers' choice and the farmers' choice.

Nowadays, people are informed. They are very concerned about their health and the environment. The mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods is part of the changes concerning people's health and the environment.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to rise today to speak to the motion by my hon. colleague relating to genetically modified organisms. This is a matter of great concern to me personally, as well as to a large number of the constituents of Jonquière, whom I have the honour to represent.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, and the Bloc Quebecois agriculture and agri-food critic, for having proposed this motion, which is aimed at making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

I also wish to congratulate her on her courage and determination. She has kept the heat on this issue for a number of weeks. She has met with hundreds of individuals and organizations and has appeared in many forums to bring this matter to our attention. I congratulate my colleague on her persistence and success.

As members know, I am greatly interested in environmental issues and this will be the thrust of most of my speech. Let us bear a few facts in mind.

In 1994, negotiations for the adoption of an international protocol on biosafety were launched. Among other things, the purpose of this protocol was to regulate the export and import of GMOs, and to protect the environment from the dissemination of these new organisms.

At the first multilateral meeting on the Cartagena protocol in February 1999, negotiations centred on the initial project, the purpose of which was to establish a procedure for assessing the risks of GMOs and rules for their labelling, and to make companies responsible for the damage caused by their genetically modified products.

Hundreds of countries believed in this vision. Unfortunately, Canada joined forces with five other GMO-exporting countries, including the United States, in opposing the signing of such a protocol. At the time, the Canadian government felt that no trade restrictions should be placed on GMOs.

European countries felt that caution should prevail on this issue. In the absence of scientific certainty as to the potential risks of GMOs, they felt that all necessary measures should be taken in order to avoid the devastating effects of these products on human health.

Once again, Canada turned a deaf ear to this example of responsibly managing a product that could prove dangerous to human health. The final round of negotiations for this biosafety protocol, which I attended, took place in Montreal on January 24 and 25, 2000 and led to numerous confrontations.

Canada and the five other countries concentrated on defending their commercial interests and, once again, in the name of a free market, opposed the adoption of international standards that would limit genetically modified organisms. Yet, these standards merely seek to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure the protection of the public and of the environment.

I cannot help but draw a parallel with the importation of plutonium based MOX fuel. In December, Canada imported samples of that product by air from the United States, even though such a way of doing it is prohibited in the United States, because of the very high risk to health. Now, Canada is about to do the same thing again with samples from Russia.

As far as it is concerned, the risk no longer exists north of the 49th parallel. The Liberal way of managing is unbelievably irresponsible. Canada is doing the same thing again by wilfully ignoring the laws of a foreign country. A number of countries use a rational approach regarding transgenic foods and Canada should take its cues from them. Incidentally, the labelling of GMOs is now mandatory in the countries that are members of the European Union.

Here, the situation is different, since these foods are not subjected to any scientific experiments other than those used for other foods. What is truly worrisome is that, in order to approve a transgenic product, the federal government relies on studies made by companies and merely reviews them. It does not conduct a systematic second assessment of all the plants and foods that are to be put on the market. While approval of new drugs may take years of in-depth studies, approval of transgenic foods takes only a few weeks. It is ridiculous for the federal government to be telling us that there is no risk with GMOs, when the studies have just been thrown together, and many are too superficial.

Of course, these preliminary studies must not lead to our rejecting GMOs. Perhaps transgenic foods do indeed represent no health risk but, as I have already said, given the lack of scientific certainty because of the paucity of information and scientific expertise on the scope of the potential harmful effects of GMOs, we must err on the side of caution.

There is, moreover, another risk, a potentially serious risk to the environment. This is the transmission of genes in nature, what is termed gene flow.

This is not merely a theoretical possibility, but indeed a certainty that has been proven on a number of occasions. When a plant has escaped into nature, it is extremely difficult to recover it, and it can spread before we become aware of the undesirable effects.

It is a matter of concern, therefore, to see companies doing outdoor testing. This might have disastrous effects. Some of the developing countries have raised this very important point. As hon. members are aware, some of these countries are heavily dependent on an economic development strategy that relies on exports, particularly in the field of agriculture.

Genetically modified seeds could quite conceivably harm their agriculture, with the change in genes, the transmission of the resistance to herbicides of some GMOs in nature could give rise to almost invincible weeds that could invade the genes and replace the natural species, including the rare or more vulnerable species. The development of this resistance could lead to the use of herbicides even more poisonous to the environment, benefiting the companies manufacturing these products, which are often the companies that developed the GMOs in the first place.

We become aware of the vicious circle we find ourselves in and we know full well the disastrous effects of pesticides. At the moment, the Standing Committee on the Environment is examining the effect of these pesticides and will soon table a report on their effects on human health. We will be forced to use them more often and in greater quantity in order to eliminate invisible weeds whose existence is directly dependant on GMOs.

Developing countries are very familiar with this problem and do not want their fertile land to serve as a testing ground in order to satisfy the scientific advances of more favoured nations such as Canada and the United States. It may be that a handful of companies will exercise unprecedented control over the world seed and pesticide supply market with all that this entails for prices and the safety of food supply and on farmers' lifestyle.

There is something called the terminator technology, which gives rise to plants producing sterile seed. Producers, especially those in developing countries, are challenging this technology, which makes it impossible to sow seed from the preceding crop. It is therefore not surprising that some European producers are challenging this monopoly. For all these reasons, it is important to take appropriate measures in order to regulate the use of transgenic foods.

The Bloc Quebecois's motion is a step in the right direction because, by supporting the international protocol on biosafety, Canada could better protect the environment, particularly with respect to the export and import of GMOs.

There is increasing pressure in Canada to follow the European approach. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, which represents food wholesalers and a number of other retailers, feels that there should be a Canadian labelling standard.

When it is known that 30% to 50% of Canadian canola plants are GMOs—twice the number in 1997—consumers are entitled to wonder about the potentially devastating effects of these products.

The government has a moral responsibility to ensure public safety, whatever the cost. It is clear that the federal government is completely ignoring this responsibility. On the contrary, it is shutting its eyes and is in no hurry to provide Canadians and Quebecers with protection against the potentially harmful effects of GMOs.

The health of consumers and the environment must come first. There is no question of sacrificing our health and standing by while fertile land disappears. That is why, on behalf of the inhabitants of the riding of Jonquière, I am asking all members of parliament to support the motion introduced by the member for Louis-Hébert.

I wish to make an amendment to my colleague's motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding, in the French version, after the word “denrées” the following: “alimentaires”.

[Importation Of Plutonium, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to this morning's La Presse , Canada is preparing to import from Russia five times the planned amount of plutonium: 600 grams. This plutonium will, moreover, be brought in by plane, a practice that is banned in the United States.

How can the Minister of Natural Resources endanger the safety of his fellow citizens by allowing plutonium to be carried over Canada by air?

[Highway Infrastructures, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the hon. member for Chicoutimi criticized the Government of Quebec for not investing sufficiently in the development of highway infrastructures in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec City regions.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the Government of Quebec invests close to 72% of its fuel tax revenue in highway infrastructures, unlike the federal government, which collects over $6 billion yearly in excise tax but invests only 17.4% of it. The rest of that revenue goes to swell the already over-inflated budget surplus.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi will agree with me that the level of government responsible for our poor road conditions is none other than the federal. With its surpluses, it could renew strategic agreements for highway improvements with the provinces.

The Government of Quebec is once again the only one bearing the burden of highway development. I trust that the hon. member for Chicoutimi will have a better idea which direction to take with his steamroller, the next time he takes the floor in this House.

[Greenhouse Gases, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment keeps saying that a reduction in greenhouse gases is one of his government's priorities. However, oddly enough, at the meeting of environment ministers in Otsu, Japan, Canada remained on its own, dissociating itself from Germany, Italy, France, Great Britain, Japan and Russia by refusing to set 2002 as the deadline for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Canada is certainly not in the lead pack. It had made a commitment to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 6% of their 1990 level by 2010. But the federal government is doing nothing. If it continues to do nothing, the figure Canada will achieve by 2010 is a 35% increase, contrary to its international commitments.

Instead of limiting itself to awareness programs and voluntary action, Canada must specify its reduction objectives. Really, the Liberals' will is nil.

[Gasoline Pricing, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices recently shot to a staggering new high in my riding of Jonquière.

Between January 1999 and January 2000, the average price for diesel fuel increased by 40%, while the price of gasoline rose from 54.4 cents to 75.6 cents a litre between June 1999 and April 2000.

Meanwhile, the federal government is acting like a hypocrite. If we calculate the revenues from the federal excise tax, the GST and the taxes paid by oil companies, we soon realize that the federal government has a margin of over $6 billion.

Because the government seems to be in no hurry to act on this issue, the public has decided to try to shake the government out of its lethargy. Since Monday, the residents of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region have been boycotting Petro-Canada.

If the Minister of Finance wants to end that boycott, he will have to take steps to lower the price of gasoline. With the fiscal flexibility he has, the minister can lift the 10 cent federal excise tax until gasoline prices get back to normal.

The minister must stop letting the provinces take the blame, he must assume his responsibilities—

[Transportation Of Plutonium, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when American plutonium was transported to Chalk River in Ontario, it made part of the journey by air.

This method of transportation is strictly prohibited in the United States for reasons of safety. In addition, the Minister of Natural Resources has broken Canadian law because he did not submit this transportation plan to the public.

How can the public trust the Minister of Natural Resources when he breaks his own law and, worse yet, gives the go-ahead for a form of transportation prohibited in the United States for safety reasons?