Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Progressive Conservative colleague for calling to order this government, which tables bills and goes on to show its “keen interest”. As we have seen, it had to be called to order. Hear, hear.

I will now start where I left off. Last October, I sent a letter to the health minister asking that the federal government give some clarification on an investment project to establish a health research centre in my riding of Jonquière.

In this letter, I indicated that I would be very receptive to the idea of investing in a specialized research centre. In a release in relation to this letter, I made the following statement “If the government wants to announce major investments for health research in Jonquière, I will be very happy. My party and myself have long been asking that Quebec get its fair share of investments in research and development. Good for us if our region benefits from those investments.”

I will conclude this recapitulation by saying that, last week, I sent the health minister another letter, in which I deplored health care cuts imposed by the Liberal government since 1993 and the longstanding lack of equity in the distribution of federal R and D investments in Quebec.

I added that, naturally, consistent with the provinces' jurisdiction over health, we supported the idea of receiving a fair share of these new investments.

The reason I am taking this time to give a history of my remarks and positions on this issue is that I want to make it very clear that the Bloc Quebecois and myself have long been supportive of the idea of reinvesting in research.

I also want this debate to be exempt from any partisan comments. Following the dubious attempts of Liberal and Progressive Conservative members to make political hay with this issue—I could give a history of that, but I would probably run out of time—I stated that this initiative should be judged on its merits from a scientific point of view.

That is why I said, back in July, that it was clear to me that researchers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region were the players, not Liberal or Progressive Conservative members. I added that without researchers there would be no such initiative and that it would be thanks to the excellence of the projects and the quality of the team of researchers, and nothing else, that the region could emerge as a winner.

As for the legislation before us today, the House probably knows by now that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with its principle. I believe every member recognizes that health is the most precious gift we have and that research in this area will result in improving the quality of life of our fellow citizens either by preventing diseases or by curing those who are suffering from diseases.

While the intent of the bill is laudable, it is nonetheless ironical to see the federal government suddenly so concerned about health issues, when we know how drastically it has cut transfer payments for health to the provinces since 1993 and reduced funding to the granting councils that allocate money to scientists in the health field.

I remind the House that in 1993 the federal government unilaterally and irresponsibly withdrew from health care networks when it introduced the Canada health and social transfer. In fiscal 1999-2000, Quebec's shortfall in social transfers is estimated to be close to $1.7 billion, $850 million of which is lost every year in the health field. Since 1993, the cumulative shortfall in the health field alone amounts to nearly $3.4 billion.

The Liberal government claims times were tough and it was fighting the deficit. To this I say that people did not stop being sick, and it is health workers and the sick who have been hurt by federal cuts.

Diseases did not suddenly disappear when the Liberals came to power, and yet they slashed research grants. By so doing they delayed new discoveries and medical technologies that would help us take better care of our fellow citizens at a time when ageing will require more resources.

I am wondering where all these Liberal members who come parading around in my riding were, when their government was making these drastic cuts to health care.

Did they fight to make sure that the health of the population be considered a priority and be spared from these cuts? I have not seen them very often, in hospitals or emergency wards in Quebec, praising the health budget cuts made by their colleague, the Minister of Finance.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the second reading of Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act, to quote its short title.

I am very happy to speak about the institutes of health research, because this is an issue very dear to me, that I have been following now for a long time.

In fact, as early as December 1997, I wrote to the federal health minister to inform him of a genetics research project being proposed by a research team from the area I represent. I asked him to assess the merits of this research project to determine if a grant was warranted.

In June, I once again wrote to the health minister to invite him to take the opportunity, while he was visiting my region, to meet a research team interested in working at a proposed research institute that could meet its needs.

Also, in October, in a letter sent to the health minister, I asked if the federal government could provide some clarification about the proposed establishment of a health research centre in my riding of Jonquière. I stressed in that letter that I was very open to any investment in a specialized research centre.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

They should stand up.

[Young Offenders, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, some twenty Quebec organizations working with young offenders openly oppose Bill C-3 aimed at repealing the Young Offenders Act.

Unfortunately, the Liberal members from Quebec seem unable to hear the message sent out by those defending Quebec expertise in this area for many decades.

Where are the members for Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lac-Saint-Louis and Ahuntsic? Where are the members for Bourassa, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and Verdun—Saint-Henri hiding?

What have the members for Beauce and Papineau—Saint-Denis got to say? Have the members for Pierrefonds—Dollard, Outremont and Gatineau got an opinion?

The silence of the members for LaSalle—Émard, Brossard—La Prairie and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Vaudreuil—Soulanges and Brome—Missisquoi is incomprehensible. However, most disturbing is the endorsement given this bill by the member for Saint-Maurice.

Are we to understand that the Liberal representatives of Quebec prefer to respond to pressure by the Reform Party than to promote the opinion of experts from Quebec?

[Plutonium Imports, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Transport Canada released a report in which it gives the green light to the importation of plutonium-based fuel into Canada.

The government keeps repeating that the public's short and long term safety are not at risk. However, the public's strong opposition to this project clearly shows that Canadians do not support it.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister recognize that the Seaborn panel, which spent nine years reviewing the nuclear issue, concluded that any solution must have strong public support, and will the minister finally allow a public debate on plutonium imports?

[Niobec Mine, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to the success of the Niobec mine in Saint-Honoré. It has won a major price in the Quebec Énergia competition, awarded by the Association québécoise de maîtrise de l'énergie.

I would like to congratulate the entire team of electricians, who made possible the installation of a new system to heat the underground galleries of the mine, thereby reducing energy consumption and protecting the environment.

By using modern technology, the mining industry is now up to speed with the third millennium. This award is recognition of the fact.

Congratulations once again to the Niobec mine and its employees for their continued efforts to protect our environment. This is proof that the environment and the economy go hand in hand.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the rambling remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Last week, I attended the hearings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Two prairie premiers came to testify that they needed money and that AIDA was no longer meeting their needs. It is strange that the parliamentary secretary is telling us that everything is fine in Canada when these two premiers had quite the opposite to say.

I find it very odd. I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. How will he meet the growing expectations of Canadian taxpayers, who want the Canadian government to ensure that genetically modified foods are labelled? I would like him to answer that question.

[Request For Emergency Debate, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I call on the House to hold an emergency debate on the importing of mixed oxide fuel, MOx, containing military plutonium.

As members know, the government has unilaterally agreed to transport a small quantity of MOx from American and Russian nuclear arms for trials on its use as a fuel in Canadian nuclear reactors. The government will thus act contrary to a unanimous recommendation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, which rejected the idea of importing MOx.

Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois opposed the idea of importing plutonium and asked the ministers of foreign affairs and natural resources to drop the idea.

The ever thorny issue of residual waste management, the lack of cost effectiveness, the clear opposition by a growing number of citizens, resolutions by a number of municipalities preventing the passage of such a convoy through their territory and the risk of terrorism involved in the movement of this substance seriously reduce the credibility of the importation proposal.

For all these reasons and because the MOx could be transported as early as November 15, with the Russians' share potentially having already left the port of St. Petersburg, we think an emergency debate is necessary.

The government must justify its decision, which runs totally contrary to what the people want and what was recommended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, and allow parliamentarians to debate this question of importing plutonium, even before trials are permitted on Canadian soil.

Accordingly, I ask you to consider my request for an emergency debate favourably.

[Speech From The Throne, November 3rd, 1999]

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

For those of us in the Bloc Quebecois, everything related to the environment is very important as far as sustainable development is concerned, because it is important to pass a healthy environment on to future generations.

Since 1993, this Liberal government has made huge cuts in funding to the Department of the Environment. One need only think of Bill C-32, which was passed during the last parliament. We will recall the general opposition there was to that bill. The government pushed it through with a gag order.

We submit that it is important for everyone, the general public and all parliamentarians, to be involved in everything that affects the environment. These are the priorities I defend, and shall always defend, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Speech From The Throne, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. As the Bloc Quebecois environment critic, I will primarily focus on the promises made by the federal government in that area and on the initiatives that it should be taking to ensure sustainable development and preserve nature for the benefit of future generations.

I want to preface my remarks with quotes from a document published this year by the federal government, entitled “Survey on the Importance of Nature to Canadians”.

This survey, which involved 86,000 Canadians aged 15 or over, confirms the importance of natural resources, fauna and flora for a vast majority of people. Indeed, it shows that, during the 1996 reference year, 29 million Canadians and Quebecers, or 85% of the population, took part in nature-related activities, for a total of 1.5 billion days. These nature-related activities generated 191 million trips and expenses totalling $11 billion.

All these figures are telling me two important things. First, Canadians and Quebecers are keen participants in nature-related activities. This is why we must preserve our fauna, forests and protected areas, so that we can all continue to fully enjoy them.

Second, these activities have a significant economic impact, whether we are talking about outdoor activities, sports or the tourism industry. Regardless of what those who believe ecology is not compatible with economic development may think, the fact is that our environment is a profitable asset that must be preserved and developed.

Unfortunately, since it took office in 1993, the Liberal government did very little to protect the environment. Its rare initiatives were primarily designed to encroach on provincial jurisdictions and strengthen the federal government's control over natural resources rather than truly protect the environment.

The only good news is that the Liberal government seems to have woken up, probably having realized that it should not head into the next election empty-handed. But yes, let us take a quick look at a few of the measures proposed in the throne speech.

The government promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the Liberals initially promised in their red book to reduce emissions by 20% by 2005—that is right, 20% by the year 2005—we recently learned that greenhouse gases have instead gone up by 20% since 1990.

That is why Bloc Quebecois members will continue to make every possible effort to hold this government—because this is essential—to the commitments it made in Kyoto, to set itself specific goals and to take firm action to achieve them.

The government also intends to protect endangered species. We will continue to denounce interference in provincial jurisdictions and the lack of resources to monitor and protect endangered species. Instead of setting national standards, the federal government should provide funding—that is what it should be doing—for preserving the habitats of these endangered species.

The most sensible proposal in the throne speech was the one to clean up contaminated federal sites. Finally, a ray of hope. The government has been promising to do this for years. Finally, it seems prepared to go ahead. I am giving it the benefit of the doubt, but I intend to keep a close eye on developments.

This should be the priority of the federal government: to clean up its own backyard before telling the provinces what to do with theirs. This clean-up should also include sites contaminated by the Canadian army, such as those in my riding of Jonquière.

As I see time is passing, I will deal with a very important matter left out of the throne speech, that of genetically modified organisms. The Canadian position on the matter of the negotiation of the protocol on biodiversity is unacceptable. Over 100 countries are prepared to sign an agreement to regulate the labelling, import and export of genetically modified organisms, primarily plants, and a liability clause for companies regarding damage to the environment caused by their products.

Unfortunately, Canada is part of a small group, with the United States and four other countries, that is blocking these negotiations because they are bent on putting exports ahead of the health of Canadians and the security of their environment.

I will close my remarks with a look at the decision by Jean Chrétien to permit the import into Canada of a fuel containing plutonium, also known as MOX.

I held a press conference this morning to oppose the import of this product from the United States and Russia, without public consultation on the principle. I pointed out as well the unresolved problems of storing radioactive waste once the MOX has been used as a fuel in nuclear plants.

I can only deplore the attitude of the Minister of the Environment in this matter. While he should be concerned about clean sources of energy and sustainable development, the minister has presented nuclear energy as an attractive solution that would reduce greenhouse gases. The minister has even advocated exporting Canadian nuclear technology abroad.

When I questioned him on the subject of his government's proposal to import some one hundred tonnes of plutonium from Russian and American nuclear arms, the minister had nothing to say.

I hope he will quickly change his course in this matter, as in others, and attend to his mandate as Minister of the Environment. For this and a number of other reasons, I must tell the government it is time to act on the environment. It must do so to give future generations a safe environment.