Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 31st, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 198
That Bill C-32, in Clause 185, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 134 the following:
“(1.1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, exempt from the application of subsection (1) any person who imports into, exports to or conveys in transit to a province substances described in subsection (1) where an Act of the legislature of the province is in force that governs the movement of such substances.”
Division No. 455 May 31st, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up once more in this Chamber to address the motions in Group No. 6. That group is made of Motions Nos. 36 to 38, 41, 70 and 73. They relate to hormone disrupting substances.
During the clause by clause study of the bill in committee, the Bloc Quebecois approved the redefinition of those substances. That is why we cannot support Motions Nos. 36, 37, 41, 70 and 73, that the hon. member for Churchill put forward in the name of his party.
If they were adopted, these motions would give the federal government additional powers in areas outside its jurisdiction through clauses 43 and 45 of the act. For example, all things concerning children are under provinces' jurisdiction. With those amendments the federal government could have a say about homes, schools, daycare facilities and the like. These areas are of no concern to the Minister of the Environment.
We are in a situation where several hon. members would like to reduce the powers of the provinces by giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction in certain areas. Again, this is the bad habit of centralization through national standards with the objective of getting one's hands on what belongs to others.
As for Motion No. 38, proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, we cannot support it. Members of the Bloc do not accept the vision underlying this motion which narrows the definition of hormone disrupting substance by redefining it in very vague terms.
With that motion, the Reform Party is showing its true colours, in that it does not think that we need environmental protection legislation. Reformers think that we would be better off without such legislation. Everybody could do as he or she pleases and taxpayers would save money.
Throughout the committee hearings, every time we were dealing with the crucial amendments needed to set the course straight and tell the government: “You have cut the environment budget enough. You no longer have enough inspectors to enforce the current legislation”. Every time we did something to get things moving, to provide a more specific framework, Reform members were against it. They wanted to ensure freedom of choice. But enough is enough.
As I have shown by putting forward 41 amendments in Group No. 2, we firmly believe that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and lastly have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.
Before the Kyoto summit, it was impossible to find out what was the federal government's vision, its action plan. In 1997, all of the provincial ministers of the Environment attended a meeting.
They submitted a common proposal to the federal government. It expressed their vision and they wanted the federal government to bring it to Kyoto.
They had accomplished quite a feat. All provincial environment ministers had finally sat at the same table and reached an agreement. This was too much for the federal government; finally, there was a coalition. The ten provinces, gathered around the same table, were telling the federal government “That is it”. But the federal government, and Liberal members in particular, are quite touchy.
What did they do? When they arrived in Kyoto, they took a completely opposite position. At last, the Canadian government could have had some influence on the international scene. It could have taken a strong position, with the support of the ten provinces. But it preferred to continue the tradition: what comes from the outside is not acceptable to this government.
I am not trying to impute motives here but the more I study the environment issue, the more I see this government acting just like the Reform Party. The member for Palliser mentioned the following in his speech last week “The Liberal Party spends the other 23 hours and 15 minutes—after the 45 minutes each day at question period when Liberal cabinet ministers, one after another, stand to condemn the Reform Party for all things that are wrong with this country—doing the business of the Reform Party in producing very bad legislation for this country”.
I believe we could have introduced a truly progressive act. We were prepared to do so. We wanted to finally have an act dealing with urgent problems. Unfortunately, the centralizing approach of this government, based on its policy of double social security net for environmental protection, has been disappointing.
This is why we will be voting against Group No. 6 amendments.
Division No. 455 May 31st, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motions in Group No. 5.
There are many motions with which we agree in that group. There are also some with which we disagree. Consequently, we will vote against the group of motions, but we want to point out that we support French and English concurrence Motions Nos. 20, 21, 27, 28, 34, 40, 45, 76 to 79, 82, 92, 140 to 145, 217 to 224.
Motions Nos. 54 and 55 concern Part 4 of the act dealing with pollution prevention. The use of pollution prevention plans would centralize control over environmental matters in the hands of the federal government, and we cannot support that approach.
We will vote against Motion No. 124, dealing with clause 96 under the heading, “Release of Toxic Substances”, because the deletion of certain terms deprives the provinces of their role and overlooks provincial provisions.
As for Motion No. 199, dealing with the export of material, we proposed amendments that were rejected by the committee. Therefore, we are opposed to any changes, even to ensure French-English concurrence, on this issue.
Motion No. 180 concerns Division 5 entitled “Vehicle, Engine and Equipment Emissions”, and involves adjustments between the French and English versions. However, since we are opposed to that division of the act, we cannot support this block of amendments.
With respect to clauses 72 and 75, the proposed concurrence amendments indicate some serious problems of comprehension. They do not clarify particularly well the discrepancy between the French and the English. So, we cannot support them.
We have reached Group No. 5 in which the government has proposed a whole lot of concurrence amendments and new amendments to Bill C-32. This bill, it should be pointed out, concerns pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
It is surprising that the government, after allowing a committee to study amendments for weeks, arrives at report stage and suddenly begins to table motions concerning vital sectors such as pollution prevention, toxic waste, substance exports, vehicle, engine and equipment emissions, and so on.
We can see the government did not structure this bill properly from the start so that, finally, in Canada, Quebec and the other provinces might have the elements they need to enable them to oversee environment policy within their jurisdiction.
Throughout the process, I could not help but notice this government really did not want to act. It spent its time saying “We will endeavour”. In life, either you act or you do not. I note that this government does not honour areas of jurisdiction under its own Constitution.
It is curious that today a member of the Bloc Quebecois is telling a Liberal government that it should honour its own Constitution. As a sovereignty party, we think that sovereignty within legislation that must be properly implemented begins with agreements with the authorities that are best able to make decisions and are closest to the real problems of the individuals and the society in general.
I cannot help but note that this government did not even deign to act. In the first version of Bill C-32 studied in committee, the government claimed to want to act, to want to do things. I thought that was good, and I took part to give them a hand so that the legislation on environment and protection would be good. As the days, weeks and months passed, they changed the word “act” to “perhaps”. They said “We will perhaps act” to justify their inaction.
I note that, since this government took office, it has cut 40% of the budget of the Department of the Environment. These are the very Liberal members today, in this House, who let the government act.
Right now, there is a dearth of inspectors and money to enforce the present environmental legislation. There is a lack of consistency. They cannot agree among themselves. What is this? The government wants to regain control over all things provincial and do things its way.
Had it known what it wanted, it would have made funds available to the Department of the Environment. But that is not what it is doing. In addition, it is leaving the provinces to do the dirty work.
Last week, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is now in the House, had the misfortune to mention the pulp and paper agreements between the Government of Quebec and the federal government.
I will give figures that are quite different from those provided by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. In 1996, 65 pulp and paper plants in Quebec submitted their annual environmental compliance reports; daily and average SS release limits were respected by 25 plants 99% and 95% of the time; daily and average B0D5 release limits were respected 97% and 94% of the time; daily and average AOX release limits were respected 96% and 93% of the time.
I could provide other figures. It is true that agreements are important, that the federal government should allow the provinces to exercise authority within their own jurisdictions.
Giving out inaccurate information proves that it is not the Bloc Quebecois that is hurting the government's image but the government itself, by failing to take action. If it were to actually do something, we would be working together—as we did in committee during the clause by clause analysis—towards fair and equitable legislation that would be a model for the world.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has, in a sort of a way, just confirmed that the government is preparing to leave the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the mercy of the constraints imposed by the CRTC, which may well seriously compromise production quality.
How could the minister claim that a cut in revenues will not mean a cut in quality, whereas Michèle Fortin, vice-president of the CBC's French network, who knows television, claims exactly the opposite?
The Environment May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we now have the first portrait of the agro-environmental situation on Quebec farms.
The participation rate of 88%, representing 20,360 operations, makes it an extensive and valuable survey. This project, an initiative of the Union des producteurs agricoles made possible through the co-operation of many partners, is a first in Quebec and in North America.
The high rate of participation by farmers is an indication of their wish to help protect the environment and to make changes in their daily practices.
The next step will be to analyse the data collected and produce regional and sectoral portraits, which will give us a baseline and help identify future priorities.
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the agricultural sector and all stakeholders in Quebec's agri-food sector on this initiative aimed at building a healthy environment for sustainable growth.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House one more time today. I am very happy. It is not very often that I speak so often in one day.
Bill C-32 is very important. It is very important for Quebec because we have our own environmental legislation. We have been a leader in this area, and the federal government now wants to appropriate the good things we have done in Quebec.
In Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 8 and 10 deal with cost-effective measures. We had a lengthy debate on the word cost-effective in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and we noted that it was not clearly defined. We decided to take it out. Now I see that Motions Nos. 8 and 10 propose that the word be reintroduced.
I do not know if people did their job in the standing committee, to at least try to have this bill make some sense. We see today that the motions brought forward by the government, the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party deal with things that were already done by the standing committee.
These things were debated, maybe not from the same point of view, since the same amendments could not be brought forward in the House, but from a similar one.
The closer we get to the end of consideration of this bill, the more I realize this issue is not being taken very seriously.
With this bill, the federal government is again trying to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. As my colleague was saying earlier, let us leave these things in the hands of those who have jurisdiction over them.
I think the government wants to undermine the authority of the provincial governments, which have developed some expertise through agreements with municipalities, industries, individuals and environmental groups. They have ensured that some progress can finally be made in terms of the environment.
Why take a step backward when we can move forward? With this bill, the government not only takes a step backward, but it prevents the environment from being the focus of concern for the current and future generations.
What we have before us today is not a progressive, but rather a regressive piece of legislation. It is regressive in its concrete measures, in its vision for the future and in the bad image it gives the world of Canada, because of our poor performance. Nothing in this bill will help us become visionary environmental leaders.
We made some commitments in Kyoto. I do not think the government has been able to meet them, quite the opposite, in fact. With the bill before the House, we will fall behind in our commitments. Why? Because, for the time being, there is no co-ordination between the various departments dealing in one way or another with the environment in Canada, like Health Canada and Environment Canada, for instance. As the commissioner of the environment said, we are once again quarrelling.
And what happens when people quarrel? They are unable to move forward. I do not believe this bill will be beneficial to endangered species, water and other matters of interest to our generation and future generations. We should be concerned about that.
Today, we witnessed a historic event: a woman from Quebec went up into space. This bill, however, won't make history. I believe we could have done better.
The Bloc Quebecois wanted to move things ahead. However, this government is not doing what it should. It says it will invest millions of dollars here and there for studies and so on. This is not what people want. They do not want studies, they want action, but this government does not know the meaning of the word. We always hear the same old story.
This government is like a dog chasing its tail. This is unfortunate because nowadays no one can ignore environmental issues. This government was elected to run the country, and it is not doing its duty. It does not act, whether it be on the issue of importing or exporting toxic substances or on any other environmental issue. It is as if they had hit the wall. They seem to be living in a virtual world. Everything that deals with the environment seems to be nebulous. We have to tell them that all environmental issues are actually part of our everyday life.
I would not like to be in their shoes tomorrow when people tell them “What did you do? You had the power to make decisions for our children and our grand-children but you did nothing”. We cannot look back. We must look to the future. We can build on past experience, but we cannot go back in time.
I believe very strongly in the future, but this government has no hope. It has no hope now and will have none in the future. As the hon. member for Davenport said, it is important.
It is very important for me, for the hon. member for Davenport, and for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. For us in the Bloc Quebecois, it is very important. I realize we missed the boat. When we miss the boat, it is very hard to move forward.
I hope the government will think it over before the bill is put to a vote, and consider the amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois and those by the Reform Party. Some, not many, are forward-looking.
I ask government members to search their soul and take a positive view of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments. I ask them to see to it that this bill benefits future generations.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 27th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again today to speak to Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
My remarks will be directed primarily at the motions in Group No. 3, which concern the preamble and toxic substances such as lead.
I add my voice to that of the member for Davenport in criticizing this government and expressing my indignation at the way it has treated and is treating the environment committee by tabling significant amendments today in the House. These amendments should have been introduced in committee to give us an opportunity to thoroughly study them.
Throughout the environment committee's proceedings, we analyzed more than 500 amendments over the past few weeks. The government did not hesitate to introduce amendments at the last minute. They were rushed through the committee. They should have been thoroughly studied by the committee.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister of the Environment affords such cavalier treatment to a committee comprising representatives of all parties in this House: the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party.
We analyzed everything that was introduced in the environment committee, but clearly this government does not have enough respect for the people there to ensure that this legislation contains an element of common sense and provides for some carryover into the future.
We cannot analyze an environment act every year. This law will be in effect in Canada for the next 10 years. We will move into the next century with this law, and we have to admit that this government chose not to give the environment committee the means, the time or the authority to study the significant amendments it has tabled today in the House.
When we do not have time to study something, it is better to abstain or to vote against it.
I wish to point out that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting as a whole against all the amendments by the Reform Party and the Liberal Party in Group No. 3.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I need some clarification. Are we not voting on the motions in Group No. 2 at this time?
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to address the motions in Group No. 2. As hon. members can see, I have introduced 49 amendments in Group No. 2, for which I apologize.
This is a very important group. The government has much to say about co-operation with the provinces. It says all manner of things in various forums. It needs to do something to prove that there is some connection between its words and reality.
I and the members of the Bloc Quebecois feel that the words of this government have not rung true right from the start. As the member for Jonquière, as I said when I first spoke on Bill C-32, I wish to indicate how disappointed I was when we analyzed this bill in committee. That disappointment carries over to third reading.
In my opinion, this government is living in a bubble. This government is in a bubble that protects it from reality. What the parliamentary secretary has just said on behalf of her government is not accurate. She said that Canadians expect this government to play the lead role where the environment is concerned. That is not what we are hearing.
What we are hearing is that there need to be agreements between this government and the provincial governments in order to administer this act as well as possible. Where I come from, if something happens to the environment, it is the province that must act. In fact, the first level of government required to act is the municipality.
I do not understand why we have to have national standards. What does it mean to have national standards? It means having a global vision of an entity. It does not mean having the truth, it means working in co-operation with other levels of government in order to make enlightened decisions. It is not, as the parliamentary secretary said, a veto for the provinces. It is the opposite. It is a right to partnership between the federal government and the provinces.
I have heard all sorts of things since my arrival here nearly two years ago. The government claims to be in partnership with this or that. I have never seen the government try to operate this way.
We have just had a flagrant example with Bill C-78, which the government has just passed. Bill C-78 and the one before us today amount to the same time. This bill will enable the government to say to people “We are the big boss”. Where I come from, the big boss is the public, because we work co-operatively.
I am extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that the Reform Party wants the federal government to run everything.
I would like to quote something the environment commissioner said in the report he tabled this month. He noted that federal-provincial agreements on the environment were not perfect and needed to be improved, but they were an improvement over unilateral action by Ottawa in this area, given the benefits of eliminating overlap and the establishment of a single window.
This is the fact of the matter. This is why the Bloc wanted to have its amendments passed and put it into effect. I note that this government has plugged its ears well and that it wants nothing to do with the other levels of government.
I am very disappointed with the government's position, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 27th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 216
That Bill C-32, in Clause 210, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 152 with the following:
“this Act or any other Act of Parliament or an Act of the legislature of a province, or”