Marcel Lussier

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for kindly sharing his time with me.

The motion from the Liberal Party is divided into five broad statements. The first of these statements is that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity. In my opinion, the government should immediately recognize this statement and accept this as a fact. In addition to accepting it, the government has a duty to disseminate this message by all available means and to publicly promote in our schools and universities the message that our planet is changing as a result of human activity.

This government has the very important responsibility of alerting the public with the help of tools such as films, including, for example, the film by Al Gore, the former vice-president of the United States. It is readily available in all good video outlets. As the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed in his remarks, panel discussions and other activities surrounding this film also constitute a very significant factor that has to be considered. Scientists and upper-atmosphere chemical analysis confirm to a large degree that our planet is changing as a result of human activity.

The second main statement in the Liberal motion declares that the most serious ecological threat of our time is climate change caused by greenhouse gases. I do not need to remind members of the observations that have been made recently in the north, showing melting glaciers and the threat of higher sea levels. Let us also consider the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, along with the risk of losing certain wildlife species. In Canada, the species most at risk is the polar bear. That could result in a very significant ecological imbalance in our north and that imbalance could have repercussions on Canada’s fishery.

The third statement in the Liberal motion is that the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto protocol. The Bloc Québécois is very clear on our approach. We want a territorial approach and that way, we know that Quebec can achieve its reduction objectives by targeting the biggest producers of greenhouse gases. Quebec does not need a reduction plan for its coal-fired generating stations. There are none in Quebec. Less than 3% of Quebec’s energy is produced with fossil fuels or nuclear power.

According to the latest government information, Quebec’s electricity is 97% hydro. In 2002, 60% of Canada’s electricity was hydro, thanks to the 97% share in Quebec. The second largest power source was coal.

The picture is different in the United States. Fifty per cent of its production is coal-generated, followed by nuclear at 20%, natural gas at 18%, and barely 7% for hydro.

Mexico too is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Taking together oil, which generates 40% of Mexico’s electricity, natural gas at 33%, and coal at 8%, we find that 81% of Mexico’s electrical production comes from fossil fuels, in comparison with only 12% from hydro.

These three countries therefore have different problems. The best way to reduce greenhouse gases differs, therefore, from one to the next. The same is true of Canada itself, since the provinces do not emit greenhouse gases in the same way.

We feel, therefore, that the sectoral instead of territorial solution proposed here, which the government wants to adopt, is inappropriate and unfair. It overlooks the polluter pays principle. Quebeckers have made wise choices. They did so in the past by investing massively in hydroelectricity.

The table illustrating the increase in greenhouse gases shows that Quebec saw its emissions rise by 6.6% between 1990 and 2003. This increase was due largely to the transportation sector. The increase here was 19.9% between 1990 and 2003. At the same time, industry cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8%. During this same period, the residential, commercial and industrial sectors also saw their emissions rise by 19%. These figures show very clearly what area Quebec should target in particular: transportation.

The Government of Quebec has included the transportation sector in the plan of action it has given us for 2006-2012. It focuses on achieving reductions in the transportation sector by promoting mass transit. The $328 million that the government is asking the federal government for is specifically for mass transit, commuter trains, improved subways and more priority traffic lanes. Urban transit and mass transit are very important in the Government of Quebec's plan of action.

The government is also addressing the automobile sector. It wants fleets of ecological vehicles for its staff, its government and its many ministries. It will move swiftly in this area over the next six years by investing in hybrid cars with low fuel consumption. The $328 million will be well used. The objectives are clearly focused and well outlined.

The Government of Quebec has a well-structured plan and its objectives are well known. They can be found in a document prepared in 2006 entitled, “Quebec Action Plan for Climate Change”. In order to reduce greenhouse gases it is very important to reduce fuel consumption in Quebec. The best way to do so is to promote mass transit.

Let us now talk about the credible plan that the government is asked to create. The former government had a green plan that had disastrous results, as we know, since it was based on voluntary programs. Environmental groups regularly propose credible plans to solve the problem of greenhouse gases.

Just look at the Coalition Québec-vert-Kyoto, which targets 11 very important elements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We also have proposals from the Climate Action Network, which identifies seven very specific points for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are even ordinary citizens sending us ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members for their attention and I am prepared to answer their questions.

[Carlo Benedetti, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Carlo Benedetti, a resident of my riding and a master's student in chemical engineering at the Université de Sherbrooke, won first place at the international conference of the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering, ISPE, held in Orlando, Florida, on November 6.

Carlo Benedetti won first place in the graduate division for the quality and presentation of his project, which was about a new method for the analysis of knowledge acquisition processes to improve the efficiency of prescription drug production.

Mr. Benedetti undertook the study of this process as part of a project supervised by Professor Abatzoglou, thanks to the financial participation of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the Université de Montréal and the Université de Sherbrooke.

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Carlo Benedetti for his remarkable success at the international level and for having represented us so honourably.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

I thank the NDP member very much for his question.

I did mention that the territorial breakdown must be equitable. The nation of Quebec invested a great deal in the past in hydroelectricity and went into debt, and it now has an appreciable investment in hydro power. It made an investment and is paying off that debt, with the result that Quebeckers may pay slightly more tax than in the other provinces. Equity is therefore important, and so is the polluter-pays principle.

I mentioned earlier that a polluter that emits 69 tonnes per person has to invest more to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions than a polluter that produces only 12 tonnes. This is only reasonable: the polluter will pay, especially since the polluter got rich in its province, instead of merely paying off its debt, as I said earlier, like Hydro-Québec, which has to amortize its payments over 20 or 50 years.

It is therefore important to say that polluters today have to keep in mind that they also have to pay out of their own pockets for the damage they cause.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this bill on air quality would amend three existing statutes, the first of which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Based on our observations, however, these are not new regulatory powers that the government plans to grant itself, because they already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bill would also amend the Energy Efficiency Act. We find it strange that this amendment is being introduced after the EnerGuide program was eliminated. The third part of the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

The Bloc Québécois currently supports sending this bill to committee before second reading. In our view, the amendments proposed by Bill C-30 are unnecessary. They would only slow down the process of taking concrete action against climate change. This is simply a delay.

The bill is also accompanied by a notice of intent, which lists the regulations the government intends to adopt over the next few years and the deadlines it has set for doing so. This document shows that the government is starting from scratch and beginning a new round of consultations in three phases leading to new standard that would not be mandatory until 2010.

Bill C-30 in its current form is unacceptable. It practically means the end of the Kyoto protocol objectives. The bill would incorporate into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the statement that respecting Canada's international commitments on the environment is a matter of government discretion. We agree with referring the bill to committee before second reading because that will give us the latitude we need to consider the admissibility of amendments to this bill.

We will work in good faith in this committee, but the Bloc Québécois will make no compromises because respecting the Kyoto protocol targets is what is important. We will also present amendments to address the fairness of the polluter-pay rule, Canada's respect for its international commitments and, most of all, the urgent need for action to fight climate change. I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc's priority is still Bill C-288, which clearly respects the Kyoto protocol objectives and for which the legislative agenda is controlled by the opposition and not by our government.

Thanks to past investments by the administrators at Hydro-Québec in the area of hydroelectricity, Quebec has a non-polluting electricity production network. Quebec's plan mainly targets transportation and pollution reduction in certain industries.

As far as transportation is concerned, the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to create the regulatory power to impose mandatory vehicle consumption standards on the industry by 2011, after the voluntary agreement expires. This does not seem soon enough.

The government has announced that Environment Canada and Health Canada also intend to hold detailed consultations with the provinces and industry starting in the fall. This consultation is late. It is planned in three major phases: the first will end in 2007, the second in 2008 and the third in 2010. Therefore, no regulation will come into effect before 2010.

What is important to the Bloc Québécois is that targets are established. These targets are in our report on the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2004, production of greenhouse gases in Quebec was about 12 tonnes per person, or half the average rate of production of 24 tonnes per Canadian. As for the other provinces, per capita emissions totalled almost 69 tonnes in Saskatchewan and 73 tonnes in Alberta, or five to six times greater than in Quebec.

If we compare increases between 1990 and 2004, we note that Quebec emissions have risen by 6% since 1990, compared to 39.4% for Alberta and 61.7% for Saskatchewan.

As I was saying earlier, opting for hydroelectric energy certainly was a significant factor in Quebec's enviable performance. However, the collective choices made by its citizens, industries and the National Assembly also made it possible to achieve these results. The Quebec pulp and paper industry alone reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 18% between 1990 and 2005.

The excellent performance of the Quebec manufacturing sector also made a substantial contribution to Quebec's positive results. Between 1990 and 2003, this sector reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8% and emissions arising from industrial processes by more than 15%. These reductions were made possible by significant strategic investments by Quebec companies in innovative technologies allowing them to improve their processes and their energy efficiency.

The Minister of the Environment refuses to acknowledge the efforts made by Quebec or the value of the Quebec plan. It was again obvious in Nairobi, where she failed to mention Quebec's green plan in her official speech to the international community.

Rather than revise its international obligations by calling the Kyoto protocol into question, the Conservative government must implement the climate change action plan. That was the Bloc Québécois' proposal, founded on the very important principles of equality and polluter pays. With respect to the polluter pays principle, studies have been done on Canada's emissions and it is generally accepted that responsibility for reducing emissions should be shared non-proportionally based on population or gross domestic product. It should be shared by the provinces and the territories. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a three-part approach to distribute the burden across Canada and give each province quotas to comply with.

The European Union succeeded in reaching an agreement on distributing greenhouse gas emissions among 15 European countries. The negotiations took two years to achieve concrete results. Each country has its own targets to reach.

In Canada, negotiations went on for almost five years and were suspended. We have not yet reached a compromise on distributing responsibility among the provinces and territories.

According to this three-part approach, Quebec's goal would be 0% relative to 1990 levels. The province could therefore simply address its 6% increase since 1990 to reach its goal: 1990 production levels.

Other provinces' goals are much higher because of their energy choices.

In conclusion, over the next few weeks, the Bloc Québécois will propose amendments to this bill.

[The Environment, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government's inaction is deplorable, because in the long run it could have an incalculable impact not only on the economy, but also on the future of export companies. I therefore ask the minister to stop leaving Canada in uncertainty, which even companies are criticizing, and to reveal her greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

[The Environment, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, according to an expert in international law, the World Trade Organization rules could allow a tax to be imposed on countries that violate the terms of the Kyoto protocol.

In light of this, will the Minister of the Environment reconsider and change her position on the Kyoto protocol before her inaction and her laissez-faire approach endanger the economy of Canada and Quebec?

[The Environment, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Exchange says it is ready to set up a carbon exchange.

Can the Minister of the Environment confirm that if a carbon exchange is established in Canada, it will not be in Winnipeg or Toronto, but in Montreal and nowhere else?

[The Environment, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's dithering about creating a carbon exchange in Montreal prompted the president of the Montreal Exchange to say, and I quote:

What worries me the most is seeing this market trickle out of the country.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister confused 2011 with 2007, which did nothing to allay concerns. Four years' difference is no small thing.

My question is this: Does the Minister of the Environment agree that the Montreal Exchange has legitimate concerns about the contradictory statements she and—

[Phthalate Control Act, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-307, introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, seeks to prohibit the use of phthalates in certain products. Last week, I commented on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which Bill C-298 seeks to add to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

My argument last week was based on two studies conducted at great expense by private organizations to determine whether 68 toxic chemicals were present in blood and urine samples.

The first study, conducted by Environmental Defence and entitled “Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families” included 13 individuals—6 adults and 7 children.

The second was mentioned by Kenneth Cook of the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., during his testimony before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The results of these two private studies—and I use the word “private” because they had to assume the cost of the analyses themselves—are alarming. In the first study, 68 chemicals were analyzed and 13 individuals participated at a cost of $10,000 per person for a total private investment of $130,000. As for the second study, Mr. Cook said that the 10 blood samples cost $10,000 each for a total of US$100,000.

In other words, when an individual conducts a study he has to invest over $100,000 to get results. Despite this significant investment, subsequent criticism is often on the statistical reliability or the sample coverage.

I was saying that the alarming results of both studies led me to conclude that the toxins absorbed or accumulated by adults, through ingestion, inhalation or contact with the skin, can also be transmitted to the fetus through the placenta in the uterus. This is an incredible discovery that demonstrates that newborn babies no longer have the option of taking positive action against toxins later on in life through healthy living, a strictly controlled diet or a pure environment. Babies no longer have that option later in life, for they already have toxins in their system from birth. They are born contaminated.

The results of the analyses of the 68 chemicals studied confirmed that on average 32 chemicals were detected in the parents and 23 chemicals were detected in the children who volunteered for the first study.

What we do not know about is the synergy in this cocktail of toxins in the organism. In chemical reactions there are reducing agents, oxidizing agents and buffers. How do all these chemicals react with one another? Do some chemicals wait for certain others to reach certain concentration levels in the blood to start a reaction produced by another latent toxic chemical? Who knows? No one knows because such in-depth research is rarely ever done.

There are many unknowns when it comes to the interaction of toxins in the human body. Far too often, medicine detects results without knowing the cause: cancer appears, fertility decreases, fetal weight drops, a number of cases affect childhood development, respiratory problems increase—especially asthma in young children—as does the incidence of diabetes.

Who is responsible for this? Is a combination of toxic chemicals responsible? Medicine cannot pinpoint the guilty party.

As for phthalates, Bill C-307 proposes limiting, as much as possible, the exposure of vulnerable populations to such products based on the precautionary principle.

By virtue of that principle, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an activity or product could cause serious and irreversible harm to human health or the environment, measures must be taken to mitigate the risk until the effects can be documented. Such measures may include, if a certain activity is at issue, reducing or ending the activity or, if a product is at issue, banning the product.

Accordingly, PVC-based soft materials must be kept away from children's mouths. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers are obligated, under Health Canada regulations, to ensure that soft plastic teethers and rattles do not contain phthalates. The same is true for children's educational toys. The full array of products intended for commercial and private use is far too extensive to list here tonight. Suffice it to say that the majority of items made from PVC-based plastic, whether rigid, semi-rigid or soft, contain phthalates.

Furthermore, I do not mean merely traces of phthalates in these products, since certain products can contain up to 50%. These include the plastic bags we use everyday, food wrap, plastic rain gear, your shower curtain, Mr. Speaker, waterproof boots, garden hose, children's bath toys and intravenous blood bags. In short, phthalates are everywhere in our daily lives.

We agree with the principle of this bill. We believe, however, that some of the bans proposed in this bill are already effective enough, while others perhaps go too far, considering that practical, effective and safe replacement products are not available. Accordingly, we will propose some amendments at the committee stage.

[The Environment, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal imbalance should not be used as a convenient catch-all so that the Minister of the Environment can avoid her responsibilities.

Will the government realize that what is really needed is $328 million for the Kyoto protocol now, and $3.9 billion annually for the fiscal imbalance in the next budget?