Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Irving Whale, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as an ecologist and a recognized environment specialist, I can only welcome this announcement. As a matter of fact, I took an interest in the Irving Whale , a potential ecological time-bomb, as soon as I became the opposition's environment critic.

On January 21, I had the honour to ask my very first oral question in the House. It concerned the Irving Whale . Since then, both my constituency office and my Ottawa office have been receiving phone call after phone call, and numerous faxes, either from the Magdalen Islands or Prince Edward Island.

All these messages told me something very strange. People in that part of the country are concerned about two things. First of all, they want this carcass to be emptied of its content ASAP. And second, they wonder who will pay for the clean-up operation on this time-bomb. That is not even mentioned in the minister's statement.

As far as my first question is concerned, we were told this afternoon that the barge was going to be raised. This proposal will go ahead provided it clears the public hearings process and the environmental assessment review.

My understanding is that the three reports tabled here at noon are aimed at finding the best solution to get rid of this danger. How is it then that the environment factors were not taken into account?

There is a chance that the proposed solution, which is to raise the barge, will not pass the environmental assessment review process, in which case we will be back to square one.

Those three studies have already cost a significant amount of money. It is fine and dandy to hold public hearings, but if they lead to different conclusions from the ones in the report, does that mean that the latter are skewed and that we must start all over again?

We are running out of time. Therefore, I suppose that the hearings in question will be more like briefings, especially since the Easter-Gagnon committee already consulted people two weeks ago. And then the minister comes in this afternoon and announces that there will be further consultations. Well, if the Easter-Gagnon consultations were so efficient, why do we need more? To spend more money? To stage a show for the media? I wonder.

I now wonder about the work carried out by the Easter-Gagnon committee, which held two series of hearings at the beginning of March 1994 with more than 25 groups, associations, municipalities, political parties and individuals, since the minister just announced with much pomp and circumstance yet another series of public consultations. Is this another way to postpone, I repeat, to postpone action? Setting up committees and undertaking reviews is fine, but a government that takes action is even better.

As for the second solution, not a word. Irving, which still owns the barge, gets off scot-free once again. Twice in 24 years, with the same party in power.

I believe, like most residents of that region and like all members of the Bloc Quebecois who are asking serious questions, that taxpayers should not have to pay for this cleanup. Bloc members will keep their eyes open to track the real costs directly related to this wreck.

True, the Irving Whale has been lying off the islands for 8,593 days, but let us not forget that, of these 8,593 days, 3,450 were spent under the Conservatives and 5,308 under the Liberals. To these 5,308 Liberal days, we must add all the days to come until the summer of 1995.

If the minister is proud of herself and her colleagues, I know many people earning their living from the sea who want this Irving Whale business to end as quickly as possible.

The problem is simple. For a quarter of a century, a barge containing 3,100 tonnes of bunker C has been lying on the bottom of the ocean 70 meters below the surface, off the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.

Rust is doing its work slowly but surely.

The Irving family was compensated for the loss of its oil tanker by its insurance company. Someone must be bright enough to decide that this wreck cannot be left on the bottom of the ocean for another quarter century, and someone must take the initiative to raise it while there is still time.

As the Minister of the Environment said, we have decided to raise the barge because we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Indeed, every day that the minister spends on reviews and consultations increases the risks. The Bloc Quebecois urges the government to move quickly to make those responsible pay and to act safely because we do not have the right to cause an environmental disaster in that beautiful part of Quebec and Prince Edward Island.

In closing, I would like to thank all the people of the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island who regularly contacted my riding office or my office here in Ottawa to give me information, but mostly to share with me their main concern. I am aware today, Mr. Speaker, that if the government acted so quickly after only 135 days, it is because there was on the opposition benches someone who-

[Immigration Act, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we are starting the adjournment debate 10 minutes early, and although I cannot make any assumptions about the absence of members from this House, I would nevertheless appreciate it if a member of the government would respond to this motion.

On Tuesday, I put a question to the Minister of the Environment about Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan. I protested the fact that Industry Canada spent only $5 million in Quebec on Phase I to clean up a river which flows mainly through Quebec.

I suggest we look at the figures that were given initially. I will round off the figures for the sake of convenience. Initially, Industry Canada had budgeted $20 million. Because of the recession, the government cut $2 million, which leaves $18 million. More than $6 million was spent on projects which, in the end, did not make the grade, so that Industry Canada actually invested a mere $11.3 million of the initial $20 million that was to be used to clean up the river. However, the worst part is that Industry Canada spent only $5 million in Quebec.

Madam Speaker, the St. Lawrence River flows mostly in Quebec. Consequently, I find it hard to understand why an amount close to $6 million was used to subsidize an Ontario pulp and paper company located in Miramichi, in New Brunswick, several hundred kilometres from the St. Lawrence River. After all, there are dozens of plants like that one along the river. Why choose the Miramichi facility?

I also find it hard to understand the $450,000 subsidy to Marsh Engineering, from Port Colborne, on Lake Ontario, for the treatment of oil discharged by ships which could some day navigate on the St. Lawrence River. Again, there are many ports along the St. Lawrence in Quebec, including Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Sept-Îles and quite a few more.

So, why was only $5 million of the $12 million spent in Quebec during Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan? After all, as I said, the river flows mostly in that province.

I remember clearly that, in the 1980s, there was a serious problem with maple trees in Quebec. The Government of Quebec did not buy a plantation of evergreens or oaks to study the problem, It bought an enormous sugar bush, and its officials conducted tests and soil analysis, and found solutions to the problem.

To clean up the river, it would have made sense to concentrate efforts where the river flows. I find the attitude of the Department of Industry unjustified.

In conclusion, the report on this issue states clearly that the partnership between Environment Canada and the Department of Industry is a failure. The two departments went in opposite directions as regards technology.

Last Tuesday, the Minister of the Environment made a formal commitment to the effect that all monies allocated to the St. Lawrence Action Plan would be spent in Quebec. Can she tell us now how she will control the monies invested by other departments during Phase II of the Action Plan, in order to avoid a repeat of what happened during Phase I?

[International Water Day, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for sending us a copy of her ministerial statement this morning, and I urge her to keep doing so.

As vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am pleased to be able to discuss in a non-partisan manner the role of a future environmental auditor general.

I believe that the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of the Environment clearly demonstrates her desire to keep the commitments made in the red book. So, the government

promises it will consult us, as well as Canadians and Quebecers through public hearings.

It is a good thing to consult, but the recent budget tabled by the Minister of Finance was a very concrete opportunity where the government could have demonstrated its will to do something about the environment.

Of course, the Department of the Environment is one of the few whose budget was increased. We can only be thankful for this 4.1 per cent increase. However, some measures go against sustainable development, even if the minister alluded to a committee which will try to promote it. The best example of this short-term vision, which is the opposite of the objective of sustainable development, is the fact that the government increases-listen to this-the government increases by $18.4 million the budget to clean up the St. Lawrence River, but reduces by $5 million the budget to clean up the Great Lakes, when we know that 40 per cent of the pollution in the St. Lawrence River comes from the Great Lakes. So much for sustainable development. On the one hand, the government increases the budget to clean up the river, while on the other hand it reduces the one for the polluted waters which flow into that river. Whatever happened to cohesion and co-operation between departments?

The Minister of the Environment says that she wants to put an end to overlapping. Right now, the most obvious overlapping is the one blocking any action concerning the Irving Whale . Transport Canada commissions study after study that Environment Canada never sees and they keep sending the ball back and forth. In the end, nothing concrete comes of it. When you see two federal departments get in each other's way like that, thus delaying concrete action, it is easy to understand that the people of Quebec want to have in their own hands the power to make decisions.

In her speech, the hon. minister stated, and I quote: "The government is also determined to make our country a leader in sustainable development. The government will be able to show leadership in getting our own house in order". The Official Opposition is prepared to believe these fine words except that, when we hear from Statistics Canada that this country exported 200,000 tons of hazardous waste to Asia and Latin America from 1990 to 1993, we wonder if that is the kind of house cleaning involved in the ministers plans.

The minister told us that the government and the Prime Minister must recognize the fundamental link between economic health and a healthy environment. She also praised the Minister of Finance for recognizing that economy and environment are not competing, but complementary.

It is true that environmental considerations are prominent is the red book. It is also true that it conveys the importance of integrating the economy, and thus the industry, with the environment. This spirit of co-operation was made manifest by organizing consultations on the environmental industry last January.

Why is there nothing then to that effect in Growing Small Businesses , the information booklet on new programs and guidelines for small business?

I was quite surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see there is no mention of environmental concerns anywhere in the document's 52 pages.

The government must give its support to this sector, either by implementing programs or by promoting initiatives to encourage the private sector to adopt a sustainable development approach.

It makes good sense, politically, to table a budget allocating more money to the Department of the Environment. Unfortunately, these inconsistencies show that it is only a smoke screen.

In closing, the Bloc Quebecois draws a parallel between the Auditor General of Canada and the environmental auditor general. Before rejoicing and showing off, we should know what kind of follow-up the government will give to the recommendations made by the environmental auditor general. If they are treated the same way as those made by the Auditor General of Canada, the situation is not very encouraging.

[The Environment, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of the Environment prepared today, in this House, to make a formal commitment that 100 per cent of the funds will be spent on the St. Lawrence River?

[The Environment, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, we learned that only 56 per cent of the amount approved for phase 1 of the St. Lawrence action plan had actually been spent.

Moreover, only 11 of the 23 projects accepted were directly related to the St. Lawrence River. Of the $20 million initially budgeted, less than $5 million was used to clean up the St. Lawrence.

How can the Minister of the Environment justify that so little of the money was actually invested in cleaning up the St. Lawrence River?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Yes, something is not working. So on the one hand, the budget to clean up the river is being increased and, on the other, the budget for cleaning up the more polluted body of water, the Great Lakes, is reduced. It makes one wonder what has become of the coherent approach to sustainable development, Mr. Speaker.

I conclude with that and I thank all hon. members for listening to me so kindly.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Rosemont. It is a very pertinent question, because, as you very well know, Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Moreover, it was a very important part of the red book. Since the member for Rosemont is also a well-informed environmentalist, he is interested in the environment and I want to take the opportunity to denounce what the budget does on environmental issues.

The Department of the Environment is one of the few to have its budget increased-you will see later why I mention this. Of course, we must be grateful for a 4.1 per cent increase, but some measures are not so good. Listen to this: the budget for Phase II of the St. Lawrence Action Plan will increase by $18.4 million. Of course, I am pleased with this initiative that will implement Phase II of the project. This increase shows that this program is giving excellent results. So why has the agreement for this second phase, which was to be signed with the Government of Quebec in December, still not been signed, and even worse, has $18.4 million been added to this part?

It would also seem that 40 per cent of the pollution in the St. Lawrence River comes from the Great Lakes. From the latest report of the International Joint Commission which was presented to us less than three weeks ago, we know that pollution in the Great Lakes affects human health. Despite that, the Liberal government opposite is cutting $5 million from the budget to clean up the Great Lakes, and we know that 40 per cent of the pollution in the St. Lawrence River comes from the Great Lakes.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister of Finance's budget statement, I would like to make a three-pronged retrospective. First of all, I would like to talk about the last election campaign, about the purgatory of the federal Liberal Party, the nine years it spent on this side of the House, and also about the nine years the Conservative Party was in office.

During the last election campaign, the party in office, under its leader, created a lot of hope among the people. Quebecers, as well as Canadians, were given the usual package of election promises and slogans which they sincerely believed in for a while.

Today, we have a rude awakening. We suddenly realize that we did not have just a bad dream, but that, once again, reality is striking us savagely in the face. The change of direction that Liberals were proposing is quickly becoming totally meaning-

less, and people are stuck with this monotonous, Conservative continuity, void of all rigour and fairness.

This government, opposite, promised without any restraint a major job renewal to the people, and here I quote a part of what it was promising: "We will, once and for all, put the people of this country back to work". What a lie!

Quebecers and Canadians fell into a trap. That party that now forms the government is far from the innovation that it was promising in the red book, and I quote again: "When we form the government, we will innovate, we will look at our problems in a new light. We will not go for the usual recipes". Again, what a lie!

National Defence, public service, unemployment insurance: the same targets, the same cutbacks as those of the previous governments, whether Conservative or Liberal.

On top of that, this government has misled the average workers, the senior citizens and those in need by emphasizing interesting future opportunities through a rewarding job or through social programs which would be humane and sensible.

It is quite obvious that the people of the county of Frontenac as well as those from the other counties in this country, once their votes were assured, were ignored, scorned by this government, which is quite clearly demonstrated in this budget. As a popular song written by the great Quebecer Felix Leclerc says: "The day before the election, he calls him son, but the day after, as one might expect, he has forgotten his name".

The average taxpayers from the county of Frontenac and elsewhere were deceived and they are the ones who will have to pay the tab. The Minister of Finance predicts a revenue increase of 15 per cent for 1995-96.

This increase will have to be made possible through additional taxes imposed on the middle class taxpayers, because of the 10 million taxpayers, almost 85 per cent declare an income which is less than $30,000. So it is an unfair and shocking measure.

Older people as well are getting a taste of the same medecine since they are progressively losing their tax credit while dividends on shares and family trusts are still exempt from tax. It is the very taxation system which is scorned by this government.

How am I going to explain to the unemployed in the riding of Frontenac-whether it be in Thetford Mines, East Broughton, Sainte-Méthode, Coleraine or Plessisville, that this liberal government has no plan whatsoever to create jobs and has not considered any-I repeat, has not considered any-long term job creation measures?

How am I going to explain to the people of the riding of Frontenac that this budget does not contain any measures to stimulate economic growth or any measures regarding job creation, in view of the fact that this governement has been elected on a platform that proclaimed loudly and clearly its strong commitment to the creation of good jobs to restore dignity and hope?

Yet, Canadians, in particular Quebecers, have two clear and well defined objectives. First, they want a gouvernment that creates jobs and at the same time a government that has a broad plan towards employment. Second, they want the governement to be more responsible in its management of taxpayers money, especially in these times of recession.

How am I to explain to the unemployed in the riding of Frontenac that from now on, the period during which they will be allowed to receive unemployment benefits will be shorter, that their benefits will be 2 p. 100 less and that they will have to work longer in order to qualify for unemployment benefits, so as to help reduce the deficit? How do I explain to unemployed workers that they must tighten their belts while the member for Hull-Aylmer, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, spends more than $150,000 in travel costs to give a brief speech-listen to this-on the benefits of sound management?

How do I explain to them that the Minister of Finance spent $800,000, or nearly $1 million, on public consultations? How do I explain to the president of the seniors club of Saint-Alphonse parish in Thetford Mines that 800,000 people age 65 and over will see their age credit reduced or quite simply eliminated, depending on their income, while at the same time, the Governor General hosts a costly reception to mark the opening of the 35th Parliament?

My constituents no longer trust the old-style federal politicians who often treat them with cynicism and indifference. The Minister of Finance saw this for himself during the last election campaign during a swing through Thetford Mines. At the Balmoral, barely 30 people showed up to greet him at a $30 a plate evening fund-raiser. Not 3,000 people, but barely 30 voters.

The budget is unfair in that it spares the wealthy, who are often friends of the government, contribute to the election coffers and enjoy a strong, well-organized and effective lobby to influence the policies of the Minister of Finance.

With his half-laced Kodiac work boots, our Minister of Finance was not a bit like our asbestos miners. He bore no resemblance whatsoever to a good, hard-working individual. It was a disgraceful spectacle, one that only seasoned actors can get away with. Only, the spectators certainly did not enjoy being the butt of this joke.

The clever tricks employed by the Minister of Finance during the pre-budget period did not escape the public eye. No one was fooled by the old trick of setting people up well in advance to expect the worst in order to get them to swallow a very bitter pill.

However, and this concludes my remarks, the medicine has had the desired effect. My constituents are bitterly disappointed and sick at heart. They feel betrayed and victimized because they have been repeatedly targeted. As environment critic, I must comment briefly on this department's budget.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition from residents of the municipality of Vianney.

The undersigned, residents of the municipality of Vianney, in the county of Frontenac, wish to draw the attention of the House of Commons on the following: We humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Canada Post Corporation to recognize the municipality of Vianney, made up of the village of Vianney and ranges 1 to 4, so that our addresses could be Vianney and not Saint-Ferdinand or Bernierville, while keeping the same postal code, G0N 1N0.

[Environment, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this same commission has been making roughly the same kind of recommendations since 1978.

Why is it that the minister refuses to commit herself to following through with the recommendations of a commission which provides for Quebec's participation in the agreement on the Great Lakes water quality, while her own department acknowledges that 40 per cent of the toxic load of the St. Lawrence River originates in the Great Lakes?