Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Environment, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, the International Joint Commission presented its biannual report on the water quality of the Great Lakes. It lists a series of catastrophic consequences for human health. Birth defects in newborns, lower sperm count, an increased incidence of breast cancer, and a decreased learning capacity among school age children are all cases in point.

In view of this report, does the government intend to ban the dumping of chlorine in the Great Lakes by Canadian industries?

[The Environment, February 16th, 1994]

So the corporation's operational structure allows it to work with a measure of independence, but there is always the possibility that the table may have ties with the government, since its members are appointed by the Governor in Council.

However, I think the government is very much aware of this aspect, since it was involved in the debate on this legislation, and I am sure it will find a way to deal with this.

The government is comfortable with this legislation since under the Conservatives, the hon. member for Davenport proposed certain amendments that were, in fact, adopted.

The Liberal government is well aware that our air, water and soil-our physical environment-are very much at risk, to put it mildly. In some cases, they have reached the point of no return.

We should not focus on one particular form of consultation at the expense of the other components of our environment.

Often, to show it is environment-conscious, the government adopts this kind of legislation while at the same time cutting back on related commitments. Take, for instance, the defunct Conservative government's green plan. In 1990, the plan's initial budget of $3 billion over five years was reduced a few months later to $3 billion over six years. This is a reduction of 20 per cent in the same year, and there were subsequent cuts later on.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy can be an effective tool, provided partisan considerations are excluded. No group has the right to use the environment to promote partisan interests.

Next Tuesday, February 22, the Minister of Finance will bring down his first budget. In the section on environment and sustainable development, we will see whether the government puts its money where its mouth is.

Since we know this is one of the first priorities of the Liberal government, we can assume that budget allocations for the Department of the Environment will help us make up for lost time.

In concluding, I want to say that we should support this initiative for consultation and co-operation. We must take advantage of this opportunity to communicate with various players in sectors that are in a position to help the environment. The Liberal government has chosen this vehicle to get out of its ivory tower. The results will be gratifying, provided it does its homework.

[The Environment, February 16th, 1994]

Yes, he is a good choice. He would have made a good chairperson.

[The Environment, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for giving us the text of her minister's statement at around 10 o'clock this morning.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act was finally proclaimed today, after being tabled in the House in April 1992 and receiving royal assent in June 1993.

This round table, the purpose of which is to merge the environment and the economy, was inspired by the concept of sustainable development. It is clear that whatever our political affiliations, as the minister said earlier, whether we are sovereigntists or federalists, we all breathe the same air and drink the same water. We are all concerned about the impact poor environmental management may have on our quality of life. And we are even more aware of the impact our present actions and decisions may have on the lives of future generations.

Not to support this legislation would be a sign of bad faith. And I am therefore very pleased, as is the Bloc Quebecois, and as were all opposition parties at the time, to see the government go ahead with this concept for obtaining intelligent advice from various sources.

However, as the Liberals and the NDP pointed out at the time, some aspects of this legislation are not clear or are at least open to question. The corporation's operational structure allows it to work with a measure of independence. However, there is always the possibility that the table will have ties with the government, since its chairperson and members are appointed by the Governor in Council.

Earlier, the Minister of the Environment announced that the Prime Minister had agreed to chair the round table. If the minister is considering applications, I would be glad to oblige, if you agree, that is-

[The Environment, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. According to the latest reports from Environment Canada, there are only 500 belugas left in the St. Lawrence River. The World Wildlife Fund

indicated that more that 250,000 tonnes of chemical waste a year are dumped into the St. Lawrence, from the Great Lakes on.

In order to avoid the extinction of belugas, is the minister willing to set up a committee composed of federal and Quebec officials, as well as Canadian and U.S. experts, whose terms of reference would be to re-establish belugas in the St. Lawrence River?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the subject of the Irving Whale , as the information provided by the Minister of Environment puzzles me.

Allow me to take you back 23 years, to make sure we are all fully aware of the threat it poses. I will do my best to report the facts as accurately as possible.

On September 7, 1970, the Irving Whale , a tanker with a cargo of 3,200 tons of oil, sank off the Magdalen Islands.

A certain number of leaks were stopped, but several common murres covered in oil have recently been found on the shore. Based on these discoveries, an environmental specialist speculated that having reached its stress limit, it is only a matter of time before the tanker bursts open.

What bothers me is not having the faintest idea what actions have been taken. Let me explain. To a very specific question on her intentions concerning the release of the Marek report on the condition of the wreck, the minister answered that she would make it available as soon as possible. However, discussions with Coast Guard officials seem to indicate that there would actually be two separate reports instead of just the one, as I thought initially.

On top of the Marek report, there would be one from the CEF consulting firm on environmental hazards. Both reports, by the way, are still secret.

Is there not cause for concern when you ask the Minister of Environment if her department has a specific plan to avert a potential environmental disaster and she answers that she is looking for a financial solution?

If the financial aspect carries so much weight, perhaps the financial cost of some 3,000 tons of oil spilling on the shores of the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island should be evaluated.

If only out of respect for the citizens who are living under the constant threat of a spill, the time has come to show transparency and tell the truth about this disaster waiting to happen.

You will agree with me that, had this wreck been in Halifax harbour, we would not have had to wait 23 years for action. Things would have moved much faster.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Environment said she opted for refloating the tanker.

If this issue has been moving like never before during the past few weeks, as she reported, can the Minister of Environment tell us why it is that the people who are living with this time bomb will have to wait until the summer of 1995 for refloating to be undertaken?

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 102nd day that the Liberal Party of Canada has been in power and we are presented with two bills. This is a big first, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice who is showing the most courage by presenting Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 this afternoon.

First, I should say that the Official Opposition will support Bill C-4 introduced by the Minister of Justice. Over the last few years, a consensus has developed in Quebec regarding the opening of our society to international competition. Quebec must participate actively to any initiative intended to reduce trade barriers and to promote international trade. To that effect, our support for that Bill also applies to the principle of NAFTA and to the objectives set out in the side deals.

However, I would like to convey to the House some of our concerns regarding the Canadian process for passing accords. Quebec has, for a long time, made it known that it wanted to be involved when international issues relating to its jurisdiction were being discussed. This is part of what we might call the traditional demands of Quebec. This involvement was upheld by a 1937 decision of the Privy Council, which confirmed that the federal government had to have the agreement of the provinces

to implement international accords affecting their jurisdictions. It is on the basis of that decision that Ontario lodged an appeal to the courts disputing the legitimacy of federal action in this matter.

I repeat that the Official Opposition approves the principles of NAFTA. Let me remind this House that Quebec was the strongest advocate of NAFTA and of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. During the 1988 election campaign, the Conservative Party used the free trade agreement to get votes in Quebec. With the support of the Parti québécois, the Conservatives were able to win a lot of seats in Quebec and thereby get a second straight mandate.

If Quebecers were so strongly in favour of free trade, it is because they understood that the future of a small and dynamic modern society such as ours is contingent upon being open to the world and having access to major markets. Far from advocating a rigid and inward-looking form of nationalism, Quebecers are confident in their ability, and they are ready to face international competition and conquer new markets.

The federal structure never allowed Quebec to fully affirm its autonomy and extend its jurisdiction to an international level. Quebec can no longer endure this situation which limits its possibilities; the failure of the Meech Lake Accord confirmed the dead end in which Canada put itself.

Let us not forget that Quebec was always willing to participate in federal-provincial consultations on NAFTA, and always strongly defended Quebecers' interests at those meetings. The terms and conditions relating to Quebec and Canada in the side agreements must take into account Quebec's legitimate wishes and reflect the jurisdictional realities that exist in Quebec and Canada. Under the 1867 Constitution, the Official Opposition will not approve any agreement before receiving assurances that Quebec's areas of jurisdiction will be respected.

Negotiations are under way between Quebec and Ottawa in order to implement the side agreements. The Official Opposition is keeping a close watch on these negotiations. It would be totally unacceptable for the federal government to take advantage of Quebec's agreement in principle to unilaterally impose its own environmental and labour standards, two areas in which Quebec is determined to maintain its prerogatives and its autonomy.

Quebec cannot be satisfied with a hasty consultation when issues affecting it so deeply will be discussed in committee. We will soon find out whether the federal government's appetite for centralization will gain the upper hand once again.

So that is the position of the Bloc Quebecois and Official Opposition.

[Petitions, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by more than 80 of my constituents from Frontenac, Black Lake, Thedford and Saint-Ferdinand, who are opposed to social housing rent increases.

Whereas the federal government froze the CMHC's budget for the next five years, while asking it to save money, supposedly to provide assistance to young couples, and whereas, to do so, the federal government intends to raise low rents by 20 per cent, the undersigned ask Parliament:

-first, to forgo all social housing rent increases; and

-second, to lift the freeze on the Canadian Mortgage and Social and Co-op Housing Corporation.

[Commission On Environmental Co-Operation, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. By setting up such a committee, is the minister not weakening the commitment made by her own party during the last election campaign to make Montreal a major world centre for environmental technology?

[Commission On Environmental Co-Operation, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The commission on environmental co-operation under NAFTA is scheduled to be set up soon in Canada and the Minister of the Environment is expected to announce very shortly the name of the Canadian city which will welcome this important international organization.

My question is the following: Given the commitment made by her own party to make of Montreal a major world centre for environmental technology, in addition to making an all-out effort to convince international organizations to set up their head offices in Montreal, can the Minister of the Environment tell us why she is not yet making her decision public?