Lost her last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Dairy Industry November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of International Trade.
Last week, the Standing Committee on Agriculture reviewed the issue of the importation of oil, butter and sugar mixtures.
Will the government finally accept the dairy industry's request that oil, butter and sugar mixtures be reclassified under the proper tariff line, as has already been successfully argued in a recent NAFTA panel?
The Environment November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the scientific community generally agrees that the phenomenal amounts of pollutants released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution are making the earth's temperature rise at an unprecedented rate.
The scientific commission mandated by governments world-wide demonstrated that the planet was warming and this was most likely due to carbon dioxide emissions and other gasses produced by burning fossil fuels as well as the destruction of forests.
Scientists are sending a warning about the consequences of global warming, one of which could be the rising of the sea level by nearly one metre. In Quebec, the St. Lawrence River would be the hardest hit, as its flow would be substantially reduced. Other examples could include more droughts—more land will turn into desert—, more hurricanes, the spread of famine and disease, vanishing forests and animal species becoming extinct. Without being alarmists, these researchers foresee disastrous consequences.
According to scientific forecasts, temperatures could rise by anywhere from 2 to 6 degrees Celsius in Quebec over the next century, which is the most dramatic climate change since the end of the last ice age.
The Minister of the Environment corroborates these statements with her statement that this climate change might impact upon our natural resources, including forests, water, fisheries, agriculture and a number of other sectors. Yet this government is suffering from an unprecedented inertia when it comes to the positions taken at the earth summit.
During the 1992 earth summit, the world governments agreed to bring their greenhouse gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Yet only a rare few have made an effort to keep that promise. The Liberal government is, in fact, living proof of this, with its inertia and its slowness in taking a position in preparation for the Kyoto conference which is about to start. The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to shoulder its responsibilities.
With her lack of leadership at the Regina meeting, the Minister of the Environment, by signing the final communique, is in danger of jeopardizing Canada's environmental credibility in the eyes of the international community. This agreement backs off from the commitments made at Rio and proves how easy it is to let oneself be intimidated by a sector of Canadian industry, the fossil fuel sector.
No one in this House has any doubt that the time has come to take preventive measures in light of the possibility of climate change. It is vital that the industrialized countries adopt very stringent objectives at Kyoto. Quebec, through its Minister of the Environment, has dissociated itself from the Regina agreement and by taking a firm position has demonstrated that it was possible in America to attain the objectives set for the year 2000. As for the federal government, however, it has demonstrated nothing except the weakness of its position.
It is vital that the objectives be higher than those of the United States and even Japan and that the objectives set at the Kyoto conference be ratified by all provinces of Canada. Let us not forget that only Quebec and British Columbia ratified the Rio agreement in 1992. A province such as Alberta, which produces more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases, cannot remain recalcitrant.
Greenhouse gases are a threat to humanity. Canada, excluding Quebec, came up with no project in response to the commitments made at the Rio summit. In fact, emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and others increased by 13% this year.
We know the position of the Quebec government, environmental groups and all the countries participating in the Kyoto conference, but we still do not know the position of the federal Minister of the Environment.
Is it too late for the government to do its homework? We cannot accept mere wishful thinking. Too many young people are expecting us to preserve their planet.
The Environment November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of this House to share my allotted ten minutes with my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides.
Drug Patents November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, can the government give us the assurance that, whether or not the link regulations are amended, the actual life of patents will not be affected in any way?
Drug Patents November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Industry extensively reviewed the drug patents issue and recommended in its April report that the 20-year life of patents remain unchanged. However, we know that there are tensions within the cabinet on this issue.
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Can the government indicate if its position is the one taken by the Minister of Health, who is in favour of easing the rules, or the one taken by the Minister of Industry, who is comfortable with the 20-year period?
Research And Development November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Canadian effort in research and development is limited to a paltry 1.64% of GDP. For a long time, the Bloc Quebecois, in its platform, and other stakeholders have been calling for the government to gradually increase granting council budgets.
Is the minister going to act on the requests made by the Canadian Consortium for Research and increase by 50% his total investment in granting councils over the next four years in order to reduce the gap separating us from our main trading partners?
Telecommunications Act November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, from what I have read, and I do not have any figures either, the purpose of the fund is to correct the differences between remote populations and small rural communities, on the one hand, and more developed centres, on the other hand, and equalize the price to some extent so they can all enjoy the same benefits.
Telecommunications Act November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, in response to the concerns my colleague expressed, I say that they and we will ensure that everything is done as transparently and as fairly as possible.
Telecommunications Act November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, first, this is an area where we have a significant, even comfortable, lead over other countries.
A third of research and development is done in telecommunications and information. In this area, we are in a good position. There are, however, minor effects that are sometimes not mentioned in this House.
I recently visited a school for severely handicapped children where the children have access to the Internet. The children said “Because we are hooked up to the Internet, people do not know we are sick, they do not know we have problems. The world is at our fingertips”. This is one instance of what a bill such as this can do for us, if we have an information highway across the country.
Rural communities that sometimes lack services because of their remoteness and because of the cost will no longer be isolated.
Telecommunications Act November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, naturally there are questions, but we are here in this House to follow the debate, to follow events and to ensure that the bill covers as many aspects as possible.
We cannot liberalize unless there is an organization with a set of rules. This means we have to keep an eye out, because there are things to monitor.