René Canuel

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, because, in my opinion, he went to the heart of the matter.

He just said that we are two founding nations. I think everybody recognizes that, but I cannot understand how we can have two nations and only one country.

We, Quebecers, we want our own country. The throne speech mentions only one country. In view of the fact that there are two nations, I would like my colleagues opposite to understand the right we have to demand our own country.

We all went to the Senate to listen to the speech. The atmosphere was quiet and peaceful. Some were happily resting, others even fell asleep during such an important speech. For my part, I was standing and I could not help thinking: "How will it be received by my fellow citizens in Matapédia-Matane who are watching on television? They always have good questions for me."

Even though they might be unemployed, people in Matapédia-Matane will not allow their children to be bought by offers of free trips across Canada during the summer holidays, at public expense. It is nice to travel and to show our young people how vast, great and beautiful Canada is. Indeed, it is. But if their father is out of work, and their mother cannot feed them, they are not interested in travelling across Canada, for the time being, at least.

In my area, people have taken to the streets; women are worried, the elderly are too. I would ask my colleague whether he found in the throne speech concrete steps dealing with our young people, farmers, the elderly and the unemployed.

[Forest Industry, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that when he refuses to react positively to the claims of 170,000 stakeholders of the forest industry, he simply confirms the fears of Quebecers who thought that after a no to the referendum, the federal government would also say no to all of their requests?

[Forest Industry, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec.

The minister responsible for regional development in Quebec is now contributing to the loss of jobs in the forest industry in Quebec since Ottawa decided unilaterally to withdraw from that sector and he refuses to grant the $80 million requested by the industry.

By refusing that compensation to forest workers in Quebec, as he did recently in the case of farm producers in Western Canada where the federal government withdrew from the grain transportation sector, is the minister not applying double standards and being unfair to Quebec?

[Mining Exploration And Development, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would find Motion M-292 put forward by my colleague from Timiskaming-French River quite acceptable if it would take into account the history of this country and particularly of the province of Quebec.

I am in favour of implementing a new financial incentives program to encourage mining exploration and development in Canada and in Quebec, but not at any price or under any condition.

I do believe that natural resources play a crucial part in the economy of any country. A country without natural resources is a country that depends on international markets. It is very hard for a country with no natural resources to properly develop a processing industry. This industry would always rely on major markets and bear the brunt of a supply and demand system.

It would also be subject to the whims of the money markets which always seek to get the most out of our natural resources. We had a striking example of that situation in 1929, during the Great Depression.

When the automotive industry was in full expansion, the rubber producing countries, especially in Southeast Asia, could not get a reasonable price for their products although demand was very strong.

World financial markets were pulling the strings and, unfortunately, were getting richer at the expense of the producers. Government had to intervene so that this industry would not go bankrupt.

We still have the same market system and the government must act at the natural resources level. To yield all possible benefits, the

development of natural resources must be planned coherently and consistently, and I would not say this is the case in Canada.

The competition between the federal government and Quebec and the other provinces is counterproductive and above all very costly. It generates very expensive duplication and this waste of energy and money only benefits our competitors on the world markets.

While we, in Canada, are fighting each other and while the federal government is trying to oust the provinces from a jurisdiction which is rightly theirs, our competitors get the opportunity to capture our own markets. A country which fails to invest in the development of its natural resources shows a lack of foresight which makes it very vulnerable.

Motion M-292 by my colleague tends to maintain a minimum investment in the Canadian mining industry and this is very good.

Moreover, a country whose national government violates the jurisdictions of other levels of government cannot expect an exceptional performance from its industry. In Canada, we have had huge difficulties in this area for some years.

If you are a producer and if, every time you want to go ahead, you are faced with two levels of government that disagree and with two sets of standards, you will waste valuable time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere.

As everyone knows, a country's natural resources belong to the community. If they are available for the well-being of the population, they are at the heart of our own development. In addition to creating jobs, they play an active part in our economic growth and collective wealth.

As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, sections 109 and 117 of the 1867 Constitution Act gave the provinces ownership of the lands, mines, minerals, and attendant royalties; several provinces, including Quebec, used these provisions to promote local industrial development and economic diversification.

I was elected in a rural riding and a relatively poor region. Our natural resources are the key to the survival and development of small communities in our regions. The involvement of the government in this crucial economic sector is essential, and this is why I congratulate my colleague for presenting this amendment.

But I firmly believe that the federal government should stick to the Constitution and let the provinces and Quebec take care of this sector. The federal government should give back to the provinces the sums it has collected and continues to collect for natural resources, and tell them: "Administer them the best you can".

The federal government profited from the revenues yielded by the development of natural resources, and it would only be right, as is requested in Motion M-292 proposed by my colleague, that that money be used for further developing these resources. The interference of the federal government in natural resources is serious. For example, the federal government has heavily taxed petroleum, which is outright interference in interprovincial and international trade.

It unilaterally fixed the sale price of oil and gas, wading into the market beyond provincial boundaries, thus forcing certain producing provinces to reduce their royalties and, in certain cases, even causing them to lose certain foreign markets.

Moreover, one must not forget that the federal government has jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines, interprovincial hydro lines and other methods of transportation between two or more provinces. Finally, in case of conflict leading to political stiffness like we experienced under the Trudeau government, the federal government could in a twisted manner use the declaratory power included in section 91(10) c ) of the Constitution Act of 1867 to unilaterally declare, as we have often seen the Liberals do, that projects like power dams, mines and oil wells fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, it could use the incidental power to regulate working conditions and product quality in those projects, thus encroaching once more on provincial jurisdiction.

The present government already did that through its environmental legislation which declared its authority on such projects. Many people, particularly now, ask themselves why Canadian federalism does not work. Yet, the answer is obvious. There is in Canada a level of government that does not respect the jurisdiction of other levels of government. There is a government which wants to grab all power for itself.

There is a government which does not have for objective the well-being of Canadians, but the appropriation of all power. I conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion, but not without certain reservations.

[Forestry, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, a group of Quebec organizations, including the Union des municipalités du Québec, is demanding $80 million from the federal government to compensate for its complete withdrawal from the funding of the private forestry sector by April 1996.

Does the Minister of Natural Resources intend to agree to the Quebec partners' request and to compensate the thousands of Quebec forestry workers abandoned by the federal government?

[Mining Exploration, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform member had a lot to say about the Bloc, but I just want to make a quick comment. He said that Quebecers are polite and that is true. We are extremely nice and polite and we know that.

However, I do not agree with the member when he says that language is a secondary issue. Language is a reflection of one's culture on the North American continent, and it is certainly not a secondary issue for Quebecers.

I cannot help but wonder: If language is a secondary issue for the member, that means he attaches little importance to us; consequently, why does he want us to remain part of Canada? The only true reason I can find is of an economic nature. This is why we are important to western and atlantic provinces, and why they want us to remain part of Canada. I just figured out why they do not want us to become sovereign.

There is no doubt in my mind that natural resources are, for a future country like Quebec but also Canada, a very important economic tool.

A country that has no natural resources or that does not pay proper attention to their development will, sooner or later, experience serious problems in the context of global competition.

Of course, its economy will be seriously affected, but one must remember that a country's natural resources are an asset for the whole community, not only for some individuals or large corporations.

Natural resources in both Quebec and in Canada belong to their respective communities. If they are developed for the well-being of the people, they are central to development.

Not only do they create jobs, but they also greatly contribute to economic growth.

When our raw materials are transformed here into finished products, they create a very important collective wealth. One must never forget that a job created in the natural resource sector has a multiplying effect on the whole economy, as long as we are not only raw material suppliers, as we have been too often in forestry. We ship wood from the Matapedia area to Montreal and Toronto, then finished wood products are shipped back to us.

In the mining sector, the discovery of minable deposits, or exploration, is at the very beginning of this potential chain. But for that chain to be started, we should, as my colleague for Abitibi suggested, consider revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada, notably by providing for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares. Quebec is a good example.

To generate every possible benefit, natural resources development planning must be consistent and, surely, ongoing. It would be wrong to think that we can leave this to the private sector alone, as some trends of thought would have it. It is necessary for governments, through their tax system, and flow-through shares among other incentives, to foster investment in exploration. In Canada, over the past few decades, we have seen a clear decline in the exploration and the processing of our natural resources, particularly in mining. We are now making a fresh start. All the better.

Several issues are at the root of the problems facing Quebec and all of Canada in this major sector of our economy. First and not the least is the constant fluctuation of the global markets, which is indeed a very sensitive issue. Sudden fluctuations of the world economy have greatly affected the development of our natural resources. When the prices of natural resources go up and down

like in a roller coaster, massive investment in that industry does not seem very attractive.

The other problem has to do, of course, with the general economic slowdown. When the demand is decreasing, exploration and transformation also slow down. Another important element is the inefficiency of exploration incentives. The current tax system is not in sync with the real objectives. We must change it, for example by providing flow-through shares.

Most of the stakeholders in the mining industry we have met during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources agree that the current measures are not very efficient. Also, they do not meet their goal, which is to promote exploration and discovery of new deposits.

Some stakeholders think that the current measures only reward the big corporations, who can unfortunately deduct part of their operating costs from their income tax. The inefficiency of current tax measures is only increased by all the red tape due to the federal government infringing upon an exclusively provincial area of jurisdiction, as enshrined in the constitution.

Because of the lack of program co-ordination in this field as in many others, developers as well as producers waste a lot of time and energy. Having to go constantly from one level of government to the other to get authorizations, to ensure compliance with existing policies or to adjust to the different tax standards of each government, to try to understand and, especially, to make people understand is far from productive for businesses. This waste of time is reflected in substantial losses.

In the Bloc Quebecois, we wish that once and for all the federal government would fully recognize the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces over natural resources. We want Ottawa to give the provinces control over natural resources and to truly encourage investment in exploration through tax incentives such as the flow-through shares, for example, in co-operation with the provinces.

I do not understand the federal government's attitude. Why is it trying so hard to take over resource management from Quebec and the other provinces? Why is it always sticking its nose in areas where it has no business? Why is it not working with the provinces instead of competing with them, and, moreover, using our money, our tax dollars to do so?

Why is it not adjusting the federal tax system in co-operation with the provinces to make it more responsive to the real needs of the industry? This is what we want to know. Is it because, as certain federalist big guns have said, those of us from Quebec and the provinces are incapable of doing the work or simply of delivering?

On the contrary, we, Quebecers, are perfectly capable of managing our own natural resources. Our social and political institutions have a long democratic tradition. Our people are well educated, and we can count on a multitude of workers capable of doing all the jobs in natural resource exploration and processing.

We have very abundant natural resources. Over the years, Quebec has acquired the ability to act as it sees fit in organizing development, and its tax system strongly supports its industry.

With the help of adjusted fiscal programs and so-called flow-through shares, Quebec has been able to further diversify its economy in areas such as culture, research and processing.

Quebec has changed over the last thirty years, and we can no longer tolerate that our natural resources be practically given away, as was unfortunately the case in the past.

Through our tax system, we have encouraged Quebecers to invest in their own province. The experience of the development of Northern Quebec has left indelible marks. Hopefully, we will never again see foreign industries shuut down towns and villages, and abandon entire regions. As Quebecers, our success in the area of natural resources certainly no longer depends on foreign investors or on federalism.

On the contrary, our success is the result of our imagination, our initiative, our actions, our creativity, our decisions, our efforts and the desire of Quebecers to play an active role in their own economy.

The tax measures introduced by successive Quebec governments have played a very important role, and all of Canada readily recognizes it.

Moreover, these tax measures and our own successes have helped to reduce our dependency toward foreign investors. While in the rest of Canada, the federal government begged foreign investors to develop natural resources, we, in Quebec, took control of our destiny. At present, the French-speaking Quebecers control more than half of the industrial and commercial corporations in Quebec. This is remarkable. This is almost twice as much as 30 years ago. In Canada, we see the opposite happening.

During these 30 years, a growing number of Canadian owned companies have fallen into foreign investors hands. Any country that lets foreigners extract its natural resources is no longer a master in its own house.

Finally, I know very well that all these requests I just made will not amount to much. Even if it would have us believe otherwise the present government is very centralizing.

We of the Bloc Quebecois want our neighbour, Canada, to remain very strong, especially in the mining area, since it will be one of our economic partners after October 30.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is once again trying to hide from seasonal workers the impact of his UI reform. Not only will many workers no longer qualify, but the minister intends to take nearly 20 percent off their UI cheques.

We must realize that Quebec regions will be hard hit by this reform. The federal government is setting out to treat seasonal workers like second-class workers, beer drinkers, as the Prime Minister once said.

Is this Ottawa's answer to forestry workers' cry for help? The minister cannot keep hiding his reform. If he thinks it is a good reform, he should table it before the referendum is held.

[Explosives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources had to say. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act, but I still have many questions to ask him.

I must admit that I was surprised when I saw Bill C-71 to amend the Explosives Act on the orders of the day. I was also surprised not so much by the bill itself, although one can easily wonder, but by the delay, the time it took the government to react. It should be pointed out that this bill implements the 1991 Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention was produced at the March 1, 1991, meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The bill came five years later, give or take a month, considering that it was read for the first time on February 24. So, it took the government five years to produce a bill only a few pages long, two pages and a half to be more precise, giving the impression that this government is a bad student. Like some students, only a few, it put off doing its homework till the last minute, if not the last second. To look good in front of the international community, it has now seen fit, five years later, to make the Canadian explosives legislation consistent with the terms of the Montreal Convention.

The impression we get from that is that this government is not efficient. It seems to indicate that this government is no better in terms of efficiency than the previous one, which we gladly got rid of.

As we can see, this government is not efficient. Unfortunately, acting on the Montreal Convention is not the only area in which the government is not very efficient.

Unemployment remains high throughout the country in spite of election promises and other commitments. Regions in Quebec and Canada are still in an extremely difficult situation in spite of repeated promises. This government tells us day in and day out that it is concerned with the economy, yet the country is going from bad to worse.

With Bill C-71, the government is hoping to convince the public that it is deeply concerned with the problems associated with criminal use of explosives. If that were the case, it would be great.

One wonders however what purpose this bill is intended to serve. Note that I said the purpose of this bill, as opposed to that of the government, because in my view we must distinguish between the two.

Officially, the purpose of the Explosives Act is to ensure the public and workers' safety, and that is fine. It also regulates the ingredients, quality and properties of explosives as well as their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage.

Its scope even includes pyrotechnics commonly called fireworks. The act requires the marking of most plastic explosives, so as to detect them. It prohibits the manufacture, storage, possession, transportation, importation and exportation of unmarked plastic explosives.

The act also seeks to control the proliferation of plastic explosives used in terrorist incidents. It provides for exceptions which include research purposes, as well as police and military uses. These are the official objectives. However, from the outset, we can easily question the effectiveness of such a bill.

First, it must be remembered that the Montreal convention could not even be implemented because there were not enough signatories. Therefore, why bother marking our explosives if we are practically the only ones to do so? Sure, it can be argued that we should set an example. Canada has always been very good at that, but when we are faced with the reality, it is an altogether different matter.

Canada is a peaceful country, but it is also a major producer of military equipment and explosives. I would love to think that, with this bill, we will solve the problem of international terrorism and that tragedies such as the Air India bombing and the incidents currently occurring in France will never happen again. Unfortunately, I cannot be convinced that this will be the case, because not all countries of the world are members of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Those countries that provide weapons and explosives to terrorists will be even more reluctant to sign such a convention. They will certainly not pass similar legislation. If they do, they will continue to act like hypocrites. They will continue to make unmarked explosives and to sell weapons and ammunition on the international market.

The government's only real objective is to save face and to make Quebecers and Canadians believe that they will be better protected. With this legislation, the government is trying to look better than the others; however, there is a huge gap between theory and reality. Indeed, the government's real objective is to give the impression that it is doing what it should at home and on the international scene. This enables it to publicly pat itself on the back, even though it is well aware that the problem will in no way be solved and that the safety of Canadians will not be improved at all.

As a matter of fact, this government has always created illusions: illusions regarding safety, better economic performance, debt reduction, greater social justice, etc. So, we are going to mark our explosives. We cannot go against virtue. Once explosives are marked in Canada, so as to make them easier to detect, terrorists will surely be scared to buy them. They will no longer dare bomb anything in Canada. They will no longer dare fly on our airlines and use our airports. At least this is what the government would like us to believe.

Let us be honest with Quebecers and Canadians. Let us tell them that we are in fact passing this bill to ease our conscience. What will terrorists do once our explosives are marked? You know as well as I do they will go buy explosives somewhere else, where they are not marked.

The question immediately arises: Who sells explosives to terrorists? The federal government has no answer to this question. However, we do know that Canada is used by many criminal organizations as a convenient gateway to North America. This is true, for instance, in the case of organizations linked to the drug trade. It is common knowledge. Canada has a lot of trouble controlling drug trafficking within its own borders.

Canada has always had and still has trouble controlling alcohol, tobacco and cigarette smuggling. And now we are supposed to believe that this legislation will help them control the smuggling of explosives.

Now, do not get me wrong. I would be delighted if this happened. However, I am not so naive as to think that all of a sudden, this legislation will give us a superefficient government. Once the legislation is passed, its implementation will not be easy. Marking explosives is pretty straightforward. Of course we have the technology, but do we have facilities across the country to help us detect marked explosives? What is the use of marking explosives if we do not monitor them?

Are border controls stringent enough to prevent smuggling of explosives? Will this government invest enough money to ensure the bill is actually implemented? I doubt it.

Good intentions are fine, provided they lead to tangible results. The government will have to answer all these questions if it wants to be taken seriously.

We support marking explosives if it can really make a difference. I am still waiting for evidence that marking will have any impact on international terrorism.

The bill also provides for certain exceptions which I had not discussed so far. These exceptions are substantial and have the effect of considerably undermining the whole credibility of this bill. Everyone knows Canada manufactures arms and explosives. The bill provides that explosives for use in research by the police or the military will not be marked.

The reason is obvious. If you go to war and the enemy can detect your explosives, you lose a lot of your effectiveness. That I can understand. But these exceptions, necessary though they may be, make the bill practically useless.

They have the effect of telling international terrorists where they can purchase unmarked explosives, and since we do not mark explosives destined for research for use by the police or military, we can say this bill will only affect a negligible part of the explosives used in this country.

Fine, we can say we will carefully monitor unmarked explosives destined for researchers, the police or military, although here again, do not depend on it. Everyone knows that even where security is supposed to be tight, there is always a leak somewhere. And another thing, the Canadian border is in many respects as leaky as a sieve. Government cutbacks have also affected controls at the border and in our airports.

So, even if we do mark explosives, if we cut services further, it will not serve much purpose. There are good examples both past and present of the permeability of the Canadian border thanks to the carelessness of this government.

Canada is currently facing serious problems involving a number of well armed native communities. Some members of these communities are almost as well armed as members of the Canadian armed forces and certainly better armed than the police. We have experienced this sort of problem in Quebec, unfortunately. We might ask ourselves where these individuals got the weapons, ammunition and explosives. Are they Canadian or were they imported?

The Montreal region is currently in the midst of a veritable war among organized gangs of bikers. They are also well armed, as you know. Where did they get their weapons, ammunition and explosives? Can the government tell us?

They have shown that Canadian controls are not very effective. They have shown that this supposed great country where people allegedly enjoy a remarkable quality of life is living on a lot of illusions.

It cannot be claimed that this bill will give people greater security. It is true that the government has to legislate. It was established to govern our society. But it has yet to acquire the means to carry out the legislation it enacts. What is the point of enacting legislation, if we are unable to carry it out?

Instead of trying to ease its conscience, as it is attempting to do, and to improve its image internationally and endlessly repeating that Canada has one of the highest ratings in the world, this government should really make an effort internationally to try to correct certain injustices.

Except in the case of organized crime, the use of explosives in Quebec and in Canada for purposes other than those for which they were intended is neither obvious nor particularly frequent.

Along with adopting legislation on marking explosives, would it not be a good idea for the government to take steps to fight organized gangs, to acquire the means to monitor the movement of terrorists within the country as closely as possible and to tighten controls at border points as well as at ports and airports, ensuring more effective surveillance?

There is much public pressure now for anti-gang legislation. We know that gangs are the ones using explosives for criminal purposes. Having such a statute would be a hundred times more effective than marking our explosives.

Perhaps Canada once enjoyed a certain credibility on the international level. By adopting Bill C-71 the government is trying to bolster that credibility, which is seriously drooping these days.

The aboriginal problem has markedly lowered Canada's degree of credibility.

The Prime Minister's statements implying that he will not respect the choice of 7 million Quebecers in the coming referendum suggest that this government does not have a great deal of respect for democracy. In fact, this government's sole purpose in passing a bill on marking explosives is to give the illusion that it is fulfilling its commitments. It is proposing this five years after the Montreal convention, when it could have done so far earlier.

The effectiveness of such a statute is questionable. Do they really believe that Quebecers will be fooled, that Canadians will be fooled? On the international level, will the body of nations be fooled? Will international terrorism quake in fear of this new measure? I beg to differ.

I would be especially happy if this government really respected democracy and promised to recognize the results of the upcoming referendum in Quebec. I would be especially happy if this government did honour another one of its commitments by really creating jobs. I would be quite satisfied if this government could show me how it will succeed in reducing the common debt while respecting the most disadvantaged in this country.

I would be satisfied if Canada managed to regain a certain credibility at the international level, but not by taking action at the last minute in order to ease its conscience, as this government is doing by proposing this bill. Because contrary to what some members of this government and some Canadian extremists may think, we in the Bloc Quebecois are not ill-disposed toward Canadians. We simply want to give ourselves a country that will respect its neighbour.

The present government's attitude toward the traffic of explosives in Canada and toward the commitments made when the International Civil Aviation Organization met in Montreal shows everyone that we simply have a vision and that reality is quite different when one has to manage a country.

For ordinary citizens from the small towns and villages in my riding, this bill, whose only purpose is to enable the government to save face at the international level, is a little ridiculous. These people really feel that the government is wasting its time instead of dealing with the big problems they must face every day: earning an honest living so they can put bread on the table, as the Prime Minister keeps repeating every day; keeping their small businesses afloat; living safely and peacefully at home.

You can mark manufactured explosives all you want, these people will say, but if you do not fight social injustice and take real steps against violence, organized crime and terrorism, you are simply wasting your efforts. I am convinced that is the message I will hear back in my riding, and I can only agree with these people.

I urge this government to be a little more serious and take action for reasons other than to ease its conscience, because although we support this bill so far, we still have many questions. Is the bill's only purpose to allow the government to show off at the national and international level, or is it a real bill that will be acted on because we will give ourselves the means to do so?

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient so far, and I hope you will be patient with me, too.

This planet was loaned to us, so to speak, so that we could improve it if possible. If we want to leave a valuable legacy to our children, we must protect the earth. Obviously, I am in favour of Bill S-7, because its purpose is to convert 75 per cent

of all federal vehicles by the year 2004 so that they can run on fuels that are less damaging to the environment. I think that this should have been done a long time ago.

The bill defines alternative fuels as fuels that are less damaging to the environment. What I find harder to understand is that the expression "less damaging" is not defined in the bill. What does that mean?

In proper French, propane gas should be called "propane" instead of "propane gas".

Here are some facts. The federal fleet now includes more than 39,000 vehicles, which emit some 156,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. This is terrible.

Every year, 570 million tonnes of various greenhouses gases are emitted into the air from coast to coast. This is called pollution. For the past 18 years or so, the gases accumulated in the air have caused a gradual warming of the planet. The best experts predict that the earth's average temperature will rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius within a few years, which is almost unbelievable.

This rise in temperature will have a major impact on sea levels, on ecosystems, of course, on the amount of drinking water and, as a result, on agriculture and human health.

Every year, new diseases appear. We do not know where they come from, but we know very well where they are leading us. They are leading us to our death, of course, without our realizing it. By polluting the environment, thus aggravating these diseases, we are killing thousands of children.

We will then spend enormous amounts on detecting these diseases. It is an endless cycle because, humans being what they are, they cannot keep adapt to nature. You know, nature is brilliantly organized; yet, with all our brains, we are going to destroy it.

The Canadian government has committed itself in front of the international community to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 level by the year 2000. The problem is however that, while she was prepared to do that much, the hon. minister was unable to get Cabinet approval. This means that there are several ministers on the other side of this House who are not aware of the consequences. That is a tragedy.

Carbon dioxide emissions in Quebec are half the Canadian average. We, in Quebec, have been taking our responsibilities in this regard for many years. If only the federal government would follow our lead. I am not saying that everything is hunky-dory in Quebec; much needs to be done, but compared to others, we are certainly on the right track.

Some, like the Reformers, question the validity of scientific results pointing to the existence of a greenhouse effect. I would like to share with you some of the reasons why I am for Bill S-7. In addition, this bill was introduced by a senator, and I congratulate him on that.

In a speech to this House, I said that the senators were creatures living in a large aquarium, in which they swim now and then, although not too fast, and then rest. But seriously-I must be logical and responsible here-there are senators who do an excellent job and the sponsor of this bill is one of them.

By passing Bill S-7, we will force the Canadian government to set an example. It will have to practice what it preaches, which it has never done yet.

Of course, Treasury Board directives were issued regarding the conversion and improved management of the federal fleet. However, we are forced to recognize that these have hit a wall of inaction and resistance to change. Only through legislation will the government departments and agencies be forced to comply with the new environmental priorities.

In addition, the federal government will save approximately $43 million in fuel over five years and another $15 million in the following years. Of course it will be a little more expensive. It will cost almost $1,500 more per vehicle purchased, a total of approximately $38.5 million more over a period of five years. However, it should also create savings of $7 million over five years.

Converting the federal government's fleet will have a ripple effect which will break the vicious circle of the low demand for converted vehicles because of the small number of outlets selling the fuel, which itself is caused by the small number of converted vehicles on the road, etc, etc. We hope that the large car manufacturers and fuel suppliers will take this opportunity to develop new models and to cultivate new markets.

Clause 2, however, sets three conditions in the legal definition of an "alternative fuel". The three conditions are the following. The fuel must be: (a) for use in motor vehicles to deliver direct propulsion; (b) less damaging to the environment than conventional fuels, and (c) prescribed by regulation.

I have some doubts about that definition, even though we support this bill.

One can, nevertheless, not help but wonder about the relevance of designating specific fuels which, after scientific analyses and the development of new technology, could very well be condemned within a few years as more harmful to the environment than other fuels.

I will give you an example. According to an article in Le Devoir , a study carried out by Carnegie University revealed that a 1988 vehicle which ran on electricity emitted 60 times more

lead into the environment per kilometre than a comparable vehicle which ran on leaded gasoline.

What is considered less harmful at a given point in time can change drastically because of new developments and new technology.

Despite these reservations, we support Bill S-7. Canada, the second largest producer of garbage in the world, the second greatest energy consumer and second highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita, cannot afford to once miss such an opportunity.

[Forestry Workers, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Next year, the federal government will make more than $20 million in cuts affecting private forestry in Quebec, thus penalizing thousands of forestry workers in the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspé and North Shore regions. Participants in the private forestry summit held in Quebec last month demand that the federal government compensate producers.

I would like the Minister of Natural Resources to tell us what kind of compensation this government intends to give forestry workers?