Bernard Bigras

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no less than 20% of retired people who are eligible to the guaranteed income supplement are not getting it, simply because Ottawa is not making efforts to contact them and inform them. This is not a myth, it is a fact.

This is a real scandal, particularly considering that this government has known since 1993 that its guaranteed income supplement program does not cover all those who are eligible for it and who are often poor elderly people for whom this supplement is a necessity.

In its editorial, yesterday, Trois-Rivières' daily Le Nouvelliste supports the Bloc Quebecois spokesperson on this issue, the hon. member for Champlain, and says that Ottawa's attitude is truly out of line, because the federal government is changing the rules at the expense of the elderly, who are often the poorest people in our society.

Instead of merely looking into this issue, the Bloc Quebecois will soon organize an awareness and information session to reach all seniors in the Frontenac—Mégantic region.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am not saying that we must entrust our problems to international organizations. I will try to explain what I am saying as simply and as clearly as possible.

When it comes to the issue of climate change, why did we not adopt the European model? In 1997, when the Kyoto protocol was signed, the European Union negotiated objectives for greenhouse gas reduction, like Canada. One year prior, the European Union had negotiated objectives for greenhouse gas reductions. When it arrived in Kyoto in 1997, and when it signed the agreement, it knew what the greenhouse gas reduction efforts represented for each of the 15 sovereign countries of the European Union.

We have taken a different approach, a national approach. Canada negotiated for the Canadian provinces, without knowing what the effects of signing the Kyoto protocol would be for the provinces. Because of this, the provinces were not able to prepare themselves.

What I am saying is this: let us adopt a confederation-based model, like a true confederation, as dictated and written by the Fathers of Confederation: real decentralization and real sovereignty for the provinces. This type of model would allow the provinces to know what they are doing and would require them to achieve results and answer to a supranational organization. We would have the results and know where we are going. That is the difference

Instead of nation building, we are proposing a European style confederal union, which would allow us to be equal partners. I can assure the House that we would not be experiencing the chaos that we are experiencing today when it comes to climate change if we had taken the European approach for this simple problem.

How is it that 15 sovereign countries were able to agree among themselves to negotiate greenhouse gas reduction efforts in Kyoto, yet we in Canada are not capable of agreeing among ourselves? Perhaps it is because there is a problem with consultations among partners. Perhaps it is because the federal government acted paternalistically toward the provinces for five years.

Today, Canada finds itself isolated. It will end up paying for it, even though I hope that that will not be the case. Canada, because of its national vision and national approach lacking in consultations, must not be responsible for the failure of the international consensus on the Kyoto protocol.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, following my colleague, in the debate on the New Democratic Party's motion.

First, I would like to say that we now fully understand the reason behind such a motion. I say this in a friendly and brotherly to my colleagues from the NDP, because I am a progressive—I say this quite honestly—and I have defended causes here in the House that fully attest to this fact. However, it is important to understand that the NDP, through this motion, through this type of attitude that is in line with, improves and perfects the vision of nation building that the members opposite have developed, is excluding, is at odds with, and is marginalizing Quebec's reality. I say this in all honesty, and not to be mean to my colleagues from the NDP.

As my colleague was saying, fundamentally, the great majority of us support the principles set out in the motion, but we do not believe that this is the way to meet these objectives. We believe that this way of going about it, by setting Canadian objectives and national standards, will not allow these objectives found in the NDP motion, objectives that are viable and right, to be met.

Allow me to take but one example, the first point in the New Democratic Party's plan to save Canada, which reads as follows:

Enhance Canada's environment, including a national implementation plan for reducing green house gases, and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, in 2002.

We are not against this principle. However, in Quebec, there is an action plan for climate change. There are only two provinces in Canada that have an action plan that could be described by us, Quebecers, as a national plan.

Quebec has an action plan for climate change. Because of this plan—I will not go back 20 years because some will say that it was Quebec's focus on hydroelectricity that gave it an advantage; I will go only ten years back in time, from 1990 to 1999—Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per capita, while Alberta increased its emissions by 7%. This is a fact.

We do not necessarily need a national action plan in Canada to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives . Quebec has demonstrated that it can meet these objectives within its areas of responsibility.

I am saying it today and I will always say it: the mistake made by Canada regarding Kyoto is that the provinces were not consulted for 10 years. The difference between Europe and Canada is that when the 15 members of the European Union arrived in Kyoto, in 1997, they knew what the efforts made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions represented. They knew because they had true consultation, true co-operation. Member countries, sovereign countries were called upon to get involved, thus making Europe a key player in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions.

Where did Canada's national vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions take us? Nowhere. I would even go further. Had it not been for the Quebec national action plan on climate change, Canada would be the world's worst polluter. And today they are talking about a national plan? This does not make any sense.

How could 15 sovereign countries, members of the European Union, agree on objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve significant progress, when our federation has not managed to take this important step? There is a lesson to be learned from this situation. Why? Because it is the provinces that are dealing with the reality. Some day, this government will have to realize that it can never implement a national action plan on climate change, because Canada is different from one end to the other, and because each province has a different economic structure and a different climate.

It is obvious that Quebec's climate is not the same as the one in British Columbia. It is simply not possible to develop a national policy, because Canada is different from one end to the other. And not only because Quebec has a different culture and language, but because our economic structure is different and takes into account different natural resources. We enjoy economic diversity. How can we achieve our objectives? Certainly not through national plans. These objectives can only be achieved through regional plans.

I can understand Alberta saying today “The Kyoto protocol will be terrible for us”. Of course it will, because Alberta's energy situation is not the same as Quebec's. How can there be a national energy policy in Canada when our energy situations are different? We want an energy policy that addresses the notion of wind chargers. Fine, but the reality is that most of the wind charger potential is in Quebec. The geographic realities, the economic structures, and our climate are different. We must adapt our strategies accordingly.

That is why I am saying that the 12 points put forward by the New Democratic Party are, with a few exceptions, principles with which I agree completely. However, the proposed emphasis on Canadian nation building is not the way to attain the laudable principles of this proposal. And when this is understood, so will many other things be understood.

People will understand that the very reason that Quebec wants to become sovereign, apart of course from wanting to preserve its language, its culture and its history, is that these 12 objectives can be attained only if there is a real transfer of powers from Ottawa to Quebec City.

In my very frank opinion, the Kyoto protocol could actually result in failure. Canada will perhaps be responsible—not that I wish it—for the failure of a real international consensus. Why? Because the provinces were not involved. Alberta does not know what the impact will be of the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set in Kyoto. The government is trying to get Quebec to help pay for attaining these objectives.

In conclusion, these are laudable objectives, but many of them will remain unattained as long as there are no regional policies, no real decentralization of powers to the provinces, because this country is not the same coast to coast. If the New Democratic Party members truly want to attain these 12 objectives, they will have to get one thing straight and that is that the constitutional order must be changed.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 that are part of Group No. 3.

It is of course the third time that I rise in the House, following the various stages that the bill went through. As members of the Standing Committee on the Environment, we had ample opportunity to discuss this bill.

I would like to point out a number of reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this federal legislation, which will inevitably, through some of its clauses, apply to Quebec.

Let me say from the outset that we are not opposed to legislation to protect threatened species. Why? Because a commitment was made at the Rio earth summit, in 1992. As we know, in a few months, that is in early September, the international community will meet at the Johannesburg summit. It is important to remember what decisions were made ten years ago in order to see if Canada has achieved its objectives regarding the protection of species.

At the 1992 Rio summit, Canada signed the convention on biodiversity. What did the convention have to say about threatened species? Let me quote an excerpt:

Each Contracting Party shall develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.

So, in 1992, Canada pledged to adopt legislative provisions, to pass an act to protect threatened species. It is rather paradoxical to see, just a few months before the Johannesburg summit, Canada come up with a bill, as if its objective were simply to be able to show up at this summit with an act to protect species.

Quebec did not take long to ensure that the protection of species on its territory became and remained a priority. In 1989, even before the earth summit and the Rio summit, Quebec passed an act on threatened species, regulations on fisheries and an act on wildlife conservation to protect threatened or vulnerable species on its territory. Even before the international community came to an agreement in 1992, Quebec had been proactive and had passed its own legislation.

Now, the federal government has come up with a bill which we feel should, in principle, apply only to federal jurisdictions, including federal territory and, at the most, migratory birds, but should certainly not jeopardize a bill which was passed by the national assembly under the government of Robert Bourassa.

This bill was sponsored by the federal member for Lac-Saint-Louis, then Quebec's minister of the environment. Now, he is part of the government team, whose goal it is to have the House approve amendments and clauses in this bill which will, for all practical purposes, destroy the work done by his own province.

This is ironic, because Quebec passed its own legislation in 1989, the earth summit was held in 1992, and in 1996 Quebec signed the accord to protect endangered species on its territory.

I mention this because we now expect the federal government to make an effort at co-operation. We do not want the Government of Canada to play a policing role. I use the word policing because in the bill the government makes provision for federal enforcement officers, who will duplicate the work being done by our wildlife enforcement officers.

We want a government that works co-operatively, not a policing body. We feel that the government should respect the spirit and the principle of the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada, signed in Charlottetown in 1996.

What did this accord do? It established a mechanism for co-operation among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. One feature of the accord was that it committed governments to complementary legislation and programs to ensure that endangered species are protected throughout Canada. The idea was to have complementary, not overlapping, programs, which is what we see in the spirit of the bill before us.

Why have a bill that will create overlap with what Quebec is doing? For let us not forget that while the federal bill provides for recovery plans for endangered species, so does Quebec's 1989 legislation.

Whereas the government of Quebec has put a system in place for law enforcement by its wildlife officers, under the Quebec wildlife conservation legislation, with this bill, the federal government and its own officers will be duplicating the work done by ours. This is duplication; here we have a government policing and refusing to co-operate or collaborate. What is more, the legislation sets out offences, as of course the Quebec law did already.

In my opinion, this bill is contrary to the first principle of the national accord for the protection of species at risk. I would remind hon. members of one of the objectives on which the federal government had made a commitment, which is that the governments are to enact regulations and complementary programs to guarantee protection of endangered species everywhere in Canada.

What is more, a council of ministers was created to establish the directions to be taken, report on progress and resolve disputes. That was the second aspect of the accord.

This leads me to set out the reasons behind our decision to introduce an amendment, the one moved my colleague from Mercier, which is found in Group No. 3 and amends clause 57 of the bill, which reads as follows:

1. The competent minister may, after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and any person whom he or she considers appropriate, establish codes of practice, national standards or guidelines with respect to the protection of critical habitat.

So we have the competent minister establishing national standards for species protection, when the second statement of the accord signed in 1996 stated that the minister will establish “a Council of Ministers that will provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes”.

In my opinion, clause 57 is contrary to the second principle contained in the national accord. In addition, I believe that clause 34, which creates a safety net for species protection, is in direct contravention of the first principle set out in the 1996 accord.

There is a high likelihood that I will be speaking again on Group No. 4.

[Kyoto Protocol, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we are asking the minister to do is share with the House the studies he saw on Wednesday. That is what we would like.

With the federal-provincial conference in Victoria coming up on February 25 and 26, if the minister is serious about wanting to ensure a broad debate on the Kyoto issues, will he agree that one of the ways he could do that would be to immediately table in the House the analyses he now has in his possession?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has learned that at his ministerial meeting last Wednesday night, the Minister of the Environment saw preliminary studies with respect to the options available to him for meeting the Kyoto objectives.

In the interests of transparency, does the Minister of the Environment intend to share the results of these preliminary studies with the members of this House, and table a copy of them at the earliest opportunity?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment wrongly suggested that the Bloc Quebecois opposed the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

What does the minister have to say about the remarks of his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, who stated yesterday at an energy conference that Canada's commitment to ratifying the Kyoto protocol was wavering?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with implementing the Kyoto protocol, the Minister of the Environment said in the House yesterday that the past must be taken into account in determining the costs that would have to be borne by the provinces, but there were limits.

Is the minister prepared to recognize that the most relevant benchmark year should be 1990, the year used in the Kyoto agreement?

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to the motions in Group No. 2, on Bill C-5.

It gives me all the more pleasure because in committee, members from this side of the House, and Bloc Quebecois members in particular, made considerable efforts to make not only the government, but also some parties in this House, realize the importance of two things that are dealt with in the amendments before us today.

First, habitat is a provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, the purpose of the motion of the hon. member for Mercier, who suggested it herself after reading the bill, is to solemnly reaffirm that Quebec feels that critical habitat and its protection are provincial jurisdictions.

The other thing to which we object through the amendments moved by the hon. member for Mercier has to do with clauses 32 and 34 and with what the hon. member opposite called, and rightly so, the safety net.

In order to fully grasp the situation, we must understand what Quebec has done so far. About an hour ago, I was listening to the hon. member for Davenport, who said that, in his opinion, the provincial legislation, that is, the Quebec act on endangered species, which dates back to 1989, cannot not adequately protect these species in Quebec.

This claim by the hon. member for Davenport is somewhat peculiar, since the federal government is now proposing, 12 years after the national assembly passed an act to protect endangered species, a bill on the same object. For 12 years, Quebec has ensured the protection of those species on its territory, which is something the federal government did not do during those 12 years in its own jurisdictions, including in national parks.

The situation is rather the opposite of what the hon. member claimed. Quebec has been doing for 12 years something that the federal government has not done. Let us also not forget that the bill before us will not be passed today and there is currently no federal legislation protecting species and their habitat, while Quebec has its own act.

Let us talk about something else concerning habitat. Certain members opposite often tell us that Quebec has no intention of protecting habitat. As the member for Davenport said earlier, it is important to put things back into perspective. Some of the things said in this House are not always right. Some of the arguments made are specious.

I would remind the House that, since 1996, in other words well before there was any discussion of this federal bill to protect habitat, Quebec has had a strategy on biological diversity. This strategy set out the major objectives of developing protected areas. Under the bill now being proposed, there is currently not a single habitat that is protected, because the bill has not yet been passed, while Quebec adopted its strategy and created protected areas within its own borders back in 1996.

It takes some nerve to stand up and say that Quebec has not done its job, when it has had legislation since 1989 and the federal government still does not have any legislation concerning its own lands.

It takes some nerve to stand up and tell Quebec that it is not protecting its habitat when, since 1996, it has had a strategy to create protected areas within its territory. However, the bill before us today, which is supposed to protect habitat, fails to do so.

We are getting doublespeak from the government members. And we are also getting it—I say this in all friendship—from certain other members of the House who say that Quebec is not protecting its species.

I will give two examples. First, we are protecting species—we could make some improvements, and I admit this—because we have introduced a mechanism, a strategy on biological diversity, which makes it possible to create protected areas, and we have passed legislation.

I would remind the member for Davenport, who says that Quebec is not doing its job of protecting the areas within its territory that, on January 24, 2002, Quebec's minister of the environment announced $10 million in funding for nature conservancy in a partnership agreement signed with the community. The purpose of this agreement is to protect threatened areas and habitat.

Yet the federal government, I will remind hon. members, still has no legislation, while Quebec has had a strategy since 1996, with $10 million for habitat protection. Was that enough? Of course not, but we at least have mechanisms for protection of habitat. I would remind hon. members that the Government of Quebec has a strategy for increasing the protected areas within its territory.

Another reason we are strongly opposed to this bill—and I emphasize strongly because the amendments in Group No. 2 we are presenting today are the very essence of the entire Bloc Quebecois argument against this bill—is that the Government of Quebec in 1996 signed an accord on the conservation and protection of endangered species in Canada. This ensured the federal government and its partners that the Government of Quebec reiterated its intention, even though it had passed legislation in 1989, by signing this accord, to protect endangered species and to participate and co-operate with the federal government.

Among the objectives of the accord are two to which I will refer. It commits the governments to regulations and programs to guarantee that endangered species are protected throughout Canada and creates a council of ministers to determine the broad policies, report on progress and settle disputes. So, the Government of Quebec passed legislation in 1989, adopted a strategy on protected areas, and then signed the accord in 1996.

Today, what we are telling the federal government is that it must not take a policeman-like attitude toward Quebec and the provinces. We prefer co-operation, collaboration, concerted efforts, as the parliamentary secretary said this morning. We are in favour of joint efforts, because we signed the accord in question. We are not opposed to Canadian legislation on endangered species in Canada, but we call upon the federal government to have it protect only those habitats that fall under its jurisdiction.

Quebec has its legislation, and wants to see it applied on its territory. It does not need clauses like clause 34 of Bill C-5 to inform it at some point that if the federal government feels that the Quebec legislation is not protecting the species, then there must be a federal statute.

In closing, what we prefer is an approach aimed at concerted efforts, collaboration and co-operation, rather than having the federal government imposing a bill, and acting like a policeman.

[The Environment, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while Alberta was increasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%, it maintained its zero sales tax and plowed money into its heritage fund.

At the same time, Quebec was restricting its greenhouse gas emissions to a mere 1.8%.

Can the Minister of the Environment explain why Quebec, after all of the efforts it has made, should still have to pay for Alberta, a province that has no sales tax, that has billions of dollars stockpiled in a heritage fund, and that brags about having the lowest taxes in Canada?