Bernard Bigras

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. Today I make the assumption that since the House reconvened the federal government has been introducing environmental bills that intrude in provincial jurisdiction, for example Bill C-6 amending the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the bill respecting species at risk, and this bill establishing a foundation to fund sustainable development.

Could the federal government not look after areas under federal jurisdiction rather than meddling in provincial areas of jurisdiction? Let it proceed with land decontamination in Shannon, at CFB Valcartier, or at the airport, in Sept-Îles. That is all we ask. The federal government has no say in provincial jurisdiction, particularly not as regards drinking water management. This side of the House does not need any lectures.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is an eloquent example of the danger of this bill. My colleague has just given an example, and I will document it.

Thirty thousand dollars went to the City of Montreal to retrofit its equipment and buildings in order to meet environmental objectives. That is the danger of this type of foundation, which has an initial endowment of only $100 million.

Earlier, I mentioned this danger in the conclusion to my speech, and I repeat that the danger is that this leads to a sort of piecemeal approach, with the result that the objectives would not really be met. The member for Winnipeg Centre spoke earlier about the institute for climate change. In Quebec, we have an action plan for reaching our objectives in this area.

Would it not be possible to recognize the work being done by the provincial governments or by the institutes on this issue and to fund these institutes or governments in order to consolidate the work they are doing, rather than create a foundation appointed by the governor in council—we do not know whom he will appoint—and to pour $100 million a year into it?

We do not know to whom this money will go. We know that there will probably be agreements, but clearly it will be very difficult for us, with the foundation they want to create, to know with whom agreements will be reached. It will be incredibly difficult. We are talking about a foundation with $100 million dollars.

I agree with my colleague and I think that recognition should be given to the work done in the institute for climate change in his riding, and to the Government of Quebec's action plan, and that the federal government should improve and consolidate existing measures rather than create a foundation that will throw money all over the place.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which basically is twofold. I do not know how long I still have, but to me the Shannon issue is really important. It is so because the government has to admit one thing. The contaminated lands in Shannon are located on lands under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government.

Let me tell the hon. member that on last February 6 I wrote to the Minister of National Defence, asking him to proceed immediately with the decontamination of the site and work together with the province in order to find a sustainable solution to the problem. That falls precisely within the scope of this bill.

This is not about patching problems, but finding a solution. The solution involves decontamination. As for the means available to us, while the federal government is proposing a foundation, I should remind the House that Quebec does have an action plan to deal with climate change.

There is a whole range of means that the Quebec government made available to the public—voluntary measures in some cases, and public information—in order to deal with the major challenge represented by climate change.

Given the federal government's performance on the climate change issue in recent years, would it not be sounder and more transparent to transfer these $100 million to the province that already has an action plan and made sure to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets?

Does the member not think that, on that issue, the Quebec government gets much better marks than the federal government? Let the federal government take that money and transfer it to Quebec, and then we will be able to meet targets even higher than those we have met so far.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

One would think this is truly environment day here in the House, after considering the motion by my hon. colleague from Davenport, in which he specifically asks the government to conduct studies in order to get a clear idea of the impact on the environment of fish-farming and its industry.

Today, we are studying Bill C-4. We do not know when but perhaps in a few days we will study the bill on threatened species.

Quite honestly, when I read the bill, I rather supported it. The bill advocated a number of principles, which one cannot oppose.

In Quebec, it is often said that it is impossible to oppose virtue and apple pie. This is where we are at with this bill at first reading. In other words, it permits the creation of a foundation which has basic funding, which would permit the funding of research on sustainable development, but more specifically, in order to work on the development of energy to fight climactic change and atmospheric pollution.

When I read the bill, I said “Finally the government is doing something to respond properly, by allocating the necessary resources to meet international objectives on greenhouse gases”. I said “This is a way for the government to meet its international commitments, especially those pertaining to climatic change and the Kyoto conference”.

This foundation provides financial assistance for the development and demonstration of new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues. It is a foundation which would operate like a non profit organization, with a chairperson, 14 directors and 15 members, all appointed by the government.

Quebecers remember what happened in the case of the millennium scholarship fund, an endowment fund or a foundation with a chairperson and a number of directors that was supposedly set up to achieve the laudable objective of helping students pursue their studies.

When we took a closer look, we discovered that this foundation was not necessarily there to meet the needs of students. The millennium scholarship fund was not established to meet the essential and critical needs of students and help them achieve their educational goals but, rather, to award scholarships based on merit. The fund had been set up so that the maple leaf could appear on the cheques.

Today, a similar foundation is proposed. Its members will be appointed by the government and, more often than not, for the government. Under the bill, the foundation would receive an initial endowment of $100 million per year. Is this a realistic figure to achieve the objectives agreed to before the public and before the heads of states at the Kyoto summit? One hundred million dollars per year to achieve the Kyoto objectives is not acceptable.

If the government had really wanted to adequately meet these objectives, it would not have created a foundation which, in a way, is a bogus foundation.

Clauses 11 and 15 deal with the appointment and selection of directors and members. Clause 11 reads:

1. The appointment of directors shall be made having regard to the following considerations: a ) the need to ensure, as far as possible—

Remember these words “as far as possible”. At any time, about half of the directors will represent persons engaged in research, while the other half will represent people involved in the business community and not for profit corporations.

In selecting the directors we must “as far as possible” ensure that half of the appointees are from the research sector. There is no obligation to ensure that these people have the required knowledge, expertise and experience to make a major contribution that would give Canada the means of production to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases.

Also, clauses 11 and 15 stipulate that the appointment of members shall be made having regard to the following considerations: a ) the need to ensure, as far as possible—

Therefore, at all times, the membership must be representative of persons engaged in the development and demonstration of technologies to promote sustainable development. There is a need to ensure “as far as possible” that the members of the foundation are experts.

If the government were truly honest and really wanted to make a serious commitment to the environment and renewable energies, would it have included in its bill clauses to ensure that experts would be appointed as far as possible? The answer is no.

If the government were truly sincere, it would have ensured that experts would be appointed to this foundation, not friends of the Liberal Party. What we want is more transparency. I am not sure the foundation will have all the transparency needed to ensure that its goals will be reached.

I want to come back to the $100 million initial funding for the foundation. Will it be enough? One could put that question to all the experts, not to the environmental groups, not to the so-called green organizations. One could ask the experts in the field of technology and renewable energies. They would say that $100 million, that is peanuts.

I want to remind the House of the Bloc Quebecois' commitment to sustainable development. The Bloc Quebecois suggests that the federal government invest a further $1.5 billion over five years to better meet sustainable development requirements. We are not opposed to a fund, we are in favour of a real fund with real resources to ensure that the real goals are met. On this side of the House we are not convinced that this fund will make it possible to meet these goals.

Why do we have reservations concerning the resources available to the fund? I will say honestly that I would rather be on this side of the House today, I would rather not be on the other side of the House and have to introduce a bill such as this one which is providing $100 million a year to deal with a fundamental issue requiring a major shift in terms of energy, namely renewable energy. We have doubts as to the government's goodwill when we look at the results concerning its international commitments.

I remind members that in 1992 the federal government signed the Rio framework convention on climate change and the ensuing Kyoto protocol containing more definite commitments, namely, for Canada, a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. Are we anywhere near achieving the Kyoto objectives? The answer is no. To meet these objectives we need real resources, not $100 million a year.

Far from dropping, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 13% in Canada. They have not dropped. We are not on our way to meeting the targets set by the federal government in Kyoto, far from it. In Canada, there has been a 13% increase in greenhouse gas emissions and, according to the figures put out by the federal government and the Royal Society, we are far from meeting our targets.

A report was tabled at the end of May by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who was quite critical of the federal government. He faulted the government for its failure in the fight against smog. On a more global level, he underlined the importance of reducing air pollution, which causes disease and death. Even though the government and the Minister of the Environment announced, yesterday and last Friday, a policy to help us reach that goal, we must realize that we are still very far from it.

Even worse, in terms of the financial means available to us to meet our targets at the international level, the insignificant amounts included by the federal government in its 2000 budget show the Liberals' lack of vision with regard to the environment. Just for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government should be spending $1.5 billion over five years, not $100 million.

The urgency of the situation requires a $1.5 billion investment, but instead, the government is planning to spend a total $700 million over the next four years on all environmental issues.

A $100 million investment will not be enough to help us face these environmental changes, and neither will the $700 million included in the last budget. We need $1.5 billion. Here is the situation: in 1997, Canada's emissions were 13% higher than in 1990.

With regard to the issue of climate change, I reviewed Quebec's position, its performance and how we fare compared to the other provinces and to Canada itself. That review shows that Quebec is clearly performing better in that area than the federal government and the other provinces.

Why do we have a better performance? Because we made the green revolution several years ago. When we look at the energy policy of Canada, of western Canada, with due respect to my colleagues, we realize the energy policy is still based on fossil fuel energy sources. There are three fossil fuel industries: natural gas, coal and oil.

Western Canada is a major producer of greenhouse gas, an oil producer and an oil user, which mainly produces greenhouse gas. However, since the 1960s, Quebec has had a totally different energy policy.

We have been using an energy that is called renewable. Hydro-electricity has contributed concretely and totally to Quebec's economic growth. Besides, it has allowed to stop the production of greenhouse gas.

This is a practical application in a country, the country of Quebec, of the sustainable development concept. We do not put the sustainable development concept in a bill such as Bill C-6. It does not belong in a bill such as the one the minister has introduced today. Sustainable development calls for a practical application. This means economic growth and the use of our resources with consideration for environmental protection.

Mrs. Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway, had defined this sustainable development concept that we are now applying in practical terms in Quebec. We have given ourselves all the tools required to achieve these environmental objectives without necessarily neglecting economic growth. This is what is different.

Often, people think that a change in energy policy leads to reduced economic activity. Quebec is a prime example. A few years ago, how many homes used coal, natural gas or petroleum? How many businesses and industries used them in order to produce consumer goods? How many houses were heated with oil? A very heavy majority.

Yet today, we use another source of energy, what is termed renewable energy. In the case of Quebec, it is hydroelectric power, electricity. Yet the economic activity of Quebec has not been affected by this pro-ecology and pro-environmental move.

On the contrary, Quebec's government corporation has been able to export energy, to the U.S. for one. This goes to show that a change in energy use does not necessarily mean job losses, as some would have us believe.

How often we hear the comment “The petroleum industry is so important to Canada, and jobs connected to that industry must be preserved”. I say there is a way of making a logical and balanced change of direction toward Canada's use of a sustainable energy source.

I am referring to hydroelectric energy. It is not the only type of renewable energy there is; there are other kinds. Among other things, there is solar energy, which works fairly well in certain countries. Proper investments would ensure that this technology could be developed.

There is wind energy as well. This energy has been tried out in many countries, including Quebec and Canada. Wind energy is used in Europe, among other things, as a primary source of energy, and not just as a secondary energy.

I will conclude by talking about the principle underlying the bill. As I was saying, I agree with the principle of the bill. It is impossible to oppose investment in technology that will mean the achievement of the objectives of sustainable development.

However, I have some doubt as to the vehicle for achieving these objectives, namely a foundation appointed by the government, with, in my opinion, insufficient funding.

My final remark is to the effect that the foundation would not permit the achievement of the objectives and the environmental green shift. I fear instead that it will manage to sprinkle a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars about without really achieving its target objective, that of producing while respecting and protecting the environment at the same time.

[Fish Farming, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to intervene on the motion concerning aquaculture and the environmental impact of aquaculture as presented by the member for Davenport.

When a person rises to speak after two presentations like those, naturally there are a number of points, both statistical and actual, to be presented to the House. I would like to address a number of issues that have not been considered yet.

First, why is fish farming so often chosen? Why do we choose this type of production to raise populations of fry and fish, often for commercial purposes?

The fact is it is rather odd. Quite recently, the government decided to create the position of aquaculture commissioner to manage and oversee the operations of the various types of aquaculture in Canada. At the same time, it decided to invest several tens of millions of dollars in aquaculture.

There is something rather odd. There is something rather—the word is quite specific—paradoxical about the federal government's policy on aquaculture. It decides to spend tens of millions of dollars on an industry—and we can call it that—which, creates jobs and helps raise the gross national product, but this industry is defeating the environmental efforts of this selfsame government. For years, it has been signing international agreements, including one on biodiversity, but now it is financing this industry. This also defeats the efforts made on behalf of the environment in Canada.

We must remember that the whole issue of Atlantic salmon, the ever shrinking population of salmon in the ocean at the moment, is due in large part, naturally, to the environment of the commercial situation and to the major industries, which in recent years, have polluted the various oceans, if we may say so.

It is paradoxical as well, according to what I was reading recently: a report on the issue published by a university in Indiana. It speaks reams. A number of groups have referred to it. I am surprised that the member for Davenport did not refer to that study, which is rather eloquent in that regard. Many environmental groups quoted it, as recently as in January 2000.

That report indicated that there were major impacts linked to the new phenomenon of aquaculture. It also mentioned that fish which is genetically modified and transgenic through aquaculture is seriously affected. According to the report, the biggest fish can concentrate on preys that had so far been left alone while also going after a bigger volume of traditional preys. The imbalance that could result becomes obvious when one looks at a natural species such as the Nile perch which could, less than a decade after being introduced, eliminate 50% of the species in Africa's Lake Victoria.

This environmental impact from transgenic fish is also found in Quebec. The introduction of mere minnows in trout lakes is enough to cause drops of up to between 50% and 60% in fish stocks.

Aquaculture is a type of production that must not be analyzed merely in commercial terms. While the government is investing in that industry, it might be appropriate, from an environmental point of view and for the sake of public health and the balance of ecosystems, to also invest money to deal with the environmental impact of that industry.

A number of researchers have made other eloquent findings. That same report from a university in Indiana mentioned that researchers and officials from Atlantic coastal countries indicated:

Wild salmon stocks in the North Atlantic are always in trouble and, according to scientists, they are currently at their lowest level ever reported.

There is an obvious reduction in the level and volume of wild salmon stocks in the North Atlantic.

We must ask ourselves whether aquaculture can be the solution to this reduction in salmon stocks. The answer is no. I sincerely think that, instead, we should work on our ecosystem and improve the environment in which this salmon lives.

Two strategies were put forward. The first one consists in reducing salmon catches. It is not merely a matter of introducing into our ecosystem, into our oceans, new transgenic fish; it might be wise as well to give some thought to reducing catches. As well, this fish's ravaged habitats on both sides of the Atlantic need to be restored.

It is, therefore, not a matter of merely increasing the stock through aquaculture, producing transgenic salmon fry, but rather of finding and working on solutions further back in the system, in order to reduce catches, restore habitat and ensure the survival of the species.

It might be wise, while the Canadian government is busy making noise about applying the principle of caution, to remind it, if I must, that at no time in 30 years has the Canadian government applied the principle of precaution to the aquaculture industry. At no time has the principle of precaution been applied. The only thing that counts is production. The only thing that counts is commercial markets. There is no assessment of the risks inherent in aquaculture and in this introduction of fish that have been transgenicly modified to some degree.

Might it not be wise also, when looking at amending the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, to seek some advice from the International Joint Commission in order to have a proper analysis of the impact of aquaculture on our environment? Why would this not be the time?

This is a joint commission that analyses a number of elements from certain points of view. I, and we, propose that it be consulted on water exports. Why would it not be the time as well for it to analyze the impact of aquaculture and transgenic fish on our waters? The joint commission could analyse the situation.

Unfortunately, the joint commission has nothing to say on this matter. I see my time is up. In principle, I support the motion by my colleague from Davenport, provided of course that this is done in close collaboration with the provinces and with Quebec.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the parliamentary secretary is distorting what my colleagues and the hon. member have said. He is probably referring to my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

His government took part in preliminary meetings, among others, for the 1994 Miami summit. His government probably took part in four ministerial meetings, between 1995 and 1998, where some Latin American countries asked that NGOs be excluded from the negotiations, saying that environmental NGOs had no business being involved in international agreement negotiations.

I wonder how the Canadian government responded to this demand, that NGOs not be involved in those negotiations, a demand made repeatedly by some countries that are now negotiating. What was the outcome? In Santiago, 800 NGOs from 34 countries expressed their concern that environmental and labour provisions would be excluded from negotiations.

It is not the members on this side of the House who opposed the participation of NGOs, it is the government, which did nothing to counter some countries' demand that NGOs not be involved in the negotiations. The hon. member will have an opportunity to answer my question, since this debate is not over yet. What was the Canadian position when some Latin American countries asked that the NGOs not be involved in the negotiation?

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is taking words out of my mouth. This is the essence of the motion. I hope that if the parliamentary secretary wants to intervene during the time I am allotted, he will not repeat that there is already an Internet site. We all know as parliamentarians that the site exists. However, I would like this government after it has consulted NGOs and the public to make public the documents Canada will use in its negotiations at the summit in April.

We hope that, in the principles to be set forth and as part of Canada's position in the negotiations, which, unfortunately, seems to have been given over to professional negotiators, as the parliamentary secretary told us, we will find protection of social rights, of the rights of workers and of the environment.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Quebecois motion calling upon the government to bring any draft agreement on the free trade area of the Americas before the House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before ratification by the Government of Canada.

I wish to begin by reacting to the comments by the parliamentary secretary informing us today in the House that there is an Internet site which provides a method of consultation with the public and the NGOs.

Naturally, I thank the Canadian government for making this available to Canadians and Quebecers. If it wants to be really transparent in its consultation mechanisms, however, let it make the Canadian position public before the negotiations.

There is, of course, a consultation mechanism. What we have been trying to find out for weeks in this House, however, is the real position of the Canadian government only a few months or weeks away from the summit of the Americas, to be held in Quebec City in April.

I am not opposed to free trade, let me point out, far from it. I am one of the supporters of more open trade with the world. Today, I want to share some concerns about social and labour rights. Later on, the hon. member for Laurentides will elaborate on these issues. I would like to focus my comments on my concerns about the protection of environmental rights.

With the summit of the Americas just months away, in light of how the texts of the multilateral agreement on investment were negotiated, in light of the fact that we found out about the content of the negotiations on the Internet, and in light of the secrecy surrounding the talks on NAFTA's environmental clauses, I have every reason to be concerned about the upcoming negotiations.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to negotiate environmental clauses within the trade agreements. This is critical. Since it is important to know where we are headed, let us look at what was done in the past.

In the case of the free trade agreement with the United States, we will recall that the environmental issue was raised as early as in 1991. Thanks to the effectiveness and involvement of all these organizations, these NGOs, especially those from Canada and the United States, which were allowed to speak to some extent, a final text including several environmental clauses was ready by 1992, so much so in fact that, at the time, the free trade agreement was dubbed the green agreement. Some were concerned that there would be a grey agreement. Quite the contrary. The so-called green agreement allowed a certain number of environmental provisions to be included.

I simply recall the preamble of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which states that the implementation of this agreement must be undertaken in a manner consistent with environmental protection.

I also recall article 104 of the Free Trade Agreement, which provides for the principle of primacy in the implementation and application of international agreements dealing with the environment.

I will mention two agreements, the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and the international agreement on the environment. That is the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer.

Article 104.1 of the agreement provides for the upholding of these international agreements in the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement.

It can therefore be said that the North American Free Trade Agreement is open, that it contains environmental standards, and that it goes further as far as the environment protection standards are concerned. Further than the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and further than the GATT.

Today, people would like to see an open debate take place. There is certainly room for improvement. I will come back to the Free Trade Agreement.

People would like to see a stronger article 114 in NAFTA. This article deals precisely with sanctions, the possibility of recourses in the whole issue of pollution havens, by discouraging polluters when they come to pollute an environment.

Moreover, we think that, in future negotiations, there should be a strengthening of what has been created in the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the commission for environmental co-operation.

We want that commission to be strengthened and given a clearer mandate, so that it can offset the power of large industries and big corporations on the international stage. The commission must be strengthened and given the ability to set up inquiries and table reports more regularly. Important meetings must be held between trade and environment officials on the implementation of free trade agreements in order to integrate environmental concerns.

We also want, in the summit of the Americas negotiations, the relation between investors and governments to be taken into account. We are concerned. When we consider the legal situation, when we consider the current challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement, particularly in relation to chapter 11 on the relations between investors and governments, we see that a number of environmental regulations, in all three countries, have been challenged by investors.

Some investors and some corporations feel the environmental legislation in all three NAFTA member countries is too restrictive and have decided to challenge it. We must be vigilant. An expert on free trade agreements said he was deeply concerned about this situation.

Currently, there are two trends in the negotiations of the agreements for the free trade area of the Americas. One is to isolate environmental questions by redirecting them to other forums, such as the WTO or the OAS. But a new approach is being developed in which the aim is to consolidate the whole environmental aspect of free trade agreements. We support this model.

What we want as well, is to renegotiate the clauses of NAFTA in order to exclude the whole issue of water as a natural resource. I understand that water is not currently a commodity, it is not considered to be such, but basically we want water, as a natural resource, not to be considered a commodity and not to become an item for export.

In closing, I will quote a former Premier of Quebec, now an expert on free trade, Pierre-Marc Johnson, who said recently:

The way to the next summit of the Americas in 2001 in Quebec City is therefore unclear, and many obstacles to the inclusion of environmental issues in NAFTA must be removed.

In 1994, NAFTA was greeted as the greenest agreement in history. It remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself.

[Water Contamination, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the water in the municipality of Shannon is contaminated and the source of this contamination appears to be on the Valcartier military base.

Yesterday, the Government of Quebec announced the measures it intends to take to rectify this situation.

Given that the pollution appears to originate on the Valcartier military base, does the minister intend to work with the Government of Quebec to identify its specific source?

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the legislation the Minister of the Environment is introducing today, the species at risk act, I want to come back to the issue of climate change.

The minister engaged in a lot of rhetoric and bragged about the government's record on the environment. He even went as far as changing the whole concept of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 reference levels.

That is the real comparison base, not the ratio of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to Canada's GNP. I thought it was important to remind people of this.

My question is a very simple one. The minister just told us that he will be introducing this afternoon an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Is the minister aware that in 1989 the government of Quebec passed legislation to protect species at risk? When introducing his bill today, will the minister take into account all the expertise and the work already done on this issue so as to avoid any overlap with the 1889 legislation, which was passed by members of the national assembly, some of whom are federal Liberal members sitting in this House today?

I am thinking about the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who were sitting in the national assembly when the act was passed.

Does the minister intend to abide by the Quebec legislation on endangered species?