Bernard Bigras

[The Late Douglas Harkness, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Douglas Scott Harkness, former member and minister, who died on May 2 at the age of 96.

Mr. Harkness was born in Toronto in 1903. He studied at the University of Alberta, after his family moved to that province in 1910. He was a teacher and a farmer. During the second world war, he served in the armed forces in Europe from 1940 to 1945.

It was, in fact, while he was in Europe that he received a telegram asking him to run as a Conservative in the general election of June 1945. He was first elected to the House of Commons to represent the voters of Calgary East.

During his career in politics, he served as northern affairs and natural resources critic. In 1957, he was appointed Minister of Natural Resources and acting Minister of Agriculture. He served as Minister of Agriculture until 1960, when he was appointed Minister of National Defence.

As such, he took part in the important debate that caused such a furor at the time on the appropriateness of the Canadian Armed Forces having nuclear weapons. The position he defended on this did not prevail and he accordingly resigned his post in 1963. He continued to represent the voters of Calgary Centre until 1972.

After retiring from political life, Mr. Harkness returned to agriculture. In 1978, he received the Order of Canada.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and on my behalf, I would like to extend my sincere condolences to his family and friends.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand up today to speak about Bill C-32, especially about the motions in Group No. 6.

I am particularly pleased to have accepted the invitation from my colleague from Jonquière today, since this debate falls on the first day of environment week.

First of all, it is important to mention that no matter what changes are made to Bill C-32 we are against it, at this stage at least. However, we never opposed the basic principle linking economic development to environment protection. It is a fundamental principle established many years ago by the United Nations commission for the environment, which was chaired by Mrs. Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway. That commission put forth a concept where economic development environmental protection go hand in hand.

This is all the more important because of the population increase of the last few years. With that population explosion and technological advances, economic activity has multiplied by 20 since the beginning of this century. Furthermore economic growth was directly linked to technological development all over the world.

Whether we want it or not, not only did that impact on the environment but it also impacted directly on our life. In this context, it is unavoidable that we will face many environmental crises. It cannot be avoided, it is part of reality. That is why we have to protect ourselves.

Obviously we have to protect ourselves with laws, a fact that has been recognised on several occasions, including at the recent environment ministers' meeting, where the Quebec Minister of the Environment, Paul Bégin, expressed his desire to protect the environment, while making sure that certain clear rules are obeyed. I will come back to this subject later on, but I thought it was important to mention it now.

Earlier, I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment who enumerated a series of announcements she or her minister made concerning the environment over the last few months. It is important to look carefully at the net results of the government's commitment.

I reread my notes from the time I was the Bloc's environment critic. On April 24, 1998, the Liberal government launched a vast publicity campaign in Canada to sing the praise of the Canadian government for its key role in the protection against climate change at the international level. The publicity said, and I quote: “To play a key role at the international level by contributing to the reduction of the causes of climate change in the world”.

When I came to this House and when I became environment critic, I soon realized that there was a lot of rhetoric on the other side, but very few results. A quick look at this government's and this country's record with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gases is enough to see that we do not fare well among OECD countries.

I think it is important to say so because, over the last two years, the government has not had a clear objective with regard to the environment and has not even been able to meet the commitments made by its predecessor at the Rio summit in 1992.

I think it is important to deal with the issue of climate change. For the past two years, the government, through its environment minister, has claimed it would play a leadership role in international fora, especially at the Kyoto summit. This issue is of the utmost importance since over the past few years we have been releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing global warming.

It is important to note that we in North America alone are responsible for a quarter of emissions. In view of this environmental situation, it is important to make international commitments and pass laws taking it into account.

At the Rio summit in 1992 the federal government agreed to the common goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. Canada agreed to it and so did Quebec through a motion passed by the national assembly. While the federal government was committed to acting as a responsible government, taking the necessary steps, and respecting the international commitments it signed, more than ever Quebec was true to its word on this issue at the international level. Its record speaks for itself.

I mentioned 1992, but there is also mention 1995, the Berlin international conference where the alarm was sounded to the world to the effect that the mere stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 would not be enough because it would not reduce the mortality rate nor the incidence of diseases caused by global warming and gas emissions.

At that time the message from Berlin was loud and clear. Governments that made a commitment in Rio in 1992 must not only stand by it, but if at all possible, go even further.

The Kyoto conference is another important event. Canada who, a year before, was bragging about being an international showcase and leading the way in gas reduction, is not acting upon its commitments although they had some merit. That conference could have allowed Canada to influence the future.

Instead, the federal government has delayed disclosing its commitments and its position with regard to a 3 per cent reduction of gas emissions by the year 2010. That is not enough. Quebec said so over and over again. Quebec was ready to commit to going twice as far as Canada in its initial position.

On the issue of climate changes, Quebec has met its commitments. Quebec was able to do so because it adjusted its objectives. It has undergone a change in its energy use thus enabling it to improve the situation in Canada as well as internationally.

While Western Canada kept investing in fossil fuels, Quebec gave greater place to hydroelectric generation and came up with policies in keeping with our quality of life needs both economic and environmental, which of course includes economic growth.

At this stage, we oppose Bill C-32 because it is conducive to overlapping and duplication and, especially, because the federal government does not respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over environment matters under the Constitution.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the second time to address Bill C-32, which replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as CEPA in environmental and parliamentary parlance.

Our position on Bill C-32 and on the legislation passed by this parliament, and the position developed by Quebec are not new. My Bloc Quebecois colleagues stated it a number of times since the beginning of this debate: we are clearly opposed to this bill.

It is important to explain why we are opposed to Bill C-32. Let us not forget the stand taken many times in the past by the Quebec government regarding the protection of the environment.

Let us not forget January 29, 1998. Let us not forget that important date for Quebec, when the Quebec government, through its Minister of the Environment, Claude Bégin, decided not to sign the proposed environmental harmonization agreement. It was supposed, in principle—and I emphasize the word “principle”—to reduce duplication and overlap, and to respect the exclusive or primary jurisdictions of the provinces under the Canadian Constitution.

I am referring to the spirit of harmonization because essentially the content of that agreement was far from respecting the principle stated a few months earlier by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Through its government, Quebec has said loud and clear that it will sign the environmental harmonization agreement the day this agreement will actually permit—not only in principle but in actual fact—the elimination of overlap and duplication, and include the recognition of Quebec's exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned to the provinces under the Constitution.

It is important to remember these facts because they explain the Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-23. If the federal government had respected the spirit of the harmonization agreement, we might have supported Bill C-23, but the problem is that every time an environment minister sets out to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in this parliament, he takes the opportunity to interfere in areas of provincial responsibility and increase duplication and overlap.

The renewal of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act did not start yesterday. On December 15, 1995, the Liberal government proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The proposal by the Minister of the Environment at the time was the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention”.

This report set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the federal government's main legislative measure on environmental protection.

At the time, the Bloc Quebecois, which opposed the bill, denounced the fact that most of the recommendations supported the centralizing tendency of the federal government in environmental protection matters. As my colleague for Verchères—Les-Patriotes mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net and contends that the environment would be better served if responsibility for its protection were given to one level of government only.

The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.

Our vision is shared by many experts studying how federations work. As Barry Rabe, a researcher from the United States, stated in the 1997 Fall issue of the scientific magazine Canadian Public Administration , and I quote:

For the most part, literature on environmental federalism shows decentralization in an extremely favourable light.

Bill C-32 is not part of a decentralizing approach. It renews the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has been so vigorously opposed by the various governments of Quebec. In the last parliament, the Liberal government attempted to get the previous version of this bill passed, but gave up the attempt in light of the huge outcry, which could have jeopardized the upcoming elections.

As the House will recall, Bill C-74 died on the Order Paper during the last session. But CEPA provides for a five-year review, which is already overdue, as the government backslides and introduces another bill holding to the national vision that still does not sit well with members of the National Assembly.

With this bill, pollution prevention becomes a national goal. This is the second whereas in the preamble. The government wants to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by amending certain technical provisions, but keeping the essence of the centralizing vision of environmental protection.

The bill contains provisions dealing primarily with pollution prevention, the establishment of new methods of reviewing and evaluating substances, and the creation of obligations with respect to substances that the environment and health ministers consider toxic.

The list of these substances is extensive. There are new powers and new dispute regulation mechanisms for investigators. This bill gives investigators new powers. But it does not give them new resources for doing their work. That is what is ironic. We are given a stronger, more robust CEPA, an act with more teeth, but the Minister of Finance is still refusing additional funds to enable officials to take action.

It is a no go. We cannot protect the environment without resources. Now is the time to realize this. In a few weeks, I will have an opportunity to perhaps meet again with my former colleagues in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and say no to Bill C-32, because it is still predicated on centralization, which Quebec cannot accept.

[Marijuana, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, by voting heavily in favour of my motion on the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic purposes, this House has clearly demonstrated its desire to move quickly in order to bring relief to patients in need of this drug.

Today, everyone is asking the same question: when will the Minister of Health table his calendar of clinical trials so that this drug may be legalized as quickly as possible?

[Marijuana, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, several weeks after the minister's announcement regarding the master plan, we in the House are entitled to answers, if there is to be transparency.

My question is clear. Yes or no, have officials contacted Monsanto representatives and will the firm be included in the minister's plans?

[Marijuana, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the clinical trials on marijuana for medicinal purposes, our information indicates that Department of Health officials are currently in discussion with the American company Monsanto to involve it in the supply of marijuana.

This company is known for its production of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and its involvement with the bovine growth hormone controversy.

Can the minister confirm that Monsanto is being considered in the department's work hypotheses in connection with the supply of marijuana.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32.

I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for Jonquière, on the excellent work she has done in recent weeks on this issue. As the former environment critic, I passed on to her all the material I had.

Having frequently discussed the bill with her, I think the member for Jonquière has done a good job of incorporating the concept of sustainable development favoured by the United Nations commission on the environment and development.

This fundamental concept, developed and put forward by Norway's Prime Minister Brundtland, clearly states that any economic development must now take environmental concerns into consideration. It is important that this be noted.

Whenever it has taken a position on environmental issues, the Bloc Quebecois has always borne in mind this fundamental concept that economic development must respect the environment. The member for Jonquière covered it well during her statements in committee.

Today, I am proud to take part in this debate. Basically, Bill C-32 introduces provisions to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances, and new requirements with respect to substances that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have determined to be toxic.

The list of such substances is extensive and a few examples are in order. Investigators will be given new powers and there will be new regulatory measures to deal with offences.

A few months ago, some sensational statements were made. A number of senior officials of the Department of the Environment wondered very openly—and this was mentioned by the member who spoke before me—whether their department could still monitor offending businesses, so draconian had the cuts been.

Having sat on the standing committee on the environment with some of my colleagues from across the floor, I remember the eloquent representations that were to be reflected in the report tabled by the committee. This is a report that was rather staunchly defended by committee members a few months ago.

The report pointed out the lack of resources available to investigators. Today, it is said, we want to improve the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly known as CEPA. However, it is regrettable that the Minister of Finance is not here today, as we undertake the debate to renew that act. It should be pointed out that investigators are not given the means to do their job properly. This is deplorable, if we basically want to ensure better environmental protection.

The question we must answer on this side of the House as representatives of Quebec is what powers will the renewed CEPA delegate to Quebec and the other provinces in Canada.

Although in theory Bill C-32 recognizes that responsibility for the environment is shared between the federal government and the provinces, in practice it delegates no powers to them. And this runs counter to real environmental harmonization between the various levels of government. Bill C-32 unfortunately aims at strengthening the federal government's preponderance in the field of environmental protection.

This centralization runs counter to the clearly expressed wish of the Quebec National Assembly to participate fully in the environmental assessment of any project on its territory. The bill is also in flagrant contradiction with the spirit of the harmonization process launched between the federal government and the provinces. This is why the Government of Quebec has pulled out of negotiations, and is looking further into this promising process.

The bill thus opens the door to duplication of federal and provincial powers. The federal government is justifying its interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction by invoking the recent supreme court decision with respect to Hydro-Québec. This case has always been contested by Quebec. All the courts that ruled on it, including Quebec's highest court, the Court of Appeal, declared the federal government's order invalid. Only the supreme court, with its unitary vision of Canada, overturned the Quebec court rulings.

Bill C-32 also contains a number of new features. For instance, the government wants to replace the existing federal-provincial CEPA committee with a new national advisory committee. This committee would consist of one representative each from Environment Canada and Health Canada, one representative from each province and territory, and up to six aboriginal representatives. This committee will advise the two federal ministers on the drafting of regulations, the management of toxic substances, and other matters of mutual interest.

We cannot understand why the bill clashes with the harmonization the government claims to have as a priority.

Let us not forget that Quebec refused to sign the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreement on January 29, 1998. When the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment met at that time, Quebec Environment Minister Paul Bégin refused to subscribe to that agreement, as long as the conditions called for by Quebec are not met by the federal government.

These conditions include recognizing that Quebec has primary jurisdiction in certain areas, under the Constitution.

The federal government has made a firm commitment to amend the federal legislation. This means Bill C-32, the purpose of which is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In addition, Quebec and the federal government have signed a bilateral agreement with respect to environmental assessments. As well, the minister—

[Medical Use Of Marijuana, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario court has awarded a constitutional exemption to an individual with AIDS to enable him to use and grow marijuana for medical purposes, because the federal government is so slow in providing marijuana to the terminally ill.

In the light of this new situation, what does the Minister of Health intend to do? Will he appeal this decision by Mr. Justice LaForme, or will he apply section 56 of the Health Act to give Mr. Wakeford a special exemption?

[Millennium Scholarships, May 4th, 1999]

The Minister of Human Resources Development is well aware that, last week, the leaders of the three political parties at the Quebec National Assembly asked that a government negotiator be appointed in the millennium scholarships issue.

My question is simple. Has the federal government appointed its negotiator, yes or no?

[Millennium Scholarships, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have been questioning the government on the millennium scholarships issue for days, without getting any answers. Enough is enough.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is well aware that the leaders of the three parties—