House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.
The Environment February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, last November an Environment Canada study on climatic change predicted more natural catastrophes, such as the Saguenay flood and the flooding of the Red River in Saskatchewan, as well as the ice storm that has just affected almost half the population of Quebec.
My question is for the prime minister. What concrete action has the government taken to follow up on this study, whose predictions were unfortunately accurate?
Kyoto Summit December 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of the Environment pledge today, in this House, to set up an independent committee to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in the potential Kyoto agreement?
Kyoto Summit December 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, after waiting until the last minute, the government is finally informing us of the position it will take at the Kyoto summit. As we know, following the Rio summit, in 1992, only Quebec and British Columbia ratified the agreement.
Now that the Minister of the Environment has finally managed to achieve a consensus on greenhouse gases among cabinet members, what will she do to ensure that the potential Kyoto agreement is accepted and ratified by the provinces?
Kyoto Summit November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain her government's inability to play the lead role in this area that it has with anti-personnel mines?
Kyoto Summit November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
For weeks now, the minister has been telling us she has all the flexibility required to allow the government to take a bold approach at the Kyoto summit.
Since the government obviously still has no position, is it prepared to endorse the Quebec position, which suggests that it should go beyond the objective set by Japan?
The Environment November 26th, 1997
Madam Speaker, as we have always said, the important thing is to invest in renewable technologies. This is what is important and what must be reflected in the Canadian position. We must have an energy policy that will allow us not only to reach our environmental goals, but also to maintain a degree of economic growth. I truly believe that this can be achieved.
The Environment November 26th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this important subject of climatic change.
With only a few days left until Kyoto, it was high time for a debate in the House of Commons on this issue, which is of such vital importance for the quality of life of future generations. It is about this conference, which is vital to our future, that I want to speak to you today.
On Monday, Environment Canada released the troubling results of a study that took six years and cost over $80 million. This study revealed that we must expect a higher mortality rate and an increase in the number of diseases if something is not done right away to slow down global warming.
This study also pointed out that certain species, whether vegetable or animal, will actually be threatened with extinction. According to the same source, the average temperature in Canada will increase by 3 to 6 degrees Celsius for the eastern and western extremities of Canada, and by 4 to 6 degrees Celsius for the central part of the country.
The anticipated effects for Canada as a whole are disastrous. Scientists predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, serious consequences for health, economic sectors, forestry, agriculture and fishing, and a significant impact on human health in general.
These serious phenomena are caused by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. These gases prevent the sun's heat from returning into space and cause a gradual rise in temperatures. The large scale use of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas produces these gases that cause the greenhouse effect responsible for global warming.
Next week, delegates from over 150 countries will begin 10 days of negotiations in Kyoto, Japan. Representatives of Canada and of Quebec will have to reach agreement with other nations at the conference on an international reduction objective. The Bloc Quebecois was the first political party in Ottawa to take a clear stand on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Chrétien government has known since the Berlin conference, in 1995, that it would have to make a commitment at this conference, yet it did not take the necessary steps to prepare Canada for this important world summit.
Consequently, Canada is the only country among the seven most industrialized countries that has not made its position public in preparation for the negotiations. This is unacceptable, since Canada is the second largest producer of carbon dioxide per capita in the world after the U.S. In fact, we share this responsibility with all industrialized countries, which produce 80% of all greenhouse gases.
The Reform Party is waving the spectre of taxes hikes and fuel price increases to get us to do less than the U.S. Still facing a credibility problem, strangely enough, it is painting an even bleaker picture than the petroleum lobby in the United States with its statistics.
Such short-sighted vision does not serve the interests of anyone in Canada. What is at stake, in terms of our environment and our economy, is so important that it requires vigorous action on this issue. That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes that the federal government must formally make strong greenhouse gas reduction commitments at the Kyoto conference scheduled for next week.
The federal government must acknowledge the fact that its current greenhouse gas reduction strategy has failed and act accordingly. Only by setting meaningful goals promoting a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions will the government confirm its willingness to address this serious problem. The provinces, particularly major polluters, must also pledge to do more in this area. The Canadian position must go further than the variable rate formula proposed by the Japanese. According to this formula, and given its size, population and climate, Canada should achieve reductions of 2.3% by the year 2010.
Obviously, this objective is far from that of the European Union, which we should try to reach, to the extent possible, but it does take the Canadian reality into account. This is the Bloc Quebecois' position.
What will the Liberal government do, just days before the deadline? Cabinet ministers are very divided on the issue.
In conclusion, I will say once again that global warming is a major issue for my generation. Young Quebeckers want to live in a prosperous and environmentally responsible society, something to be achieved through sovereignty.
The Environment November 26th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by asking for unanimous consent to divide my time into two five-minute speeches.
The Environment November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, while all those who oppose restrictions are trying to figure out how much vigorous measures would cost, does the minister not agree that she could make herself more useful by asking her department to figure out how much our inaction would cost?
The Environment November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, with the Kyoto conference approaching, Environment Canada's research studies demonstrate that global warming will have catastrophic consequences on the St. Lawrence River, the Canadian north, public health, and much more.
With so many arguments, will the minister admit she showed weakness by failing to convince the western provinces of the need to go further in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions?