House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 35% of the vote.
Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative December 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the SCPI program ends on March 31. Thousands of people who work with the homeless are wondering what will become of the only program that is able to help them and able to fight youth homelessness.
In light of the insensitive attitude of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, can the Prime Minister show a little more sensitivity to the poor people in Quebec and Canada and announce right now that the SCPI program will be extended?
Petitions December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Terrebonne for this petition from the Café de la rue des Solidaires. These are people who are working to prevent homelessness.
The petition asks that the government renew the SCPI and RHF programs immediately, because these people are losing the momentum they had in their communities. They provide a drop-in centre, where they offer a range of support and other services. They are threatened if the SCPI is not renewed in its entirety. They will lose a great deal, as they say. Several hundred young adults will be affected if this program is not renewed or if its funding is cut.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 December 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre talked about the past, but he did not talk about the future. However, the softwood lumber agreement has been in effect since October 12.
Does he believe we would save jobs if we voted against this bill?
Would companies be in a better position tomorrow if we voted against this bill now?
How would he manage the legal vacuum that would result?
How would he explain to companies in Quebec that he had let them down?
The member says that we won in court. It is true that we won a number of times in court, but the money still did not come. The money was paid because there was an agreement. Even though we are not happy with that agreement, it exists nonetheless.
Is the NDP member saying that we should take the money and run, without signing the agreement, even though companies have starting receiving the money?
In my opinion, that makes no sense. Can the NDP member tell us what will happen tomorrow, not yesterday, if we do not pass this bill at third reading?
Petitions December 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition from the Richmond—Arthabaska riding. It comes to us from an organization called Maison Raymond Roy, which provides shelter and counselling services to homeless people aged 18 to 30.
The petitioners expressed their concern about the fact that the supporting communities partnership initiative, or SCPI, has not yet been renewed. They added that they are going to lose some of their front-line workers in the very near future because they will have to go elsewhere if they do not receive some sort of assurance that the SCPI will be extended beyond March 31, 2007.
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Victoria on her excellent presentation, especially because she began her remarks by explaining that this bill shows us how our children will live. That is a very key point and I congratulate her for that.
I would like to say to her that we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, agree completely with the idea of improving Canada’s Clean Air Act. However, just like her, we would like to see some really significant objectives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gases. She asked other members to support the five point agenda that they have proposed.
However, in my opinion, a weakness in those five points was that the member talked about greener homes and not about greener buildings. I believe that we have reached a point where we have to consider all buildings, whether schools, offices, workplaces, garages and so forth, and not just houses as was the case a number of years ago.
Can my colleague tell us whether she considered all buildings?
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I will take 25 seconds.
I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on what he means when he talks about a country-wide power system. We think this is an excellent solution, but should electricity not also be regionalized, so as to improve self-sufficiency in the context of sustainable development?
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to Bill C-11, which will indeed take effect in 2011, I will point out to him that there is nothing about hybrid locomotives in that bill. There is no stated requirement for all train engines in rail yards to be hybrids by 2011, and there is nothing about the type of oil to use in order to reduce sulphur and particulate emissions either. None of that is covered.
What is this legislation, which I am very familiar with and have discussed previously, all about? What more does it do?
Perhaps we should put that in Bill C-30, because we did not in Bill C-11.
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question. I agree with him that I will be long gone because, in 2050, I would be 106. I am sure I will be gone by then.
The government is obviously taking the longest way about; that is why I spoke of a smokescreen. I am afraid of having the government throw smoke at us to pollute us and prevent us from seeing what is going on when in fact there is very little going on. We know the issues. We have known them for quite a while and we know what to do. It is true that there were good programs in place. They felt that more changes were required, but we could have made these changes. For instance, EnerGuide was such a good program that Quebec continued it. The reduction in tonnes of CO2 achieved through that program was also excellent.
All the motor vehicle programs already exist. They are found in California, they are excellent, and we know exactly what standards we could put in place. Given that these standards apply to vehicles in the U.S. anyway, we could ask the companies to take the same time limits used in California and apply them to vehicles sold in Canada. I am also convinced that such standards would work very well and very quickly.
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, since I have been involved in the issue of air quality in buildings and the environment for years. Thirty years ago, I started talking about hypersensitivity. I was in fact the first person in Quebec to talk about that. I am therefore pleased to speak to this bill.
We in the Bloc Québécois are asking the Conservative government to honour the Kyoto protocol and its 6% reduction target, within a plan that incorporates our international obligations. The Conservative government must also implement the action plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois to combat climate change. That plan is based on the principles of fairness and polluter-pay, it is based on a geographic approach and it includes a financial contribution to be given to the provinces and the Quebec nation by the federal government.
The federal government has rightly made commitments at the international level, but it must not undo that work by handing the bill to the provinces.
The Conservative government says that it does not want to send taxpayers’ money outside Canada. The Bloc Québécois certainly agrees with that. However, in the case of the oil sands, it seems to us that at present, the government is refusing to impose limits on the greenhouse gases produced by the processing of the tar sands into gasoline, into oil. The profits produced by the oil sands appear to find it easy to emigrate to other countries, particularly the United States. We could keep a bit of that money, and capture and bury the CO2.
We therefore cannot say that this bill and what the government has in mind are for Canadians only. It seems fairly obvious to us that it is also designed with the big corporations in mind.
We agree with this bill, but it needs to be reworked and improved. We will nonetheless harbour a little hope that once this bill has been studied there will be some degree of quality left and there will be clear standards with regard to the Kyoto protocol. At that point, we will be able to say that we are doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada.
Certainly, we could look behind us and realize the extent to which nothing has been done, but there is still time to act. Nonetheless, this bill can be considered to be a drop in the ocean. We would not want it to be a smokescreen that will prevent us from joining the Kyoto protocol and adhering to its objectives.
Obviously, we agree with regulating air quality. We even think that this bill does not go far enough in that direction.
This is a fine thing, this Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada’s Air Quality Act). That being said, is this act really going to allow for regulation of the quality of indoor air—as my colleague opposite has said—the air quality that hypersensitive people need? Hypersensitive individuals are increasingly being recognized as people who have a need. I will return to this in a moment.
With regard to indoor air quality, it is absolutely necessary that we approve the LEED rating system and incorporate it into our laws and regulations. We will then benefit from all areas addressed by the LEED rating system: energy efficiency, indoor air quality, exterior environment, lower GHG emissions and sustainable development for buildings overall.
LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is based on a rating system known as the Green Building Rating System. It was made in Canada—let it be known—by the Canada Green Building Council.
The government cannot say that we are sending our money elsewhere and that we are not doing anything for Canada by adopting the LEED rating system. It is very Canadian.
The clean air bill seeks to regulate motor vehicles. But what about off-road vehicles, locomotives, pleasure craft or transport vessels? In addition, the Minister of Transportation told us that he wants to reduce sulphur emissions of boats, but he did not say that he wants to reduce GHGs. There are also buses, trucks, road trains and tractors. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are cranes, construction equipment, planes, snowmobiles and ATVs.
Why not add lawn mowers, too? A two-stroke lawn mower used for one hour causes more pollution than an automobile travelling from Ottawa to Toronto.
Furthermore, this legislation absolutely must include a verification and improvement program covering existing and future motor vehicles for as long as they are in use. Even though some cars do not pollute at first, they might do so eventually if they are not monitored. This has to be an integral part of the legislation. Another verification program is needed for all the other existing combustion engines, otherwise we are improving one aspect and ignoring the rest.
There needs to be an integrated system for industry. This is very important because this integrated system could also be a standard for the major oil industries. In accordance with our international commitments and air quality standards, greenhouse gases and air pollution have to be reduced at the same time. Such an industrial directive already exists in Europe and it works quite well. This directive, initiated by Great Britain and adopted by all the European countries, is called Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, or IPPC.
This directive establishes a series of modules including assessment of emissions and local and international impact, and it takes into account global warming, the ozone layer and all waste management provisions. In our society, waste is a major source of pollution.
An integrated system is a must, because the IPPC is a sophisticated tool. It monitors all industrial emissions.
Every industry has a code and a potential for reducing pollutants, whether for global warming or garbage or the ozone layer. Even visual pollution, the risk of accidents and noise are taken into account.
We need to acquire some tools and not reinvent the wheel, which is what this bill does. Clause 46 speaks of reviewing things and holding consultations.
I want to remind hon. members that things have already been done elsewhere and that it would be a good idea to adopt those measures instead of reinventing the wheel and putting off good regulations to 2010.
Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport is talking about trucking; that is indeed something within his purview. But he failed to state any objectives or to tell us by how much greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced with the new motors or whatever else he may propose.
He says they will look after transport, they will look trucking. But there is nothing specific in the legislation in terms of objectives or intent. Reference is made to voluntary or optional agreements with the automotive industry. Will these agreements work, knowing that voluntary agreements never worked anywhere else?
I am wondering if that is not just wishful thinking. When we talk about ships, as the minister just did, there are not only sulphur emissions to consider, but also greenhouse gas emissions. But he said nothing about those.