Monique Guay

[Canadian Labour Congress, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the triennial convention of the Canadian Labour Congress is being held in Vancouver. This powerful labour organization has 2.5 million members, including the FTQ. We pay tribute to the members and executive of the CLC, including president Ken Georgetti, and his FTQ counterpart, Henri Massé.

The CLC has always demonstrated the greatest of respect for Quebec and has an open mind toward the aspirations of the people of Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois and the CLC have fought together on a number of occasions, and there is no doubt that our joint efforts have provided millions of workers with a brighter future.

One of our battles is not yet won: employment insurance. This must be continued and the Bloc Quebecois will fight alongside the workers for as long as it takes.

We also wish to pay tribute to a great union man, who worked for the postal workers for 15 years, and has spent another 10 on the executive of the CLC working to improve the working and living conditions of workers, Jean-Claude Parrot.

Congratulations to the CLC and thank you, Mr. Parrot, for the quarter century you have devoted to the workers.

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the year 2002, the Bloc Quebecois has uncovered a whole series of facts that raise doubts about the integrity of certain Liberal ministers.

The departure of Alfonso Gagliano for Denmark was just the tip of the iceberg, which is becoming unbelievably huge.

The Prime Minister and his government set up a sponsorship program with the stated objective of counteracting sovereignists in Quebec. In their despicable mission, they turned to advertising agencies whose close connections with the Liberal Party are a well known fact. Millions of dollars in taxpayers' money were diverted for purely partisan reasons.

The Prime Minister may claim that, by seeing the Canadian flag, Quebecers have become more federalist, but we have our doubts about this. In fact, his comments are just a clumsy attempt to make people forget that friends of the Liberal Party unfairly benefited from public funds.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me these eight minutes to address the issue of pesticides.

As I said earlier, this issue is very important to us. I am very pleased that we are revisiting the legislation through Bill C-53. It gives us the opportunity to better protect not only our environment but also, as I mentioned, the health of our children and pets, because pesticides are often used on lawns.

As this issue affects several jurisdictions, we need to find a way to work in co-operation with the various levels of government.

Earlier, I mentioned Hudson, the first municipality to make an important environmental decision to ban the use of pesticides.

I also mentioned that, in a riding like mine, if there is one priority that municipalities must have, it is to protect lake waters. It goes without saying that lakeside residents, those who live around lakes, love to have a beautiful lawn. They often use pesticides that can be extremely dangerous, not only for the water in our lakes, but also for the health of bathers and fishers who eat the fish that lives in these lakes.

So, if we pollute the environment with pesticides, we also pollute lakes, fish and ourselves, because we eat the fish. We must take this into consideration. We must have bylaws that protect the land around lakes. This is the case in several municipalities.

I have the good fortune of living on the shores of a lake where the municipality passed a bylaw banning the use of chemicals, not just pesticides, but also fertilizers, so as to protect the quality of our lake water. Very stiff fines are levied if people do not comply. This is one way to ensure that regulations and bylaws are well respected.

It was worrisome to see how the registration of pesticides was done here on the Hill by the agency responsible. An incredible number of pesticides have been registered in recent years. In this regard, we must be careful, because when a pesticide is registered, its impact is not always measurable in the short term, but often only in the mid term or the long term, with the result that we often realize after the fact that a product that was registered is in fact very harmful to health, or even to the environment.

So, we must be very careful when registering products. I think we should also invest in research to find products that will be less harmful to the environment and to health.

I know people who work in this area and they are increasingly looking at natural sources, at environmentally friendly products. Let me give an example. Some environmentally friendly products are now sold on the market to treat plants and rose bushes. These products are much less harmful to health. I have personally used them.

We can go to a garden centre and ask for these ecological products. Unless we do, nothing will happen. I think that there will have to be a new vision in the future with respect to pest control products. We have relied on them too much and now we must think of our children's future and go back to much more ecological products.

I will give another example. Just a few short years ago, in regions such as mine, I remember that it was very popular for golf courses to have absolutely perfect greens, and that is understandable. In fact, at one point, this was all the rage in the Laurentides, where people went for lawn care packages involving four or five treatments with just as many pesticides as fertilizers.

I recall vividly how, when these companies came to treat your lawn, they left little signs with the following warning “Keep pets and children off the grass for the next 24 hours”. If they leave a warning like this and instruct people not to use the lawn, there is some sort of risk.

I myself remember that my children had rashes after the lawn was treated, because the products used were very strong and could cause nausea or even rashes. One cannot keep children from playing on the lawn.

I mention all of this to make the point that it is high time that this legislation be reviewed. However, we said that we agreed with the bill, but that we would not support the amendments. Those listening already know why. My colleagues have spoken at length about this and I do not think that it is up to the Senate to make decisions. It is the job of those who have been legitimately elected to this chamber to make decisions, and to do so in consultation with the public. We are here to represent the public.

We must also take into consideration the fact that the production of pesticides is a big industry. There will be a lot of lobbying. We will have to stand fast and stand together to make sure this lobbying will not have an impact on our decisions on health and environmental issues.

A short while ago, Quebec was mentioned. Personally, I would really like us to work together and harmonize all regulations. Quebec has made regulations and passed laws in this area. There are also regulations or laws at the federal level and bylaws in many municipalities. I hope that municipalities in the regions, which have lakes, rivers and other important environmental assets, will eventually have similar regulations to really protect our environment in a consistent manner. We will have to work in harmony.

We see more and more products on which the public wants information. Somebody talked about GMOs earlier. People want to know what they are eating. More and more, they want to know about the mid term and long term impact of the products they buy. With a review of the legislation and Bill C-53, we will be able to deal with this in a practical manner.

Government members can count on our support for this bill, but we will vote against the amendments.

[Oceans Day, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this year's theme of Oceans Day is “Give Ocean Life a Safe Harbour From Climate Change”. It reminds us of the role that oceans play as a source of life throughout the world.

First proclaimed ten years ago during the United Nations Earth Summit, the World Oceans Day is seen as a means to educate people about the health of oceans.

In the riding of Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, the Norjoli school and les Jardins de Métis have come together to develop a project to highlight the importance of the St. Lawrence River and the oceans. The objective of the project is to raise awareness among youth and the public of the resources found in the river and the oceans and of the need to preserve and protect them.

The St. Lawrence River, estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence contain a great diversity of animals and plants. The resources and the majestic lands along its shores influence the lives of thousands of people and provide for a variety of activities: fishing, swimming, boating, industry and ecotourism. It is the responsibility of each and everyone of us to preserve their beauty and health.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

Yes, they ares very good in salad. I will have him taste some. However, we must abide by the law and this forces us to use the lawnmower more often and to treat our lawn differently.

We are increasingly focusing on the development of environmentally friendly technologies. Those technologies are better for the environment and offer better alternatives.

Since the time I have left before members' statement is running out, I will stop here and continue after oral question period.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have spoken to this issue. I know I do not have much time left, although you will probably give me extra time to finish my speech after oral question period.

For several years, I was the environment critic for my party. Other colleagues have since acted in that capacity. As we know, the pesticide industry is a very big industry here. Jurisdiction over the industry is shared by the two levels of government, the Government of Quebec and the federal government.

We know that in the pesticide industry, registration is left entirely to the federal level. In some regards, I am very happy that this bill has been introduced because the two levels of government will have to find a way to co-operate more closely and in a more harmonious way.

At present, many pesticides are registered on an almost industrial basis, while there are significant difficulties concerning the use of pesticides all over the country and Quebec.

As an example, let us look at the small municipality where I live, Prévost, which has taken important decisions on pesticides. If you live within a certain distance of a lake, pesticides are absolutely prohibited.

In my case, this is not always easy. I live very close to a lake and I am not allowed to use pesticides on my lawn. As the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, who does not like dandelions, was saying, we are sometimes forced to make do because there are laws.

[Canada Labour Code, June 5th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-472, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, as I promised on May 1, I am introducing this afternoon a bill to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

The bill also provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each day or portion of day of continuing offence.

I hope that this bill will be subject to a majority vote by the members of this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Labour Code, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code in 1998, the Liberals refused to include anti-scab legislation, despite the fact that they voted for it in 1989 when in opposition.

Because of this loophole in the federal legislation, workers at Cargill in Baie-Comeau have been locked out for more than two years now.

Does the government plan on supporting the bill that I will be introducing today, which is based on Quebec's anti-scab legislation, in order to stop, once and for all, companies like Cargill from getting away with using scab replacement labour?

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to recap the debate that has taken place today in eight minutes, or at least, the position of the Bloc Quebecois. I will try to do it very concisely.

First, I would like to say that when it comes to the environment, the government will not be receiving any gold medals, not at all. When it comes to the environment, the government has not made much progress. Quite the opposite in fact; all we have to do is look at the Kyoto protocol, something the government started to get quite sensitive about and started to back away from quite quickly once it realized that it would not be able to meet the commitments it made.

In Quebec, we did our homework on greenhouse gases, particularly since we developed hydroelectricity. Indeed, we developed a different approach, which produced green energy. Hats off to Quebec. I am pleased to be able to say this. The other provinces need to do as much.

If the federal government does not sign the Kyoto protocol, then we can forget that. The provinces will not invest in order meet the standards. If we cannot do it here at the federal level, there is no way to force the provinces to do so.

Second, this government will have to stop following in the footsteps of the United States. When the U.S. coughs, we all get the flu. It makes no sense. As a result of the fact that the U.S. refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, we turned around and said “Well, we cannot touch it either; we are in America”. It makes no sense.

We can set an example. We have done so in the past. We did in when it came to landmines. We took a lead on this issue, we went far with it, and we did not wait for the Americans to sign this agreement. We took the lead.

Why not do the same with the Kyoto protocol? The time has come for the government to pull up its socks and get moving. By taking the lead on an issue such as this, it will force the others to follow.

We spoke about wind energy. On this topic, I would like to quote something, because it has not been quoted, and I would like this to appear in the House of Commons Debates for today.

We are told that wind energy is expanding around the world. In 2002, the installed wind power capacity of the following countries was: Germany, 8,753 megawatts; the United States 4,245 megawatts; Spain, 3,335 megawatts; Denmark, 2,417 megawatts; India, 1,507 megawatts; China, 399 megawatts, and poor little old Canada, 207 megawatts.

This is very little, too little, far too little, when we realize—and my colleague has proven it—that there is wind everywhere. If we want to produce clean energy from the wind, I cannot believe that they do not want to invest in this research.

I will give you another example concerning wind powered generators. In my little riding of Laurentides, there is not as much wind as in the Gaspé. Yet, because of the wind powered generators, and the research done in this area, did you know that they have managed to clean up one polluted lake?

There was a problem in my riding involving a lake that was polluted with a certain type of algae, and they could not get rid of it. They discovered that, using wind power, in a short period of time, just over two years, they could get rid of 90% of it, and at practically no cost.

The money to do this did not come from the federal government. It was the government of Quebec, with help from the municipality, various associations and people worried about their lake. Everyone got together on it. It cost maybe $50,000 the first year. That is not a lot to clean up a large lake, and it did an extraordinary job.

Why do we not invest in this? Why not put money into things that are really worthwhile? When we speak of wind energy, I must really make my point clear.

In terms of job creation in connection with the European wind energy industry—and this is an important point, because there are complaints about unemployment, about people having problems, about people needing jobs—in 1996, the objective in terms of installed capacity was 3,500 megawatts, and this created 72,000 jobs annually.

In 2000, the production was 8,000 megawatts and 512,000 jobs. This is nothing to be sneezed at. The forecast production for 2010 is 40,000 megawatts and 960,000 jobs. In 2020, 100,000 megawatts and 2.4 million jobs throughout Europe.

Why can we not make an effort in this sense? Why is Canada always lagging behind? We are always waiting for others to do things; we are not taking the lead. This does not make sense.

Let me give another example. We were talking about the auto industry. In my region, GM, Quebec's only automobile plant, will shut down. In my riding, a research centre on electrical vehicles has been in existence for a number of years. It survives with the support of the Quebec government. Two federal ministers came to my riding. They promised to help this company. And what did they do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Electrical vehicles are something serious. They are part of the future of this great country that Canada is. The future of the whole industry will change.

It does not make sense to talk about nuclear energy, and removing the responsibilities of financial institutions. They will invest heavily; we will let them do this and, in addition, the government will let them go. We cannot let this industry develop without being under government scrutiny. This industry is much too dangerous.

There is no evidence that, in the long term, this cannot cause harm. We do not know. I do not want to scare anyone, but I want us to act with caution, as a government must do.

We talked about nuclear waste. Where are we going to put this waste? We have no idea. Let us be wise. Before authorizing such things, before developing other nuclear plants, let us ensure that we are doing the right thing, that people are accountable and that the government continues to monitor what is going on, that it continues to keep a degree of control over this development, which is of paramount importance. Otherwise, we would be launching an industry that may come back to haunt us some day.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his comments. I think they were most relevant.

He spoke at length about wind energy. Statistics on this type of energy tell us that there is a real wind energy boom in the world. They also show that, over the last six years, it has expanded by 30% annually on average and that Germany is the country where wind energy is the most popular.

We are not talking through our hats here. We are talking about a pollution-free energy, an energy for the future. Statistics show that, right now, Germany produces 8,753 megawatts annually and that Canada merely produces 207 megawatts.

This is outrageous. We are so far behind. Why do we fail to invest in wind energy? It is because, like my colleague just said, we have decided to invest in oil.

But now we have to modernize. We are in 2002 and we should prepare for the future. As far as the environmental issue is concerned, in Canada, we have clearly taken no significant steps for the ongoing improvement of the environment, and I can talk about this matter because I have been here for nine years, since 1993, and I was a member of the environment committee for three years.

It is not because we cannot afford to look after the environment. We have surpluses of about $40 billion a year. The funds are there. My colleague asked for only $700 million for work and research on wind energy; this is a paltry amount compared to $40 billion a year.

Could my colleague tell us more about wind energy? He said that they produce wind energy in his region. However, in order to raise the awareness of our colleagues on the other side, it would be interesting to hear more of what he has to say on that industry.