Monique Guay

[International Aid, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.

According to the UN, developed countries such as Canada should earmark at least 0.7% of their gross national product for development assistance. Yet, with additional cuts of $150 million, the Canadian government's budget for international assistance is a dismal 0.3% of GDP. This is a disgrace.

Since we will soon have a deficit-free federal budget, will the minister pledge to cancel the planned $150 million cut to international assistance?

[Iraq, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This morning we learned in the National Defence Committee that any military confrontation with Iraq will result in heavy casualties, particularly because of the Iraqi policy of using human shields. This is one more argument in favour of a diplomatic solution.

Does the minister believe that he has really contributed to the search for a diplomatic solution by doing the rounds of the Arab countries, as he did yesterday, merely in order to justify Canada's support for the American position?

[International Development Week, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the week of February 1 to 7 has been declared International Development Week.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to take advantage of this opportunity to draw grateful attention to the exceptional contribution of the non-governmental organizations to improving the living conditions of more than 250 million people in the developing countries.

Unfortunately, the Minister of International Co-operation seems to turn a blind and indifferent eye to the extraordinary work being done by Canada's and Quebec's NGOs. In fact, the government has slashed more than $617 million from the international aid budget since 1993, thus compromising the future of a number of NGOs.

I am calling upon the government to honour its commitment to the UN to devote a minimum of 0.7% of its gross national product to assisting development, in addition to cancelling the $150 million in cuts planned for the 1998-99 fiscal year.

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 1997]

That is true.

[Employment Insurance, December 9th, 1997]

He could care less about women.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has just passed a resolution that the CBC be used to help promote national unity.

Are we to understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to regularize what she has been trying to do for two years, which is to make the CBC into a propaganda tool? Is she finally going to make it into a pro-unity tool?

[Development Assistance, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.

According to the accepted standard, industrialized countries must allocate a minimum of 0.7% of their gross national product to official development assistance. However, in 1997-98, the federal government will not even allocate 0.3% of its GNP to ODA.

Since additional budget cuts of $159 million are anticipated in 1998, are we to understand that, at the rate things are going, the minister's target for development assistance will be 0.0% by the year 2000?

[Algeria, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

More than 80,000 people have died since 1991 as a result of the civil war in Algeria. This tragedy has people throughout Quebec speaking out in support of the Algerian people and expressing their indignation at the international community's failure to act.

What specifically are Canadian diplomats doing to mobilize the UN Commission on Human Rights with respect to Algeria?

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, for us in Quebec and in the Bloc Quebecois, rail transportation is a non-polluting alternative and, as such, should be used more. Except that we note that this government is dismantling any rail transportation system we may have had. So, there is one side of the issue that does not sound right.

I referred earlier to the electric car as being another mode of transportation. We cannot rely on ethanol to save our environment. We have a technology, the electric car, that is currently under development. The mayor in my riding has been driving around in an electric car for more than two years, and it is very efficient.

Instead of investing haphazardly, the government should invest in areas where there are opportunities, and have a vision for a change. These investments will require time and research, but at least the end result will be products that will be useful, while preventing pollution in our country and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So, yes, with respect to rail transportation, the government will have to invest in that area instead of dismantling the existing system. Perhaps an analysis should also be made to ensure that this system can be developed across the country and in Quebec.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the inexplicable about-face of this government in the greenhouse gas issue is unbelievable.

The problem of greenhouse gases is not a new one. When I was environment critic, I rose on several occasions in the House to warn the Liberal government about the dangers of greenhouse gases. But apparently the minister back then and the one we have now seem to have been chronically deaf because nothing has been done. On the contrary, things are going from bad to worse.

I would like to remind the Minister of the Environment, in case she has forgotten, that the Kyoto conference in Japan takes place from December 1 to 12, five days from now, and that Canada is still the only G-7 country with no specific position on the greenhouse gas issue.

In addition, in case the minister has forgotten this as well, the purpose of the conference is to review the situation of greenhouse gas emissions with respect to what was agreed in Rio in 1992, in addition to adopting new objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gases, accompanied by short term, 2005, and medium term, 2010, legal controls.

At the Rio summit in 1992, 154 countries, including Canada, signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, thereby undertaking to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 level by the year 2000.

At that time, Canada was considered a leader and a hero in this area, but today it is a real zero on that score. Even Canada's ambassador for the environment, John Fraser, expressed harsh criticism, and rightly so, against the government and its policies on greenhouse gases, which he described as lacking in commitment and leadership.

In fact, Canada's performance is disastrous. By the year 2000, Canada will have increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 13%. How can this be when the Liberal government committed in Rio to stabilize its emissions during this decade and then to reduce them gradually? What we see is the exact opposite.

What the Department of the Environment does not seem to realize is that greenhouse gases destroy not only our environment, but also our economy and our social fabric.

The minister should stop catering to cabinet and to the Alberta oil lobby, she should finally get her act together and adopt a responsible, firm and clear position.

Being penny-wise and pound-foolish to help oil companies save money by not taking drastic steps to eliminate greenhouse gases will undoubtedly cost us dearly in the future. The minister should consider the tremendous economic losses that thousands of companies would suffer because of climate change, not to mention all the health and environmental costs.

Furthermore, the minister should consider the economic benefits of more energy-efficient technologies. In relation to this, there is in my riding a very innovative and imaginative organization called CEVEQ, which specializes in assessing the compatibility of electric vehicles marketed with government standards.

This is a concrete example of where the federal government should be investing our taxes in order to reduce greenhouse gases. But obviously, the Liberal government prefers and considers it better to bow to the wishes of the oil companies that are polluting and endangering the lives of the people in Quebec and in Canada.

While we are still waiting for a clear position from the Minister of the Environment, the other countries have already announced their position on greenhouse gases for the Kyoto summit.

I invite the Minister of the Environment to read the Bloc Quebecois' position on reducing greenhouse gases. Contrary to the government opposite, the Bloc Quebecois takes the issue of greenhouse gases very seriously.

I urge the Minister of the Environment, out of respect for Quebeckers, for Canadians and for the young people who will be building tomorrow's world, to assume her responsibilities immediately in the area of greenhouse gases, in order to ensure for future generations the quality of life and the prosperity they have a right to expect.