Monique Guay

[Special Olympics, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to add its voice to all those who have recognized Josée Bournival for the accomplished athlete that she is. Josée Bournival won the bronze medal in both slalom and giant slalom at the Special Olympics World Winter Games held in Toronto from February 1 to February 8.

The purpose of the Special Olympics is to give persons with mental disabilities opportunities to participate in sports. In Quebec, some 1,000 persons with perceptual disabilities are being trained on a regular basis.

Josée Bournival is an all-around athlete. Josée, aged 21, excels at swimming and athletics. Her ranking and winnings at the 1996 National Winter Games in Calgary earned her a spot on the team at the recent World Winter Games. We take this opportunity to congratulate the 82 athletes who participated in these games and salute the trainers for their work, generosity and dedication.

Bravo, Josée. Congratulations on your medals and your achievements.

[Team Canada, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister's return from Asia, the Liberals cannot stop congratulating themselves on the success of this mission and attempting to link it with Canadian unity.

Yet the success of this economic mission cannot be attributed solely to federal action. The Quebec mission, headed by Premier Bouchard, made it possible to bolster the Quebec presence in South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.

If our governments were successful in showcasing our know how in Asia, this was because of the genius of the entrepreneurs of Quebec and of Canada, and the quality of their goods and services. When the Canadian and Quebec governments pool their efforts in the economic area, success is assured. That is what partnership is all about.

For Mike Harris, the sovereignist project of the Quebec government does not mean the end of foreign investment. He stated, and I quote: "As far as Ontario is concerned, this is not an obstacle". Partnership is definitely an idea that is taking hold.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today a petition signed by Quebecers who are very concerned by the sale of Candu reactors to China. These people are therefore asking the government not to finance or subsidize the sale of the reactors to this country or any other and to withdraw immediately from any arrangements for financial and technical assistance to China.

Although I am aware of the economic consequences of the sale of the Candu reactors, I consider the fears of those opposed well founded. We must not be blinded by the economic benefits of such projects, which, in the end, could have disastrous consequences.

[Réseau De L'Information, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the heritage minister was wondering why RDI did not cover an event in which she participated, and which was sponsored by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

The Deputy Prime Minister suggested that RDI did not provide adequate coverage of issues concerning francophones outside Quebec. However, the fact is that RDI gives them long periods of coverage every day. Could it be that the heritage minister does not watch RDI?

The problem with RDI is not that it does not talk about francophones outside Quebec. The problem is that hundreds of French speaking households in English Canada do not get that channel, because the government agreed to make it an optional service for cable operators.

The question is: Does this government truly care about francophones outside Quebec, considering it did not deem appropriate to give them real access to RDI?

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction, has finally been introduced in this House.

Following this stage, the House will be able to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We will thus have complied with regular legislative procedures. At the outset, we have to admit that everyone agrees that wildlife species must be protected. The flora and fauna are vital components of life on earth. Without flowers, trees, plants, animals and fish, life on earth would be impossible.

Unfortunately, human activity has seriously damaged biodiversity. Only recently have we acknowledged this and started trying to reverse the process. We must act vigorously before it is too late, though it is unfortunately too late for some species which are already extinct.

In the last two decades, the preservation of biodiversity has become an international priority. As a result, we had the 1980 World Conservation Strategy; the 1991 report entitled "Caring for the Earth"; the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development entitled "Our Common Future"; and more recently, in 1992, the International Convention on Biological Diversity. As we can see, environmental awareness is a recent reality.

In Canada, some provinces and the federal government have already passed laws in this area. Some 12 federal acts deal with the conservation and protection of threatened species.

These laws include the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, the National Parks Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

At the provincial level, four provinces-New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-have their own laws designed to protect endangered species. As for the other provinces and the territories, they have laws on wildlife management and endangered species. Their content varies considerably.

On October 2, at a meeting in Charlottetown, the federal and provincial ministers responsible for wildlife agreed in principle on a national convention for the protection of wildlife in Canada. This agreement is designed to prevent the extinction of wildlife species in Canada as a result of human activity. It establishes a new framework for co-operation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It deals with co-operation, collaboration and complementarity between its signatories.

Quebec, which supports the general principles and goals behind Canada's endangered species conservation projects, was already reluctant to support the national agreement, fearing overlap between Bill C-65, which we are debating today, and the laws already in effect in the provinces, particularly the one in Quebec, in force since 1989, which works well and is already producing results.

Quebec minister David Cliche said, and I quote: "We risk creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate of endangered species".

Bill C-65 introduced by the federal minister only confirms the apprehensions of the Quebec minister. Again, the federal government clumsily encroaches on Quebec jurisdiction.

For ministers in Quebec and other provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the principle behind the Charlottetown accord was very simple: if the ministers agreed that a species was endangered, the entity having jurisdiction over this species' territory or habitat would be responsible for the protection of both the species and its habitat.

It is impossible to protect a species without protecting its habitat. Since the provinces have jurisdiction over the habitats found within their territory, the province, in this case Quebec, is responsible for the protection of this habitat. But, obviously, the federal minister did not understand that principle adhered to by four provinces which already have legislation on endangered species.

Bill C-65 says that the federal government can act in order to protect the habitat of any federal species, and the definition of species is not limited to those species under federal jurisdiction

like migratory birds and any species identified as transboundary, such as caribous crossing the border, for example.

In clear terms, that means the federal government could unilaterally decide to take action on provincial territories if it considers that a given species is threatened, endangered or at risk, which caused an outcry from provincial ministers.

Bill C-65 goes against the intent of the Charlottetown accord, which says that if the ministers agree to put a species on the list, it is up to the jurisdiction controlling the territory to make sure the habitat of that species is duly protected.

Bill C-65 could allow some unthinkable and unacceptable interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-65 essentially replicates the main points of the bill presented by the previous minister in 1995. That bill had been so massively opposed that it was never passed. One of the criticisms was that the proposed measures were not strong enough.

We believe that this bill presents some tremendous risk of duplication and federal interference. Its scope is much too wide and it could create legislative overlap and duplication.

We also have much to criticize in the whole process for implementing the protection system described in the bill. In particular, jurisdiction as provided will allow enforcement by the federal government on provincial land without the consent of the provinces, because of the definitions given of federal land, aquatic species and migratory birds. One provision empowers the minister to rule on transboundary species, which means that the federal government would be able to take action not only with respect to nearly all species, but also with respect to their habitat, without the issue being debated in the House, as the House does not discuss regulations.

I will conclude by adding that, in any case, this bill will be referred to a committee, where we will surely propose some amendments to ensure that the legislation does not duplicate existing and very good provincial legislation. I hope the government and the official opposition will agree on various amendments.

We will also see what can be done after hearing from various witnesses. We will then determine the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is our last chance to speak to Bill C-29. Unfortunately, we have been gagged, but I still have a few comments to make on Bill C-29, hoping that the bill will be reviewed in the Senate, and that it might amend or defeat this bill, which would have a huge impact on Quebec oil companies.

The Liberal government is finally showing its true colours. Since the beginning, the government has lacked the will to be transparent and get to the bottom of this issue regarding the addition of MMT to gasoline.

The present environment minister and the former one, the deputy prime minister, have always refused to shed light on this issue. Instead of ordering scientific studies as we have asked, they simply caved in to the auto makers lobby and the Ontario Corn Producers lobby. By a strange coincidence, both lobbies are from the same province as the two ministers.

To put a damper on the controversy surrounding their bill and the strong opposition it is encountering, the Liberals have brought in time allocation at third reading. In other words, they are gagging us. The Liberal government is telling members: "Enough. Keep your mouths shut. We will decide and you have nothing to say about it".

Debating, the reason we sit in this House, is defined by the Webster dictionary as: ``To consider reasons for and against''. As parliamentarians, we are here to discuss bills at length. The right to speak is the Parliament's raison d'être. This is what democracy is all about.

The gag strategy that the Liberal government is imposing on us today with Bill C-29 goes directly against the very raison d'être of Parliament. Closure violates freedom of speech, it is unparliamentary and undemocratic.

We, in the opposition, still had some things to say about this bill. We wanted the Liberal government to listen to us so it would recognize that its bill is unfounded and without any sound scientific basis. Bill C-29 simply responds to the automotive industry. This proves once again that the Liberals are responding more to lobby groups than to the real issues. That is a disgrace. It shows all the weakness and lack of vigour of the environment minister in this matter.

The auto industry lobby systematically refused to reveal its studies and thus scientifically support its allegations that the additive was effectively clogging anti-pollution devices, particularly the OBD-2.

As for the Ontario corn industry, it congratulated the environment minister on his bill, seeing that the MMT ban would throw the door wide open to another additive, ethanol, which is produced from corn. Since Ontario produces 80 per cent of Canada's corn, this bill means an exceptional market opportunity for corn producers in that province. This would be a gold mine for Ontario corn producers.

Ethanol production is extremely expensive, both in terms of the environment and in terms of production costs. Fertilizers and pesticides play a major role in corn production. Moreover, the production of one litre of ethanol increases the cost of energy from oil products.

I must also remind members that production costs are so high that the excise tax is removed from this product at the federal level and that the provinces are doing the same, particularly Ontario, with a tax exemption of 22 cents a litre. This weakens the myth of ethanol as "green gasoline".

It is in Ontario that the biggest ethanol plant will soon be built. It is also the federal government that launched in 1994 an ethanol development support program. Are these all coincidences? Not very likely. The government should be looking at other alternative fuels instead, because ethanol from corn has shown obvious weaknesses.

The only scientific data based on the results of tests conducted on various automobiles were provided by Ethyl Corporation and oil companies. These data are the opposite of the allegations made by the auto industry, which has not provided any supporting data. The MMT lobby says it is ready to withdraw its product if independent tests, approved by all parties, prove that MMT gums up the onboard diagnostic systems. These tests could be conducted within a very short time frame and would clarify this issue once and for all. But the government says no, preferring to hide behind the anti-MMT lobby.

The majority of provinces strongly opposed Bill C-29. There was strong opposition to this bill even within cabinet, particularly from the Minister of International Trade, who sees this bill as an obstacle to free trade. As a matter of fact, Ethyl Corporation has given notice of its intention to launch a US$201 million lawsuit against the government, claiming that Bill C-29 is an obstacle to free trade and to the free trade agreement. Is the minister sure to win his case in court? Let us hope so, otherwise it will be very costly.

Bill C-29 is the reincarnation of Bill C-94, which died on the Order Paper during the last session. We would have thought that the new minister would do his homework more carefully, but no. That is not the way it is. The minister came up with the same bill without being able to justify it. We have every reason to be concerned. If the minister does not take his work more seriously and does not show more thoroughness in his decisions, the Prime Minister should replace him without delay, because he is a liability for the environment.

Having accomplished nothing and unable to fulfil their promises with regard to the environment, the Liberals had to do something. So they came up with Bill C-29. What a performance. As if there were nothing else to do for the environment.

Of course, there is Bill C-65 on endangered species, which the government recently scrambled to introduced recently to show that it is doing something for the environment. Let us not forget that the Liberals have been in office for more than three years. Before Bill C-65, the minister was seen last summer on a boat in the Gulf of St. Lawrence when the Irving Whale was raised. What an impressive record.

[Candu Reactors, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of constant human rights violations in China, in spite of the pressures exerted by environmental groups and the danger posed by the export of nuclear technologies, the Government of Canada has just entered into a contract with China to build two Candu nuclear power plants.

Sure, we have to create jobs. However, the Bloc Quebecois believes that this contract should have been accompanied by strict conditions regarding the use of this nuclear technology.

Liberal government members already boast about having signed the contract of the century. We should remind them that, while the total value of the project is $4 billion, its spinoffs in Canada will only reach $1.5 billion, since $2.5 billion will go to American and Japanese companies.

We should also remind Liberals that Quebec will only get $275 million, or a mere 18 per cent of the total economic impact in Canada. Once again, Quebec is not getting its fair share in this federation.

[The Role Of Women In Conflict, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week we are commemorating the service and the sacrifice of the veterans of the two world wars and of the Korean war. This week honours as well the courage of those who served and continue to serve to preserve peace in the world. On this occasion, the official opposition wants to pay special tribute to women.

Women have a played a vital role in the various conflicts in which our country was involved. In Canada, from 1939 to 1944, the number of women doing remunerative work went up from 600,000 to 1.2 million. These women contributed to the war effort by working in factories. Close to 50,000 women served in the armed forces during the second world war, including 22,000 in the Canadian Women Army Corps.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to highlight the courage and the determination of these women.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I will not be around for another century. Seriously, such a bill raises concerns. I think that the fisheries minister had a chance to redo his homework, and to make sure that his bill would not once again interfere in the jurisdictions of other departments, such as the environment department, or overlap other federal legislation, such as the Endangered Species Bill, or the Environmental Assessment Act. Why create a statute that overlaps others? It does not make any sense.

As I was saying earlier, we do our homework in Quebec. I think that protection of the environment is a responsibility, not a question of law. It is our future and that of our children. I think we have a duty to protect it. We must also try to administer it effectively. It is all very fine and well to make laws, but how will they be administered? When a bill of this sort is tabled, there must be an assurance that it can be administered. I am telling you it will be hell.

Even on the environment committee we had problems during discussions with witnesses from Fisheries and Oceans, because there is a conflict of jurisdiction. There will be more problems because now there is discretionary power. We will have many more problems, and I will tell you that the more trouble we have reaching agreement, the more the process will be held up and the more the environment jeopardized.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of overlap and duplication does not exist only between the federal government and the provinces, but also within the federal public service. I am thinking in particular of the department of fisheries and that of the environment. The problem has always existed. There have always been overlapping laws, and the department of fisheries has always used its discretionary power so it could fulfil its duties.

A bill on threatened species has just been introduced in this House, and this morning in committee we were discussing fish habitat and protection. While we on this side are working to make progress, and I am including the federalists-even though I am not one of them, I can still see that some of their initiatives make sense-the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now comes up with a bill that interferes with the one on threatened species. This makes no sense at all. So when federal departments draft a bill, they should at least consult with one another so as to make their work much more consistent and cost-effective.

Federal overlap alone is a shameless waste. Let us start with this. As far as Quebec is concerned, I think it is doing its job and it is in our best interests to conserve our fish stocks and protect our environment and wildlife. I think the Quebec law on environmental protection, on the protection of threatened species, was one of the most forward-looking we have ever seen. It was even mentioned by some of our Liberal colleagues.

So we can surely come to some sort of agreement, but not with bills like this one, which is another example of the federal government's meddling in areas not under its jurisdiction. Federal departments cannot even speak among themselves to make sure their laws do not overlap those drafted by other departments. That is quite simple.