Monique Guay

[Irving Whale, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a sediment contamination level of 10,000 parts per million. The situation is extremely serious.

Can the Minister of the Environment assure us that the PCBs will be recovered before the winter so that the fishing industry will not be threatened next year?

[Irving Whale, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Last week, we learned that there are still large amounts of PCB-contaminated sediments on the site of the Irving Whale wreck. Before the operation to lift this barge, concentrations of 400 to 900 parts per million had been found in contaminated samples.

Given the substantial and troubling presence of PCBs, what does the minister intend to do in the very short term to correct this situation, which directly threatens all the fishery resources in that part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence?

[National Action Committee On The Status Of Women, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, between 5,000 and 10,000 women and men came here to ask the Liberal government to fulfil its election promises regarding the poor. The Liberal Party had promised it would not cut into social programs, but it did.

It had promised to create over 150,000 day care spaces, but it also reneged on this commitment. The Bloc Quebecois will lead a fierce campaign to find out what this government did with the money earmarked for day care services.

This morning, the Bloc Quebecois pledged to work in close co-operation with the new president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Joan Grant-Cummings, to make sure this government targets poverty, not the poor.

The Bloc will see that the message conveyed by the protesters this past weekend is heard, since this government tends to turn a deaf ear to the needy.

The outgoing NAC president, Sunera Thobani, said that women are not asking for charity but equality. The Liberal Party must get the message.

[Irving Whale, June 14th, 1996]

In that case, Mr. Speaker, will the minister reassure the public by tabling in this House before the end of this session all the insurance contracts covering the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale for both this year and last year, yes or no?

[Irving Whale, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Again this week again and for the second time, this government neglected to answer my question about the insurance coverage of the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale .

Are we to understand from the minister's unwillingness to respond that the contractor does indeed lack the coverage required in case PCBs are spilled while lifting the Irving Whale ?

[The Environment, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week a coalition of national and local environmental groups issued its report card on Liberal performance in the area of the environment.

The Sierra Club of Canada blames the government in particular for having flouted one of the few explicit red book promises, to reduce greenhouse effect emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005. This crucial Liberal commitment will not be fulfilled, quite simply because the government has been unable to achieve a consensus among the provinces.

Finally, this government has reduced the Department of the Environment "to a significantly weaker position and has shown a more hostile position to environmental decision-making than any other government in the 25 year history of the department-The Chrétien government's record on the environment is significantly worse than the Mulroney government record".

What more is there to add to such a damning conclusion?

[Irving Whale, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to date, the refloating of the Irving Whale has cost the Canadian taxpayer no less than $18 million. What is more, it has not been successful, so several millions more will have to be spent.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make a commitment before this House to claim the entire costs of this operation from those who are in reality the only ones responsible, that is to say the Irving Company?

[Irving Whale, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last Monday, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether the insurance coverage for the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale had been revised since last year, and whether it now covered PCBs? Taken unawares by my question, the minister did not make any reference to insurance coverage in his response.

I am therefore asking again whether he can give us a guarantee that the new insurance contracts have been revised and do contain coverage for PCBs?

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is about to unilaterally impose on the marine industry user fees for Coast Guard services, notably for navigational aids and icebreaking operations. Clauses 41 and 47 to

52 of Bill C-26 give the fisheries minister the power to impose these user fees.

Several amendments to these clauses have been moved by the Bloc Quebecois, by my colleague the member for Gaspé, who went to a lot of trouble to try to find a way of co-operating with the government. As I was saying, several amendments to these clauses have been tabled for the following purposes: to make the principle of user fees more equitable, to force the minister to co-operate with the industry and the provinces before imposing or increasing the fees. These changes will prevent the minister from acting unilaterally, without taking public consultation into account, as he did with respect to the user fees that he wants to impose in June 1996.

Public hearings were held by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. All witnesses who appeared before the committee deplored the decision and consultation process of the Coast Guard, in particular the fact that the minister went ahead with the user fees without first making an economic impact assessment of this measure on the marine industry and on industrial sectors relying on shipping.

Moreover, 75 per cent of the witnesses asked the minister to declare a moratorium on the imposition of fees pending the result of impact studies commissioned by the fisheries department for next fall. The witnesses also suggested that the minister co-operate with the marine industry in carrying out these economic impact studies. Finally, there was a clear consensus against the minister's proposal, which was considered unacceptable by concerned parties in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, notably by the Ontario and Quebec governments.

Of course, disregarding all those recommendations and objections, the minister seems to be determined to apply his fees without even thinking of their potentially devastating consequences on employment in the marine industry, which is a highly developed economic sector in Quebec.

Another major problem is the drop in competitiveness of ports in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes compared with American ports. On the one hand, ships passing through the St. Lawrence and the seaway to reach the United States will not pay for Coast Guard services if they do not stop in Canadian ports. That is a serious threat to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.

On the other hand, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is not consistently applied. In several instances, in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier among other places, users will pay up to $5 million every year for only one buoy. And finally, the fees the minister intends to apply are only the tip of the iceberg since they cover only navigational aids. Harbour and seaway dredging and icebreaking in the seaway are other targeted services for the imposition of fees.

These other fees might be much higher than those for navigational aids and we have every right to be concerned about the survival and competitiveness of the St. Lawrence harbours, especially the port of Montreal and several ports in the regions.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a couple of words on what it will do to a riding like mine. As you all know, Laurentides is a riding where boating and water sports are very important to the survival of tourism.

There are between 500 and 800 lakes in my riding, so you can well imagine the impact fees on pleasure craft will have on the economy of an area like mine. We have not heard all the details yet, but there is talk of imposing a fee on pedalboats and sailboards. I do not know where they will put the licence plate, but I am sure they will think of something.

There is talk of having rowboats and canoes come under the law, can you imagine what it might do to a tourism industry like the one in my riding?

Imagine the small and medium size businesses that make a living renting this kind of equipment for the season, for the summer; they will have to pay these fees. Will it be on a yearly basis, or every five years? I still do not know how it will work. We might be in for some nasty surprises. Will the fees be phased in? All this to collect a few million dollars to put in the finance minister's coffers. This is an outrage.

Moreover, let us keep in mind how much it will cost to collect these fees. How will we go about finding the owners of all these pedalboats, sailboards, rowboats, canoes? This is practically impossible, unmanageable. In the end, the ordinary taxpayer will have to pay once again. Once again he will have to bear the burden of the federal government's financial problems.

We will oppose that fiercely. Coalitions are being formed right now in my riding and elsewhere to press the government into not adopting such a fee schedule. The Bloc Quebecois will continue its action against this bill in the hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will find another way to fill his coffer. There would be so many other ways.

Let me go on to another issue, waste dumped into the sea. Do you know there is a fixed rate for the right to dump waste in the sea? It means I can have five truckloads of waste, buy a license and dump all of it into the sea with that one license alone. I can throw as much waste as I want. These people are the ones you should go after. We should make them pay the true price for their waste. It is amazing what savings could be made that way and the environment would be better protected.

When I see the decisions being taken in order to collect $14 million and the number of public servants that will take, I am concerned. They will have to create a new division at Fisheries and Oceans. I can assure you the government will not get the co-operation of all the provinces. It is not the provinces nor the municipalities that will be collecting those fees. It will cost a fortune. It will cost more to implement the fee schedule than to leave things the way they are.

I encourage my colleagues to continue the debate on these motions. I will fully support any opposition to charging fees for ships and boats.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-26. In fact, I think some work has already been done with my colleague from Gaspé at second reading, and we are now dealing with a group of rather important motions.

I will deal in greater detail with the environmental aspect, which is my area of concern, and the effect of this bill on the Department of the Environment. This new bill gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans some powers that already belong to the Minister of the Environment. This is a further example of overlap between departments, and this is not the first time there are tensions between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. Once again, we have the yin and the yang.

The bill seems to create a sectoral Department of the Environment. It is like a Department of the Coastal Environment, if you will. If each department did the same thing, the Department of Transport would include something called Environment Transport, the Department of Industry, something called Environment Industry, and all government departments would have powers over environmental protection and conservation.

If this is the direction the government wants to take, all it needs to do is abolish the Department of the Environment. The government's approach to the environment is to centralize powers in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the globalization of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26 matches this approach.

I will quote a few clauses. Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill are those pertaining to the development of a strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This part does not apply to lakes and rivers. The management of these ecosystems is for the most part under provincial jurisdiction. I think the provinces are well aware of that, and deal with the environment. If there is overlap, not only with the Department of the Environment, but also with areas of provincial jurisdiction, the government is seizing some excessive powers.

It is impossible to control a department in this way. The government cannot meddle in jurisdictions that do not belong to it. Once again, this will simply create confusion between the provinces, which will not be able to reach a consensus, preferring to defend their own particular interests, which is quite normal, while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will never manage to harmonize all this. This is another bill that will be impossible to implement and administer.

I now want to move on to clauses 31, 32 and 33, which give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to develop and implement a national strategy for managing the ecosystems in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters. This strategy involves implementing plans for the management of activities, establishing management or consulting organizations, developing various programs, setting environmental standards, collecting and analyzing scientific data on the ecosystems in question. That is quite a lot.

It must be noted that several of the activities I just mentioned are already being carried out by the Department of the Environment. Once again, the government is duplicating existing services, as though it could afford such duplication.

Nowhere in this bill is the minister required to come to an agreement with other federal departments or with the provinces. In most cases, he can, if he so desires, request the co-operation of other authorities. But only if he so desires. Once again, introducing such bills without harmonizing activities with those of other federal departments, the provinces and other levels of government is unacceptable.

The fact that the minister is not required to work in co-operation with officials from Environment Canada in particular and other federal departments in general is incomprehensible and unacceptable. At a time when jobs are being cut and when public spending is supposed to be reduced, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is creating duplication within the federal government.

Moreover, the new powers, duties and functions assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusively his, as they do not affect in any way the existing powers, duties and functions of other ministers and stakeholders. This means that competition and overlap may well develop in terms of applicable standards and amendments, as well as priorities and special measures.

It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that the minister not be required to work together with the provinces, when the provinces are directly affected by marine environment management. Over the years, Environment Canada has had to do so, through bodies such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which is more or less satisfactory. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans contemplating going the same route?

It is a special situation where 10 environment ministers are working together with the aboriginals. Trying to reach an agreement on harmonization with 10 people around the table never works. This has prompted the Minister of the Environment to try to enter into a bilateral agreement with each province, since environmental priorities vary from one province to the next depending on the industries operating in the province. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do the same?

It does not always work well. I can tell you that, sometimes, it takes years just to settle one matter. Take for example greenhouse effect gas. We saw what happened. At the Rio summit, before all the other countries represented, the Canadian government made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but realized, after consulting the provinces, that it would not be possible.

Moreover, it imposed standards unilaterally. The provinces were unable to meet these standards. As a result, come the year 2002, instead of having reduced greenhouse gas emissions, we will be facing another international summit where we will have to admit it did not work. We must watch out.

It is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the provinces to be treated, in this bill, like any other stakeholder, be it interests groups, municipalities, or industries. To do so is to show a glaring lack of respect for the provinces and it just does not make sense. It seems to me that a province has much greater powers than an interest group, a municipality or an industry. Provinces should be

on an equal footing with the federal government, not at a lower level.

The environment is not one of the exclusive jurisdictions assigned to one level of government under the Constitution. It is what is called an ancillary jurisdiction, arising from those jurisdictions specifically mentioned in the Canadian Constitution.

Theoretically, the Department of the Environment is responsible for this ancillary jurisdiction, together with each of the departments concerned.

Before 1985, the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a major role with respect to the environment, occupying most of the jurisdictional area. At the time, in accordance with the Constitution, the federal government was content to get involved in areas complementing its jurisdiction.

After 1985, the federal started to get involved in environmental issues. It did so mainly through its spending power and through new powers it received from the courts. From then on, many instances of overlap and duplications appeared. This situation has been steadily growing since the election of the present Liberal government, which is doing its best to centralize the decision making process in Ottawa.

To the Quebec government, Bill C-26 is another step toward centralization. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a four to three decision, divested the provinces of the management of the ocean environment and of its territory and turned it over to the federal government. Under Bill C-26, the federal government is trying to get the maximum out of this decision. Because of this centralizing tendency, Quebec fears that the federal government is attempting, in the middle or long term, to claim management of oceans and their resources.