Monique Guay

[Refloating The Irving Whale, June 10th, 1996]

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

The second attempt at refloating the Irving Whale has now begun. It is essential, in case a spill occurs, that the company have adequate insurance to cover the cost of environmental damage. But on page 43 of the last environmental assessment report, dated March 1996, one reads that, as of now, the company's insurance policy does not cover PCBs.

Can the minister certify that insurance contracts have been revised and now cover PCBs. If so, can the minister table these contracts in the House as soon as possible to reassure the public?

[Environment Week, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in this House today to recognize Environment Week.

I agree with the Minister of the Environment that it is important to draw attention to the success stories of individuals and corporations that have understood how vital it is for our common future that we protect and enhance our biophysical environment.

Like the minister, the Globe and Mail noted yesterday the outstanding contribution to the cause of the environment of individuals like David Suzuki, NGOs like Greenpeace and Pollution Probe, and corporations like Cascade.

For my part, I would like to recognize the contribution made by all those who, while they may not win a prize for it, make sure, on a daily basis, to reduce their energy consumption, to recycle and to buy fewer overpackaged products, in a word, to act in a way that respects the integrity of the natural environment they feel responsible for.

I am confident that, in the near future, these Canadians and Quebecers will succeed in imposing their wishes and values on the government as well as on those corporations still refusing to make the environment a priority.

On the one hand, I share the minister's hopes to see environmental citizenship develop among Canadians and Quebecers of all ages. On the other hand, I must dissociate myself from him, when he talks about the most effective means to achieve our common goal.

In his speech, the minister referred to the 25th anniversary of Environment Canada. While it is true that, since it was established, this department has contributed to the protection of the environment, we must nevertheless recognize that what it has done mainly is cause a great deal of duplication and overlap, much as the minister stubbornly denies it. But interference by the federal government has been condemned time and time again by successive Quebec governments, along with the inefficiencies it causes and, more importantly, the lack of respect for regional uniqueness it reflects.

Documents, such as the environmental framework entitled Cadre de référence sur le partage des rôles et responsabilités entre Québec et le gouvernement fédéral en matière d'environnement et de faune published by a certain Liberal government in August of 1994, show the negative impact of overlap on the management of government responsibilities with regard to the environment.

In his speech, the minister referred to the future Canadian Environmental Protection Act and to the endangered species legislation he intends to introduce in this House by next year.

I hope that the minister has learned from past mistakes and that, in an effort to better protect our health and our natural heritage, he will consider the comments humbly submitted to him by the official opposition as well as by provincial governments, including that of Quebec, which fear another federal attempt to unilaterally impose its will on the provinces, which already play a credible role in this area.

The recent conference of federal and provincial environment ministers gives us some hope that Ottawa may adopt a new, more flexible approach.

The Bloc Quebecois is happy to see the positive results of that conference, including an action plan on climatic change.

Yet, the minister's recent comments before the standing committee on the environment suggested that the CCME was no longer a useful working tool for the federal government.

In closing, I would like to add that, in 1996, no government, department, business leader or other decision maker should ignore his or her responsibilities or, even worse, hurt the cause of the environment.

Each decision must therefore be made in light of its impact on the delicate balance of our global environment. The health of our children and of all future generations is at stake.

[The Environment, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Canadian Environment Week, it seems important to stress the fact that the environment is a major concern and that, unfortunately, governments are neglecting this concern more and more for economic reasons.

Neo-liberalism is in fashion, a fashion affecting even environmental policies. Governments are going soft. Their resolve to take strict action against polluters is weakening. It is easier to back away and promote voluntary and self monitoring measures by and for polluters.

This trend poses a great threat. This threat is hanging over the future of a planet that we are devastating at an accelerated pace without apparently feeling any urgent need for vigorous action.

People of our generation can expect to live in an acceptable environment, but what about our children? Will they have to live inside bubbles, forced to protect and isolate themselves from an

increasingly hostile environment. We must stop talking and start acting.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying that the comment made by my hon. colleague's is perfectly sound. That is what I was saying earlier: this should be used as an example for future reference, including as regards Nav Canada. We must therefore be able to examine what the same kind of not for profit corporations have done right and where they have gone wrong.

We must also be sure that the individuals who sit on those boards are honest. We must ensure a good representation of all stakeholders in all regions. And when a decision is made that is inconsistent with the public interest, we must be able to turn things around, by reversing this decision or improving on it, something we cannot do at present. Nothing of the sort is provided for regarding ADM. There are obviously connections to be made between the two.

I hope that public safety will take precedence so that everyone can take the plane safely and without fear. I often travel by plane and I am very worried. I hope that the government will support our amendment so that this aspect is covered.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Blainville-Deux Montagnes. It goes without saying that this decision will have to be reviewed.

It is totally unacceptable that only seven people make decisions. These people were probably influenced by air carriers. Air Canada played a role. Pressures were made. Why? Because the process was a secret one. Why do we not have the documents and why can we not take a clear look at the situation?

Something incredible happened. We-the hon. members for Blainville-Deux Montagnes, Argenteuil-Papineau and myself-brought petitions signed by some 40,000 or 50,000 people to the transport minister, who was very nice to us, only to tell us the next day that Mirabel was being closed because of the separatists. This is some answer. It is very logical and articulate.

It goes without saying that we must have access to all these documents to review them and to make sure ADM did indeed make the right decision. How did it reach its decision? We want to take a look at the whole process. Personally, I think Mirabel is the airport that should stay open. Sure, Mirabel is in my region, but it has all the necessary structures to expand and meet the future needs of Montreal and the surrounding regions. A brand new airport in full expansion will be closed to transfer flights to Dorval.

I would really like to know how ADM came to this decision. I would like to see all the documents and environmental studies. Environmental groups in the Dorval region are opposed to an increase in the number of flights to Dorval. ADM cannot even guarantee-as its spokesperson, Mr. Auger, said in an interview-that the number of flights to Dorval will increase. "There are X number of flights right now; as for later, time will tell".

This situation is very worrisome for people living around Dorval airport. Dorval cannot be further developed: it has reached its maximum capacity. What will happen? We definitely have to postpone, review, examine and analyze the decision to make sure it is the appropriate one.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-20, an Act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services.

Let me first say a word about my personnel flying experience. I am not very brave when it comes to flying. I only do so out of obligation, not pleasure. If, in addition to my natural fear, I feel my personal safety is at risk when I board an aircraft, I might think twice before flying again.

Nav Canada was just recently established. Incidentally, we have nothing against this non-profit corporation, which will manage services that are of public interest. It reminds me of a very similar corporation which I will tell you about, because it concerns people in my region.

Not too long ago, a similar non-profit corporation was established to manage services that are of public interest. I am referring to ADM. ADM is the corporation managing the Montreal and Mirabel airports.

Lately, it made a decision which, personally as member for Laurentides, I find totally unacceptable. This corporation, which is made up of business persons, is not accountable to the public. Its

members made a decision; they decided to transfer flights to Dorval; they decided to invest millions of dollars to develop Dorval airport without any public consultation.

ADM's decision to transfer flights was arrived at without public involvement. Social, economic and environmental impacts were not explained to decision makers as a whole, other stakeholders and people living in and around the areas concerned. This is funny, because this government is telling us about the fine well articulated pieces of legislation we have in this great country to ensure its prosperity, but it does not abide by them.

Not very long ago, the environment minister tabled an environmental bill we just could not support. We voted against it, but it was passed anyway by the government and is now in force. It concerns environmental assessments and overlaps our own legislation, the BAPE. In Quebec, we already had something which worked very well, but the federal government insisted on passing a bill on environmental assessments. This is fine and dandy.

And now, with ADM, our hands are tied. ADM goes ahead with its decision. We cannot demand that it shows us its assessments. We are not asking for new ones, it tells us it has already conducted assessments. All we want is to see the results, we want the process to be open. Same thing with the economic impact, and the social impact as well. What will happen in a region such as mine, the Laurentides region, and in the regions of Argenteuil-Papineau and Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, represented by two of my colleagues? What kind of impact will this have not only socially, on the community, but also on employment?

Especially when we are told that, within 15 years, operations will have to move back to Mirabel. As far as I am concerned, this is a decision that does not make any sense. We want facts. Prove to us that this is indeed the right decision. Produce the documents we have requested, put them on the table so that we can take a good look at them, then maybe, we will be in a position to discuss. For the time being, there is nothing definite. There is nothing on the table and we cannot get our hands on any facts. ADM is seven individuals who have made a certain decision.

I am not saying that a corporation like ADM or Nav Canada cannot make decisions, but I do think that, before creating a corporation like Nav Canada, which is already in existence, and passing this kind of legislation, in light of what ADM had done, we must make sure not to repeat our mistakes the second time around with this other not-for-profit corporation.

We should take some of the mistakes made par ADM and use them as examples to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again with another not-for-profit corporation. In privatizing services and transferring them to corporations along with the decision-making authority, we always run the risk of having decisions made behind closed doors, decisions that I personally find undemocratic, as I said earlier.

Bill C-20 just created yet another not for profit management corporation, which could at any time make the same kind of decisions that ADM made, decisions that may not be desirable because of the waves they are bound to make and the controversy they will cause in the public. I wonder why the government is not consulting the public before, instead of having to mend the fences after.

Here is one of many articles I have gathered on the subject. Let us say that, since ADM decided to sue, a flock of people have been writing on the subject. This paper on Mirabel reads as follows: "The future of Mirabel is closely connected to the future of the greater Montreal area, which will not do without its international airport". That was written by Jean Cournoyer.

Mirabel is not bankrupt, on the contrary. Mirabel is profitable but remains incomplete because, while the work was under way, the conductor did not agree with the concert master on the piece to be played. It is still a bold enterprise which, for reasons that do not come under its responsibility, ran out of breath before getting to the finish line.

In 1993, ADM, having done its homework, announced that the best solution to the problem of the two airports was to maintain the status quo. In 1993, it was the status quo. Three years later in 1996, ADM, after redoing its homework, announces that two airports are an impediment to traffic growth and proposes to allow regular international flights to land in Dorval.

As a staunch defender of freedom, I really believe that the main concern of an airport is to meet the needs of its clients. But let us consider the price we will have to pay to meet the needs of a hypothetical clientele: $36.4 million to build a temporary international jetty and renovate the international arrival lounge, plus $185 million to build a permanent international jetty and expand the multi-level parking garage, for a total of $221 million, except for the cost of an underground terminal for regular trains from Ottawa and Montreal. When I see that this money is to be invested over a 15-year period only, I do not understand the decision that was made. The people in my region are very disappointed in ADM's approach.

I now get back to Nav Canada, a non-profit organization. I sincerely believe that, in a case like this one-and, again, non-profit organizations are an excellent thing, but we must use both bad and good examples. Certainly, good things were achieved, but mistakes were also made by corporations like ADM. Before drafting a bill, we should at least ensure that public safety is mentioned in the preamble. That is a priority. Plane crashes are often fatal. I think the first thing we must do is to reassure the

people who fly-and who pay good money to do so-that their lives are not in danger.

[Opération Enfant-Soleil, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Opération Enfant-Soleil telethon was held over the weekend and a record amount of over $5.5 million was raised.

This organization holds fund raising campaigns to help pediatric services in general hospitals buy specialized equipment to treat children.

I would like to pay tribute to the artists, musicians, technicians, volunteers, and everyone else who worked tirelessly in order to make this activity a success. I would particularly like to mention the work of the organization's hosts and ambassadors, actors Francis Reddy and Marie-Soleil Tougas, for their involvement.

I would also like to thank the public and businesses in Quebec, who, despite the present economic situation, responded to the call and gave so generously to the cause. Long live Opération Enfant-Soleil.

[English]

[Canadian Parliamentary System, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, the Speaker of the Senate and yourself unveiled plaques commemorating the history of Canadian parliamentary service. These plaques will remind tourists of the names of parliamentarians who served their country with dedication and earnestness.

The official opposition takes pride in sharing this historic moment with our colleagues, past and present. While we are sovereignists, we nevertheless recognize the intrinsic value of the British parliamentary system and its underlying traditions and principles.

I compliment the Speaker on his initiative, which shows how much regard he has for these men and women who have helped shape the Canadian Parliament's history and democratic tradition, regardless of their origins, social condition or political views. Rest assured that, after achieving sovereignty, we will draw inspiration from this model.

[The Environment, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the fight against greenhouse gas emissions requires the co-operation of the most polluting provinces, especially Alberta and Ontario, what has the minister done so far to convince these provinces to take serious initiatives in this area?

[The Environment, May 15th, 1996]

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

On page 70 of the red book, the Liberal Party promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions over the Canadian territory by 20 per cent. Yet, barely a year before the next meeting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Canada must recognize that it will be unable to achieve this goal.

Beyond the symbolic measures he has just proposed, when will the minister finally decide to put in place a strategy that is both realistic and vigorous in order to launch the fight against greenhouse gas emissions?