Monique Guay

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

This bill is more directly aimed at prohibiting the commercial use of MMT in Canada. MMT is added to gasoline to raise its octane level, and, consequently, to improve engine performance. The Minister of the Environment reached this decision on April 5, and today we are being asked to vote on the decision to ban the use of MMT in Canada.

But the minister has not been very convincing in this matter. Indeed, there are many questions on this bill, which remain unanswered, and the minister totally refuses to look at them. She is dismissing all other analyses, studies and solutions put forward. It cannot be said that open-mindedness and a sense of conciliation are the strongest qualities of the Minister of the Environment, who is also Deputy Prime Minister.

In this case, as in many others, the minister has decided and stands firm, in spite of the strong opposition of the petroleum industry and Ethyl, the company producing MMT. The minister is closing her eyes and seems to be simply responding to the carmakers' lobby which, strange coincidence, is concentrated in her part of the country.

I am not saying that the automotive industry does not have valid reasons or arguments for not wanting MMT in its vehicles. I am simply saying that the minister is leaning to one side and that she does not listen to the arguments of the other side. But this attitude on the part of the Minister of the Environment is not new. In many other instances, she has acted the same way.

There is, among others, the ongoing and very disturbing case of the Irving Whale . Once more, the minister, through her lack of openness which, in my opinion, looks more and more like a lack of competence, is creating very serious problems that threaten the environment. The issue of the Irving Whale , a total fiasco, is a case in point.

By refusing to take into account studies made by Marex and CEF, the minister has embarked on an adventure which is dangerous for the environment of the gulf and which has already cost $12 million. This amount represents the total cost initially forecasted and the barge still lies on the bottom of the gulf.

It must be pointed out that the method chosen is not the safest one. The operations we saw this summer proved it and smacked of amateurism. I would also underline that the barge is still leaking, now more than ever. According to a report of the Canadian Coast Guard, more than 500 litrres have recently leaked from the wreck.

[Canadian Armed Forces, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that every promotion granted to any CFB Petawawa official, for example that of Colonel Peter Kenward, should be cancelled or suspended for the duration of the inquiry?

[Canadian Armed Forces, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Defence. Last week, we learned that, on two separate occasions, members of the former regiment from Petawawa organized dinners to celebrate the massacre of 14 innocent victims at l'École polytechnique. A 14-round salvo was even fired.

Will the minister confirm that the Canadian Forces private who organized these dinners has since been promoted to Master Corporal?

[Research And Development, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we receive only 17 per cent of funds intended for research and development. According to the Minister of Finance, the figure is 13 per cent.

How does the Prime Minister justify this imbalance between Quebec and Ontario in the distribution of federal research facilities, whereas Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer are within the National Capital Region and could have received a greater proportion of these facilities?

[Research And Development, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In Quebec, there are 25 federal research facilities employing 3,000 workers, which represents 13.4 per cent of the jobs in federal facilities of this type in Canada, whereas, in Ontario, the Chalk River nuclear research centre alone employs 2,227 people. Overall, federal centres employ 11,000 researchers and technicians in Ontario.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the federal government has consistently penalized Quebec in the area of research and development, undermining its scientific and economic development? Would he also explain why, under such conditions, he is cutting funding for research in the DIPP program, which is crucial to the aerospace industry located primarily in Quebec.

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain the fact that this document clearly identifies CAE Electronics as the only potential contractor in Quebec for the maintenance of the four used British submarines, which the government is about to acquire at a cost of over $1 billion?

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

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

The secret document intended for Operation Unity reveals that top executives at CAE Electronics, a subsidiary of the parent company in Toronto, strongly support federalism in private. It also indicates that they will publicly follow in the footsteps of their Bombardier and Marconi counterparts.

Can the minister, who is obviously well aware of the referendum position of potential government contractors, tell us what contract he has set aside for CAE Electronics should its executives come out publicly in favour of the No side?

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is running out. The secretary of state for fisheries and oceans said there was no likelihood of interference with provincial jurisdictions. But I have here a short text that says that the main source of contamination in coastal areas is not disposal at sea but urban waste water, urban and agricultural run-off, industrial waste, urban waste, uncontrolled dumping and erosion.

This bill will open the door wide to interference in jurisdictions that are provincial and municipal as well.

If the government starts creating conflict situations-and I refer not only to Quebec, but to provinces like New Brunswick and British Columbia that are already concerned, want to protect their coastal areas and their fisheries and say they want more powers in this area-if the government starts interfering again, the result will be chaos. The environment does not need that.

I think anyone who, like the parliamentary secretary, is concerned about the environment should realize that we do not need further concentration of powers in Ottawa but more powers for the provinces which are closer to their ecosystems than the federal government and could play a far more important role than they do at the present time by assuming all authority over this area.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again I have a flagrant example of the member for Brome-Missisquoi's using environmental issues for reasons of petty partisan politics. Nothing surprising about that; that is his usual way of doing things.

Yes, there will be a referendum in Quebec, and it has nothing at all to do with this bill. We are talking about a statute. Here in this House today the Minister also has made a highly patriotic speech, and when such questions are asked, do not try to tell me that the problem of an unworkable bill will be solved. Not in the least.

I have not spoken of the referendum, I have spoken of a bill that we feel is unworkable. It will not work between departments and it will cause conflicts between federal departments. Imagine what will happen when it gets down to the provincial level. What we have here is a bill that needs to be redone. It has been badly drafted.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given himself all sorts of powers not even within his jurisdiction. This should be handled by Environment.

I strongly believe that the member for Brome-Missisquoi should study the environment a little more. It could not do any harm. Second, this is not a matter for partisan politics but truly a matter in which there are problems, one that is unclear, that has been dumped on the House and is unfamiliar to us, this Bill C-98. I reiterate my demand that it be studied in the Department of the Environment, so that we can find out where it is headed. Let the Minister of the Environment do her homework for once and let her

ensure that decisions affecting the Department of the Environment are made in conjunction with her department. When true environmental decisions are involved, let it be the Minister of the Environment who makes those decisions, and not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is Environment that possesses the environmental expertise, not Fisheries and Oceans.

This is totally senseless. Why dump one's duties onto someone else? This is totally senseless. We are prepared, our consciousness is raised, very much so I believe, we are prepared to address this matter, to look at what can be done to ensure that it heads in the right direction, but not this way.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-98. This morning, the hon. member for Gaspé explained at length why we will oppose this legislation. I want to elaborate on the environmental aspects of the bill, that is the environment minister's responsibilities under the proposed legislation.

This legislation gives exceptional powers to Fisheries and Oceans, but these powers already belong to the Department of the Environment. This is yet another example of overlap between two departments and it is a real concern to see how there is no true agreement or harmonization at the federal level. I cannot help but wonder why the minister did not tell environment critics about this bill? Why is it that we were not informed of that legislation? How come we did not even hear about it in committee?

When a bill has such an impact on a department like the environment department, we have to be able to look at it and make sure that it does not create more overlap. Let us not forget that the Department of the Environment lost one third of its personnel and one third of its budget following the government's drastic cuts. Consequently, this whole situation is a real source of concern.

The bill seems to establish a sectoral environment department: the department of coastal environment. If each department did that, we would end up with an environment transport department, an environment industry department, and all the government's ministers would have powers regarding environmental protection and preservation.

If this is the way this government wants to go, then we should abolish the environment department, because it will become useless in Parliament.

We hear a lot of nice rhetoric, speeches and commitments about the environment, but not much is actually done to protect it. There is still a lot of work to do. This is a vital issue; our future and that of our children is at stake. When I see how the government treats this issue so lightly, seemingly attaching little importance to it, I become very concerned about the future of Canada, Quebec and in fact the whole world.

When it comes to the environment, the government's tendency is to centralize powers in Ottawa for the sake of national interest. This is also a real concern, considering that environmental problems are of a global nature.

Let me read you two clauses which are rather preoccupying. Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill deal with the implementation of a strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.

This part does not apply to the lakes and rivers. In large part, management of those ecosystems is a provincial responsibility.

We on this side of the House have one other concern, that this act could allow the department to again interfere in provincial jurisdictions, particularly with respect to the environment. It puts provincial ministers on an equal footing with any other interested persons or bodies. It is very important for us to know what an interested person or body is.

This means that an individual might come to express his personal views. Will importance really be attached to that individual? God only knows. The environmental groups will be able to have their say and provincial ministers of the environment will be considered on the same footing as any individual coming to make a representation. This makes absolutely no sense. There is constant talk of partnership, harmonization, sustainable development, protecting our ecosystem, but I do not consider that to be a partnership. I would call it a source of conflict.

A situation of conflict will be created with the provinces, perhaps even with the municipalities. With this bill the interference could reach as far as the municipal level. In other words, if the minister decides he is not satisfied with a municipality's waste water treatment system whose effluents go into a river or a lake, which in turn release their waters into the ocean, he can say: "Change all your waste water treatment systems, because they are not up to our standards and affect the fish in our oceans."

I think the government is getting into jurisdictions that are already very much protected and work very well. I fail to see why the minister should have additional authority over areas we have been managing for years and that have been managed by the municipalities which are already supervised by the provinces. We do not need federal supervision on top of that. It is very disturbing that this bill gives no indication that the municipalities will be consulted as well. The government says it has the right to assume that authority.

We believe it is necessary to clearly identify an oceans management strategy-this is extremely important-but this strategy should be effective and not a source of conflict. The provinces should be made part of the decision-making process leading up to the formulation of the strategy. The minister should go back to the drawing board and table a strategy that specifies the responsibilities of all partners involved, without creating further overlap between federal and provincial departments. We have said this repeatedly here in the House, and I do not know whether anyone is listening, but it tends to be forgotten. Not only forgotten but ignored.

I would like to say a few words about something that concerns the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment and the conflict situation we had this summer. If they cannot avoid a conflict between departments at the federal level, imagine what it will be like when we get to the provinces and the municipalities. This makes no sense at all. The government could never enforce a decent piece of legislation. There is no way.

This summer we had the experience with the Irving Whale . The environment minister made a decision that we did not support, which was extremely risky and kept the people of the Magdalen Islands on edge all summer, and I must say I felt like that myself. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now in charge of the case. Is it because the minister did not do her job? I wonder.

And now we have a similar situation. In the case of the Irving Whale last summer, work was suspended because the courts made that decision. The minister had announced publicly and to the media that she would decide Monday morning whether she would stop the work or not.

The same day, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was also telling the media that, definitely, no decision would be made; that the decision would be made on Friday and the ship would be raised on Friday. Is this not departmental conflict? Who is not doing their job?

We do not need situations like this, and, moreover, when they involve danger, as in the case of the Irving Whale , we cannot make decisions just so we can be in the limelight or in the news or so we look good. We have to make logical decisions. We have to make environmental decisions, even if the cost is greater, because the risks of environmental dangers are high. We know very well that PCBs are getting into the ocean and that they will be around for hundreds and hundreds of years to come. We are destroying our marine ecosystem. We have to stop this sort of thing in areas that are as important as the environment.

Throughout the entire process, the minister is under no legal obligation to agree with other federal or provincial departments. In most cases, he may, if he wishes, ask for help from other authorities. It is both unacceptable and inconceivable that the minister does not have to work with the officials of the Department of the Environment, in particular, and with other departments, in general. There must not be any dictatorship. You cannot arrive in a department and declare that you are going to run the whole show. This sort of thing has to be done with harmony, but up to now I have seen no sign of harmonization in this House. I have never seen any. So imagine what it will be like when we run into conflict.

With positions being cut and some restraint to be exercised in public spending, the minister is creating duplication right within the federal government. What is more, the new powers of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusive, because they are not taking away from powers already in the hands of other ministers and stakeholders. So we may well see competition and overlap in connection with the standards and fines to be applied, priorities and the approaches taken.

Last year, on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we worked for a year revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. While reviewing this law, we realized on several occasions that there were many problems and that it overlapped a lot with the Fisheries Act.

How come the minister, who I think is not yet aware of this fact otherwise she would have answered us or she would have told us in committee what she knew about this report, has not read the report and made a decision yet? How do you explain the fact that the minister of fisheries has now come up with a bill after the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development worked on this issue for a year and gave the minister constructive suggestions regarding the environment? Why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans doing her job? I do not understand; this is not clear at all in my head.

I am asking the Minister of the Environment to keep party politics out of this department, which is, in my opinion, the most important department here in this Parliament. This department should not be partisan. It should always focus on the ecosystem, on sustainable development. It should always make decisions for the future of our children, of Canada, of Quebec, and not partisan decisions.

I would like to conclude my remarks by mentioning that a sovereign Quebec would give priority to the environment. If you ask Quebecers what importance they give the environment, they will give it top priority after health because they are aware that, if the environment is not protected, we will have no future. We will have no drinking water.

Sure, we will always have problems but we must give priority to environmental issues. In this regard, the minister simply did not do her homework. She should go back and do her homework. I would like to see Bill C-98 referred to the environment committee. You would see that there would be many proposed amendments to this bill.