Serge Cardin

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 54% of the Liberals who were polled about the Prime Minister's behaviour in the Auberge Grand-Mère issue feel that an inquiry should be held.

Even members of his own caucus are wondering about the contradictions between the Prime Minister's statements and the documents, or between the Prime Minister's statements and those of Yvon Duhaime.

Is the government not concerned about the behaviour of its Prime Minister, and should it not put pressure on him to accept that light be shed on this issue?

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by asking a question, and I am sure the answer will be yes.

I would imagine that you are quite familiar with the works of Jean de La Fontaine. I see that you are nodding your approval. I am convinced that everyone in the House knows Jean de La Fontaine, a famous French poet who lived from 1621 to 1695. He is particularly well known all over the world for his Fables .

If Jean de La Fontaine were still living today, he would find that the ideal conditions, the winning conditions for writing a new fable, are all brought together in the employment insurance plan. Let me explain.

When Jean de La Fontaine personified an animal, he did it for two very specific reasons. First, it underlines human and social behaviours and helps us understand how they work. Second, it is a means by which to draw attention to the sensitivity and intelligence of animals that should at times be a source of inspiration for us. We would be better off. I can easily imagine a fable he could have entitled the nasty chickens and the nice geese”.

Mr. Speaker, just like me, you were once small, even though it does not show any more, and young. When I was a child there was a tradition which still exists. At Easter, my brothers would go out and buy cute little chicks. Spring being the time of renewal, of rebirth, we used to love to buy these animals.

I was six or seven years younger than my brothers. Who do you think had to feed the chickens every morning? Me, of course.

As time went by, the chickens got bigger. However, I had noticed that one was a bit smaller than the others. I wondered what was happening. I began to observe it. I realized that the smaller chicken was excluded by the others until one day it finally died. We know how it is when one chicken is weaker than the others. They begin pecking at it and hurt it until it dies. That is the first part of the fable.

Here is the second part. I was a little older at that time. My brothers took me fishing and hunting. One day, they showed me a flight of Canada geese. We know that these birds travel over fairly long distances. We also know how it is with Canada geese. When one of them becomes too weak or too tired, the strongest goose will go just under it and support it in flight. When that goose gets tired another one takes its place, and in the end the weak goose reaches its destination.

We saw that nasty chickens exclude whereas nice geese include. That is a very good illustration of how EI works at present.

It is pretty serious business to lose a job. People have responsibilities. They feel helpless. Then the nasty chickens come along to peck at them. Here we have someone who has lost a job. What is the first question we ask? “Eligible or not eligible?” Then we pick, pick, pick away at eligibility. We make sure that the rules are as strict as possible. If we find a person is eligible that bugs us, so we pick, pick, pick away again, adding the two week waiting period. Tactics of exclusion are constantly being used.

At one point benefits were 60% of earnings. We say that is too much, so we pick away some more and bring it down to 55%. Then we pick away again at the seasonal workers because they apply every year and reduce benefits by 1% per year. The institutional tactic of exclusion is obvious. I could go on, in fact I will.

Construction workers are also seasonal workers. They have to be looking for work, however. The department says that construction workers who go through their unions, their construction board where all the available jobs are posted, are not considered to have been looking for work. We are picking away again.

Then there are the young workers, women who are excluded from eligibility, parental leave. Earlier in my introduction I spoke of spring, which is a call to life. A man and a woman who decide to have a child are again virtually excluded. They are not eligible under the terms of employment insurance. If the expectant mother has to make use of preventive withdrawal from the workplace, here there is another exclusion. In this employment insurance system, it is exclusion from A to Z.

Then, there are the older workers. It is certainly difficult when a person is 55 and has been in one job for 35 years. Here again we exclude them. Assistance programs which could help them until retirement are taken away. As far as I know, there was a commitment to reinstate such a program. It has not yet appeared. Once again exclusion is the rule.

Basically the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition believe that we are doing what we are doing because of what we are. We are the nice geese.

If for some reason someone is going through hard times, such as the loss of a job, there must be some system somewhere to help him, to support him until he gets back on his feet.

All the amendments brought forward by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and other colleagues in the opposition are along that line. We do not want the employment insurance system to be exclusive. We want it to be an inclusive plan.

We could go on for hours about various issues. We could add amendments. However now they are restricting debate partially in this case, but it will probably come to total closure very soon.

I am sure Jean de La Fontaine would have been delighted to write a fable about the nasty chickens and the nice geese. This does not only apply to employment insurance. We could also apply it to federalism and sovereignty.

There are nasty chickens that are leading us, the nice geese, to support sovereignty in Quebec. We want a nation that once it fully controls its own employment insurance fund will be able to include persons who are going through hard times so that they are not excluded from society but are helped and can later return to society with pride and dignity, thanks to the assistance they received from support programs, just like a nice goose would do.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the third group, Motion No. 8 deals with a technicality. However, Motion No. 9, presented by the hon. member for Athabasca, is essential. It is truly essential and fundamental in the context of the creation of a foundation.

As we all know, this government has made a habit of creating organizations, foundations and agencies to ensure that the auditor general cannot, for all intents and purposes, take a close look at these institutions or organizations.

We are all familiar with the work of the auditor general, which involves evaluating the objectives, the actions, the money spent and even the administrators. In some cases he did evaluate the performance of administrators and the appointment process of these same administrators since that process often seems to have more to do with rewarding an individual than determining his or her qualifications.

The objective of the government is to ensure that the auditor general does not have the opportunity to take a close look at the foundations as such.

If the auditor general had the opportunity to take an indepth look at the results, as they relate to the budgets or the objectives—the objectives are always laudable, but sometimes the means used to achieve them are not the best ones—he could evaluate the means used by the foundation to achieve its objectives.

If the auditor general could audit the foundation, it would alleviate the main concerns of the Bloc Quebecois regarding the establishment of that foundation. There are six such concerns and I will mention them briefly. The division of jurisdictions is one concern of the Bloc Quebecois. The fact that Quebec already has a fund is another concern, as is the fact that there is a concentration of powers within the foundation. The fact that the bill's definitions are risky, and even imprecise, is another concern. The inequality between the recommendations of the issues table and the bill, or the foundation, also concerns the Bloc Quebecois. Another concern, obviously, is the amounts allotted.

Therefore, any future audit of this foundation would examine the various points I have just enumerated, almost certainly justifying Bloc Quebecois concerns.

I will come back briefly to the division of jurisdictions. It would seem obvious that this is just an underhanded way for the federal government to intrude once again in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Unfortunately, the bill has a very broad scope, leaving the door open to investing in an area of jurisdiction belonging to a province or to Quebec.

If an auditor general had an opportunity to audit the entire foundation, he could also comment on this aspect of jurisdiction, as it relates to objectives.

What is more, we know that problems often arise, that they are identified during audits, and that they justify the concerns of the opposition and of the Bloc Quebecois. Why not take pre-emptive action?

Furthermore, we asked that the auditor general be invited to appear before the committee, but this did not happen. Imagine how beneficial his presence would have been for the members of the committee who basically want the bill to be as effective as possible. The auditor general could have given his views before the fact because he would have been able to examine the bill and knowledgeably anticipate potential obvious problems. Unfortunately this did not happen.

Worse yet, the bill ensures that the auditor general will never be allowed to comment on the foundation.

The answer to that will be that there is an internal auditor. I have been involved in company auditing. My mandate was to balance the books, to see whether money had been spent in the right place, if everything balanced, if everything was okay. This is fundamental, because without the praiseworthy objectives relating to the environment this foundation would not exist. Are the financial actions that will be carried out by this foundation really in line with its objectives, or do they have some other aim in mind, one I shall leave to our imagination?

Another point on which the auditor general might voice an opinion when he audits the foundation is its very pertinence, compared to what is in place elsewhere.

As I have said, Quebec already has a fund. The creation of this foundation is surprising, given that Quebec already has its $45 million Fonds d'action pour le développement durable. This foundation divides its budgetary envelope four ways. I will spare you the list, but I will point out that the first one is again subdivided into three areas of concern. One of these is atmospheric issues in connection with sustainable development.

Instead of creating a foundation such as this, the federal government ought to simply transfer the funds to provincial bodies, including the Quebec foundation, that are already active in the area set out by the issue table and possess excellent expertise in this area. This would make it possible for use of the funding to be tailored to the financial means and priorities of the provinces and of Quebec.

For all intents and purposes, this would be one of the auditor's mandates if he were able to audit the foundation. He could say that the best way of attaining the foundation's objective would, in a number of cases, be to hand the money over to the provinces, Quebec included, given their existing expertise and the fact that they are in some cases far better equipped in terms of human resources and potential technological resources for sustainable development. In Quebec this technology has already been showcased internationally in connection with sustainable development.

The auditor general could also offer an opinion on the concentration of powers. The foundation members are nearly all appointed by the governor in council. The bill provides that the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister will appoint seven of the 15 directors of the foundation. However, the other eight directors will be appointed by the directors who were appointed by the governor in council.

Finally, the chairperson and all the directors may be removed for cause by the governor in council. This type of appointment seems to be a twisted way to allow the federal government to oversee matters in a field that is the jurisdiction of the provinces, or Quebec, and to keep control over a body that is not accountable to parliament.

We can see the relevance of the work of the auditor general in evaluating the reason for the appointments and the ability and relevance of some directors who, for all intents and purposes, are appointed for life, unless the Prime Minister decides to remove some of them whom he may find unsuitable in certain instances.

In short, it would have been very relevant to have the auditor general testify before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, so that before the fait accompli he could speak on the fact that he was not invited to audit the foundation and the fact that there are innumerable problems. In some instances we are totally in the dark.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to take part in the debate on Bill C-4, which was of course Bill C-46 in the previous parliament.

There is no doubt that the objectives of the bill, which establishes a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, are noble. They are very noble indeed. Sustainable development is very much a concern among the public. Today, at noon, I was watching a television program and the topic happened to be the environment. People are very concerned about the environment, sustainable development and the reduction of greenhouse gases. They are also concerned about air quality.

Today's program also dealt with other environmental issues, but we know them. We can identify them because they are a permanent concern among the public. The objectives of the foundation are noble.

Personally, and this should be kept under wrap, I have my pink side, with a dash of blue, which pleases my spouse and my children. I also have a considerable green side, though. The environment is one of my major concerns. In the case of the foundation for sustainable technology, however, one cannot help but draw a parallel with the millennium scholarship foundation.

There were already policies in place in Quebec and this was an area under Quebec jurisdiction. Still, they doggedly insisted on creating a federal level foundation. The same thing goes for this one, the foundation in Bill C-4.

There is considerable expertise in Quebec, yet in the same broadcast today at noon it was said that Quebec has half the greenhouse gas emissions most of the others have. There is therefore expertise in Quebec. There are technicians. Technology is being developed. As the minister has said, he considers this new foundation a kind of fund. He also said that everyone expressed a need for more money.

Thus, the foundation could to all intents and purposes exist with its most noble objectives. After the consultation, which dealt mainly with the technical aspects of sustainable development, everyone was in agreement. When the time came to talk money, however, Quebec wanted the funding to be transferred so that it could carry out implementation or expansion of the foundation already in place in Quebec, which moreover constitutes a fund of some $45 million.

If Quebec had its fair share, it could advance still further in the area of technological development and make of itself an international showcase of cutting edge technologies, therefore stepping up its promotion of technology for sustainable development.

In the group we are currently studying, Group No. 2, there are two motions the Bloc Quebecois will support. If we look at the bill, it provides at subclause 10(4):

(4) A director is eligible to be reappointed for one or more terms not exceeding five years each.

To all intents and purposes this could go past the time limit for senators. This is another place the Prime Minister and his group will appoint a chairperson and members, who will then appoint other members. It is also up to the Prime Minister to choose to revoke certain positions. There may be lifetime appointments.

They talk of new technologies for the environment. They are running the risk that some who are there just about forever will lose the spark of the imagination and that the spark of renewal may not exist as long as one might like in these technologies.

Obviously, in view of the Liberal majority, the government will proceed with this bill. I am convinced of that. We cannot say enough that there is overlap again. The bill still gives the appearance of giving people, friends, contributors, positions that may last their lifetime. We will therefore support the two motions in Group No. 2.

We must not let a motion provided for periodic change go unmentioned. The bill would have done well to provide for a change of members on a rotational basis in order to ensure continuous renewal. Thus, limiting a term to five years is a good thing. If at some point some do not suit the other levels, they may be removed. At that point they will be in the middle or at the end of a term, even at the start of it. Motions provided that, in addition, at the end of a term, a person could remain another five years.

In fact, because the foundation will be created and will duplicate what the provinces, including Quebec, are doing and because we will have to endure that, such an amendment is very relevant. The Bloc Quebecois will support them, but we will never lose sight of the fact that we will always oppose the bill so long as it cannot be improved throughout.

[Jean-Guy Labrecque, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, awards were given out by the Comité de vigilance et d'action pour l'harmonisation des relations interculturelles en Estrie.

These awards are public recognition for achievement or exemplary commitment against racism. They recognize the action of people who have shown interest in preventing and fighting racism in our community.

This year, the award in the individual category went to Jean-Guy Labrecque, an electrician and a very committed volunteer in his parish. He won this award for his work in his community to integrate groups of immigrants from the former Yugoslavia and Burundi.

In many instances, he had personal contact with these people and helped them integrate. His initiative shows us that little things done every day contribute to preventing racism and discrimination.

On behalf of the people of the riding of Sherbrooke, I offer my warmest congratulations—

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first off, let us say that Bill C-4 provides for the establishment of a foundation, so we should oppose it right from the start.

Why should we oppose it? Because the Bloc Quebecois has certain concerns about the creation of foundations. We have already had experience with the millennium scholarships foundation, which involves an area under the jurisdiction of a province, Quebec.

Obviously the points of concern and the Bloc's position relate primarily to the division of jurisdictions. Quebec already has foundations for environmental action.

The matter of concentration of power in a foundation is also of some concern. There will be an opportunity to develop this a little more later.

The definition of the expressions is also another matter. The bill refers to “eligible project” and “criteria of eligibility”. There was a national issue table on the environment and there are fairly substantial inequalities in this regard.

As concerns Motion No. 1, subclause 18(1) talks of meeting the eligibility criteria it sets out. As I was saying earlier, subclause 18(1) is not necessarily very clear about work or criteria.

Even though the government's intentions in establishing a foundation are noble, Quebec already has foundations for the environment, so it is understandable that our intention is to avoid a duplication of efforts.

When it comes to the environment intentions are always noble, but we wonder about the process. Right now we can see that there will again be duplication. We have no details on eligible projects and on criteria of eligibility. At this point we are still in the dark, which means that there will certainly be an abuse of power, given the provisions of the bill.

For all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister will appoint seven members to the foundation who in turn will appoint eight other members. The Prime Minister will again be able to appoint people. As the auditor general often pointed out in his reports and recommendations, those appointed to various foundations and organizations should first have the required qualifications, instead of being close friends.

Let us look at Motion No. 6, which deals with subclause 18(1). It proposes the following wording for that clause:

18(1) The Foundation, the Governor in Council and a provincial minister responsible for the environment may, by unanimous consent, establish criteria of eligibility to be met by the eligible recipients who carry on or will carry on eligible projects primarily in the province of that minister.

This was one of the first concerns that I expressed to the House: duplication and up to a point interference.

Things should be clear. Even though the foundation's ultimate goal is a noble one, provincial foundations including those in Quebec also have major environmental concerns. In order to avoid duplication it is obvious that ideally the provinces should have the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can decide on fundamental measures regarding the environment.

I submitted a number of motions to the committee in that regard. Some members of the committee told me that such changes would be too substantial. These changes would not have substantially affected the noble objectives relating to the environment. However, from an operational point of view, these changes were obviously major ones. The changes proposed in the amendments did respect jurisdictions and sought to avoid duplication.

When a government reaches the point where it collects way too much tax, given its mandates and responsibilities it always ends up intruding on something. The foundations are a prime example of that.

Under the bill the government is prepared to invest over $110 million. Again, this is not enough. At one point during the consultation process it was said that an investment of close to $1.3 billion was required for new technologies and sustainable development so as to fight greenhouse gases.

I believe, therefore, that the amendment contained in Motion No. 6 concerning subclause 18(1) is relevant, helps respect jurisdictions, and will enable us to prevent duplication so that the priorities of the provinces and of Quebec will be better served. The foundation's objectives, I repeat and will continue to repeat, are noble ones. There is money available, but people are already working hard in these areas. They have the expertise and the know-how to identify their priorities.

Obviously we agree with the motions in Group No. 1, that is Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10. Motion No. 10 moved by the member for South Shore also meets with our approval because during a meeting of the committee we moved a similar motion telling the government that the foundation would have to put in place screening mechanisms.

If the federal government puts large amounts into intentions—obviously there is even applied research—and only into intentions, there is a strong risk that money will be spent in sectors or on studies that will go nowhere.

What is needed is some screening within the foundation with respect to eligible projects, criteria and results. It goes without saying that this is important and we also support this motion.

The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the establishment of this foundation because it does not respect jurisdictions. It does not prevent duplication and it perhaps does not respect other priorities. It is very vague in terms of eligible projects and criteria, with the result that directions are not clear. In addition, people will be appointed to this foundation who also do not know what direction they will head in, but who will know very soon when the Prime Minister has had a word with them.

We will therefore be supporting Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-4, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 with the following: b ) meets any criteria of eligibility established under section 18.1; and”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new clause:

“18.1 The Foundation, the Governor in Council and a provincial minister responsible for the environment may, by unanimous consent, establish criteria of eligibility to be met by the eligible recipients who carry on or will carry on eligible projects primarily in the province of that minister.”

[Natural Resources, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us if these energy issues will be discussed by one of the sectorial negotiating groups on the free trade area of the Americas? If so, is the trip made by the two Canadian ministers to Washington in preparation for the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas as regards energy issues?

[Natural Resources, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, talks on an agreement dealing specifically with the various forms of energy should normally include discussions on oil and natural gas.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure us that drinking water will be excluded from any talks on a possible energy agreement?

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment, and the new Speaker on his election. I am sure you will show fairness and impartiality in your work.

This is my first time speaking in the 37th parliament. I would have liked to rise before, but I was unfortunately gagged during the debate on Bill C-2. I wanted to speak on behalf of my constituents from Sherbrooke, but unfortunately I was unable to do so.

I would also like to salute my constituents and to thank them for the trust they put in me last November. I know many members talked about their majority when they rose for the first time and I will limit my comments to the fact that I increased mine 11 times. Figures should be interpreted when they are most favourable.

The bill before us today had been introduced before parliament was dissolved. It was then know as Bill C-46. The new Bill C-4 aims at establishing a foundation to fund sustainable development technology. Incidentally, the word foundation is reminiscent of the sad chapter of the millennium fund.

At the beginning of this session, it is difficult to see in what direction the government is aiming. Of course, the throne speech and its promises could provide interesting leads. We realize that all that can be found in that document looks like déjà-vu.

In fact, the legislative program looks the same as what it was before the election was called. Just consider the legislation concerning young offenders and the employment insurance program. Even with regard to Bill C-3, a minister's assistant said only the cover page was changed. That is a nice program. Even the Cabinet remained unchanged. The old federal reflexes of interfering in everything and anything are likely to carry on.

Let us put things briefly in context. Bill C-4, formerly Bill C-46, sponsored by the Minister of Natural Resources, would create a corporation, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. The objects and purposes of that foundation would be to provide funding for projects to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues.

The establishment of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology is one of the initiatives that the federal government announced in its February 2000 budget to promote environmentally desirable technologies and practices. The foundation would operate as a not for profit organization. It would consist of a chairperson, six directors and eight members, some of them appointed by the government.

The foundation would have to table in parliament an annual report of its activities. The foundation would also have to administer a sustainable development technology fund, which would be provided with an initial amount of $100 million.

According to the backgrounder entitled “Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology”, which was released by the government when the bill was introduced, the foundation would provide funding in two dominant areas: new climate-friendly technologies that hold the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and technologies to address clean air issues. This undertaking is not as clear in the bill, however.

The funding would be for specific projects. In order to benefit the maximum number of innovative sources, the foundation would accept proposals from existing and new collaborative arrangements among technology developers, suppliers and users, universities, not-for-profit organizations, and organizations such as industrial associations and research institutes. Small and medium size enterprises would be strongly encouraged to participate and lead projects supported by the foundation.

The foundation's activities would complement other government programs encouraging technological innovation, such as the Technology Early Action Measures component of the Climate Change Action Fund, and Technology Partnerships Canada in the case of environmental technologies.

The creation of a funding agency responsible for promoting the development of ecological technologies was recommended by the Technology Issues Table. In its December 10, 1999, report on the development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Technology Issues Table recommended the creation of a fund to develop climate change technologies in order to encourage the development of target technologies with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas effects and stimulate international sales.

The technology issues table called for an initial investment of $20 million annually, to be increased to $200 million annually starting in the fifth year. It also recommended that 50% of the funding come from federal sources, 25% from provincial sources and 25% from private sources, although it felt that this could vary from one project to another.

Noting that one of the major challenges of innovation is the initial introduction of new technologies and new services in the market, the issue table also recommended the creation of a climate change technology demonstration program that would offset some portion of the financial risks involved in early domestic commercialization of greenhouse gas mitigation technologies.

According to the issue, this option should ramp up from $60 million per annum for year one to $300 million per annum for year five. The federal government should provide, on a portfolio basis, up to 30% of the investment, with the remainder originating from provincial and industry sources. The federal component would be repayable.

In this context the government decided in its budget 2000 to create the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, which would support both development and demonstration activities but would not limit itself to climate change technologies.

Instead, it would fund various projects aimed at promoting technologies that contribute to sustainable development. Thus, this is a category of much larger projects.

While the government said it intended to put the emphasis on the funding of new technologies relating to climate change and clean air, the bill does not reflect this priority. It simply deals with the funding of sustainable development technologies, particularly those that are aimed at bringing solutions to climate change and air pollution issues.

Under the definition of “eligible project” in clause 2, the bill does not give express priority to the latter type of projects. Therefore, it might be up to the foundation alone to determine, under clause 19, what types of projects relating to sustainable development it would be prepared to fund.

It is important to note that the definition of eligible recipient in clause 2 refers to an entity that meets the criteria of eligibility established in any agreement entered into between the government and the foundation. It is not clearly indicated if this power, whose concrete aspects are not defined anywhere in the bill, could be used by the government to restrict the definition of “eligible recipient” to those claimants that carry on specific types of projects, thus influencing or restricting the foundation's funding decisions.

In other words, could the government and the foundation agree on eligibility criteria that would impact on what is an eligible project? It would be appropriate to get some clarification on that point, particularly since the government said that the foundation will not be an agent of Her Majesty.

The round table on technologies recommended initial funding of $80 million for the two phases of the projects, that is $20 million for development and $60 million for demonstration. It also recommended that this amount be increased to $500 million after five years, or $200 million for development projects and $300 million for demonstration projects.

Under the bill, the foundation would get an initial amount of $100 million to support development and demonstration projects. Now, since the foundation's mandate goes beyond the financing of technologies linked to climate change, one could come to the conclusion that the financing provided is insufficient, at least for the initial period.

I would also like to talk about some Liberal commitments regarding the environment. I would like to remind the House of some promises made by the Liberals during the last election campaign and contained in the third edition of the red book. However, the events of last week have shown the real usefulness of such documents. They do not seem to stand the test of time, since the authors of the promises contained in the red book voted against a motion containing one of those promises word for word.

Here are some of those promises which are directly linked to the subject matter of today's debate. Again, these are promises made by the Liberal government. They are the following:

(1) A new Liberal government will help the private sector by maintaining R&D tax credits that are already among the most generous in the world, and by working to commercialise discoveries made in government and university labs.

(2) A new Liberal government will act to significantly improve air quality for all Canadians. We will make special efforts to clean-up the air of our cities, where the population and the pollutants are most highly concentrated.

(3) A new Liberal government will continue to support the development of cleaner engines and fuels, and we will strengthen emissions standards for vehicles. We will greatly reduce sulphur in diesel fuel.

(4) A new Liberal government will attack the problem on several fronts under our Action Plan on Climate Change. We will promote increase energy efficiency in industry and in the transportation system. We will fund the development of new energy technologies, such as fuel cells, and help farmers to reduce agricultural emissions through improved farming methods.

Those are promises still. I continue:

We will increase Canada's use of renewable energy, such as electricity from wind and ethanol from biomass. We will encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient products by providing information and setting high product standards.

That makes a lot of promises. In the throne speech, the government essentially repeated the same things. It said, for instance.

As part of its efforts to promote global sustainable development, the Government will ensure that Canada does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will work with its provincial and territorial partners to implement the recently announced first national business plan on climate change.

I am not going to comment on these statements and promises one by one. A number of them, however, were already known. For instance, the action plan on climate change was announced last October 6.

In the 1997 and 1999 throne speeches, the Liberals announced that they would make the environment one of their priorities, that they would address the matter of climate changes and commit to promoting sustainable development on an international scale. Yet the budget allocated to the environment has done nothing but decrease since 1994-95.

How then can the Liberals be believed? We have no choice but to conclude that there is a lot of difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. For example, Environment Canada announced several months ago that it was going to call for tenders for the design of an import-export policy for PCB contaminated waste. This was made necessary by budget cuts at Environment Canada. As a result of these cuts, the private sector was entrusted with the mandate of designing policies on the import and export of hazardous waste. Really now.

I have, nonetheless, retained a few words from the vocabulary used in the promises and the throne speech: “on several fronts”, “provincial and territorial partners”.

Several fronts suggests a shotgun approach, in all directions and none at the same time. I presume that the government has good intentions and is acting in good faith. However, what does such concern hide? We saw the government move on several fronts in the case of the millennium scholarships and other initiatives in the education area, but its partners are given very little consideration. The federal government always acts as if it was the holder of absolute truth.

Let us now turn briefly to what the environment and sustainable development commissioner said. If the federal government really wants to take the path of sustainable development, it should start by examining its own operations to identify the areas it could improve before telling people that they should consume more ecological and energy efficient products. In his report for the year 2000, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said:

Since 1990, the federal government has made commitments to Canadians that it would green its operations. Yet, a decade later, there is a lack of rudimentary information about government's vast operations, the costs of which are likely more than $400 million annually for water, energy and waste disposal. We found that the government does not have complete and accurate data on the annual cost of running its buildings and on the environmental impacts of its operations.

When compared to Liberal commitments, this statement by the commissioner reveals that what is probably lacking the most at the federal level is concerted action. After the fiasco of the heating bill visibility operation we see clearly that the government does not have a long term vision.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not underline the recent findings of the auditor general on various appointments. The establishment of a foundation necessarily implies the appointment of a board of directors. I hope that the ministers who will make the appointments will base their decision more on the competence of the candidates than on their political allegiance.

Another point is the fact that Canada clearly will not fulfil its Kyoto commitment. Not only does Canada not appear to be on the way to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but it actually appears to be increasing them.

In the February edition of Le Monde diplomatique , it is reported that Canada is part of group of countries called the umbrella group. Reference is made to the November 2000 conference held in The Hague, which ended in failure due to these countries' intransigence.

These countries are attached to loopholes such as the unlimited emission rights instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and insist on taking forests into account in the determination of efforts made by each country. Organizations have already denounced the hypocrisy of Canada, which is hoping to boost its reactor sales by trying to include nuclear energy among clean tools of economic development.

At the Vancouver environment and natural resources ministers conference, Ottawa tried to address only public awareness measures and investment projects in less energy consuming technologies. And yet, if the trend holds, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada could be 35% above what they should be.

We must therefore conclude from these examples that what Canada is lacking is the firm political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Resorting to its age old strategy of invading provincial jurisdictions rather than developing a joint strategy, Canada will not be able to meet its international commitments.

The establishment of foundations and other similar initiatives will only ease the Canadian government's conscience without leading to any tangible result.

Would this be a new hobby aiming at shrinking the provincial role? Quebec does not need anybody's advice. As Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to say:

One way to offset the attraction of separatism is to put time, energy and huge amounts of money at the service of federal nationalism.

No doubt, the environment will be the next area to be invaded by the federal government to try and shrink Quebec's role even more. After the Canadian millennium scholarships, education, the health minister's plans for a family medicine program, the new federal hobby may well be the environment.

In this respect, the bill under consideration, which establishes a foundation to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, appears to belong to the Canadian government's continued effort to have its way in many spheres of human action. What will the foundation do? How much money will it have at its disposal? The news release announcing the bill states:

The new Foundation will administer the Sustainable Development Technology Fund for the development and demonstration of new technologies, in particular, those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

We are told as well that the foundation will have a budget of $100 million. How will the federal government reconcile the many efforts being made in the area of climate change and sustainable development? How will the money allocated for this foundation differ from the climate change action fund? Part of this fund is intended for cost effective technological projects promoting a reduction in greenhouse gases.

The Liberals have a long tradition of unfulfilled promises with respect to the environment. More specifically, in the area of greenhouse gases, not only is Canada not sufficiently reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, it is significantly increasing them. Rather than making a serious commitment to reduce them, Canada is now one of the group of countries that is looking more for loopholes in the Kyoto protocol than it is for sustainable ways to reduce emissions.

In this regard Quebec's energy choices are exemplary, and Quebec is resolutely committed to reducing greenhouse gases.

Will this foundation support initiatives in the nuclear sector? We could think so, since Canada has lobbied vigorously to have nuclear energy considered green.

In our election platform we noted that an investment of $1.5 billion was required for the environment. The federal government must attack this problem seriously. Had it not implemented the policy of $125 for heating oil, for example, it could have saved $1.3 billion. Will the foundation's $100 million be enough? Only the future will tell.

The Bloc Quebecois of course would support this bill because our party is concerned about the environment.

We would support the bill if it were amended on six factors giving rise to concern and opposition from the Bloc.

The first one is the division of powers. We see this as an underhanded way for the federal government to intrude once again in provincial jurisdiction.

The second one is that Quebec already has such a foundation. The creation of this foundation comes as a surprise, since a $45 million action fund for sustainable development already exists in Quebec.

Instead of creating this foundation, the federal government should transfer the money to Quebec's agencies, which are already working along the lines recommended by the table and which have a good understanding of the issue.

Concentration of powers is another factor. Practically all the directors of the foundation are appointed by the governor in council. Under the bill, the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, appoints seven of the fifteen directors. However, the eight other directors are appointed by the very members appointed by the governor in council.

Finally, the chairperson and all directors may be removed for cause by the governor in council. This method of appointment seems to be a roundabout way of allowing the federal government to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction and to have control over an organization that is not accountable to parliament.

The fact that the governor in council has the authority to enter into agreements with the foundation to set eligibility criteria regarding eligible recipients shows that this organization would not really operate at arm's length from the federal government. The latter would, in a roundabout way, have a say as to how funding is granted to eligible recipients.

Another factor is the dangerous definitions contained in the bill. For example, since the term “eligible project” deals with technologies that include, but are not restricted to, those to address climate change and air quality issues, this could allow funding for nuclear technology projects justified as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which would be contrary to the commitments made by the federal government in Kyoto.

The fifth factor to consider is the disparity between the recommendations from the table and the bill. The foundation would be responsible for managing funds to support technologies to promote sustainable development. It is certainly a lofty goal, but it is rather vague when used in a bill.

The establishment of such a foundation would not reflect the main recommendation of the table which was to allocate money for the development of technologies to reduce greenhouses gas emissions and to stimulate international sales.

The bill does not reflect the general direction of the recommendations of the technology table, mainly because it does not include a goal oriented implementation strategy. Also, the bill does not promote co-operation between the federal government, the provinces and industry and does not contain a qualitative definition of the benefits and factors contributing to our quality of live for each of the options.

The bill only focuses on two of the eight options brought forward by the technology table.

The last factor has to do with the level of funding. We are concerned about the small amount allocated to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In 1998, the Anderson strategy had a budget totalling $1.3 billion over a period of five years to fight this problem.

On December 10, 1998, the table released a report on the development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in which it recommended that a fund be set up, with an initial contribution of $80 million for both stages, development and demonstration, and that the funding be increased to $500 million after five years.

Since the terms of reference of the foundation are not limited to technologies addressing climate change, the funding for the initial phase is not enough.

In conclusion, I would say that, through its environmental policy, the Bloc Quebecois does support positive and proactive actions, provided they take into account the fact that Quebec is an important stakeholder.

Therefore, we will be moving amendments at committee stage.