Thierry St-Cyr

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that thought is frightening, as was the reality of a majority Liberal government in power for so many years, when greenhouse gas emissions exploded.

That worries me a great deal but what is even more worrisome is the fact that, no matter who forms the government, Canada's energy policy will be founded on the interests of the majority. The Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that he supports the oil sands industry, that the industry must be developed, that we would be crazy to pass on it, that we must go for it, and full steam ahead.

Nothing changes. It is natural for a country to defend and promote the interests of the majority. For that reason Quebeckers should also have their own country so that they can have a say on the world stage.

At the most recent climate change conference, the Quebec minister of the environment asked to address the conference for 30 seconds. He was asking for a mere 30 seconds. That is rather humiliating for one of the world's states that has the best record for greenhouse gas emissions. He was refused. That was too much for the federal government. If Quebec were a country like Norway, Finland or Sweden, it would not have been forced to beg for 30 seconds. It could have remained at the conference for the entire week and spoken on our behalf on the world stage.

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment.

I would say that this bill is something like an apple pie. No one can be against apple pie: the only thing is, apple pie does not solve all our problems. I say this because we are talking about standardizing the framework for monitoring environmental legislation and imposing harsher fines on polluters. This is all very good, and I think everyone will be in favour of it.

That being said, it is clearly not enough because, even though the potential fines provided for in the bill would be staggering, if there is no one to enforce the law, if there are not enough resources in Environment Canada and not enough commitment from the government to implement these laws, then quite simply no one will be fined, and so the deterrent effect that is sought will simply not be there.

On this subject, I would direct your attention to the report by Hélène Buzzetti in Le Devoir of March 5, 2009, that officials in the environment department had admitted that since 2000 there have been an average of 3 to 14 charges relating to enforcement of environmental legislation by the federal government, one to five convictions per year, and the maximum fine of $1 million has been imposed only once in 20 years. We think this is inadequate, even though the principle of the bill is most praiseworthy.

This bill entirely avoids the most glaring and most urgent environmental problem on the planet, namely, global warming and the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

I would like to offer a little scientific reminder of what is happening to illustrate the difference between greenhouse gases and pollution. I remember hearing at the beginning of this government’s mandate, when we were studying the budget in the Standing Committee on Finance, that pollution would be tackled in order to reduce greenhouse gases. It must be clear that these are two different things. Once again, here we have a bill that aims to raise environmental standards and make them uniform—here this refers to pollution—but does not specifically target the greenhouse gas issue.

What is the difference? Pollutants are substances that are harmful to the environment, to human beings—in many cases—or to ecosystems. This includes oil spills, emissions of toxic products of all kinds and land development that is detrimental to an ecosystem's functioning. Wetlands are a good example; they are environments with very high biodiversity but where the ecological balance is also very fragile. There is a need for intervention on this issue.

Now, one might think that this bill is going in this direction. That is not entirely false, but at the same time—I repeat—this is only a way to paint things green. There must also be a real will to apply and enforce the law. However, all of this does not relate to the issue of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

When I heard the Conservatives confuse greenhouse gases with pollutants, I was a bit surprised because carbon dioxide, CO₂, is not a pollutant. It occurs naturally in the environment and has no effect on the human body, provided it does not displace oxygen. Nothing changes. CO₂ enters the lungs and comes out just the same.

The problem with greenhouse gases, as their name indicates, is that they reflect the sun’s rays back into the atmosphere, where the warmth is captured, like in a greenhouse. We are not talking about a pollutant here but an inert gas. There are other gases, too, but the main one is CO₂, which is not affected by the legislation on toxic substances, spills, or any other legislation. It is not regulated because it is not a pollutant as such.

The Bloc Québécois has been asking for years for a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because, even if they are not really toxic, they can have a dramatic impact on our planet, on humanity, and on the citizens of Quebec and Canada. We need to take action and take it quickly. This is the greatest environmental issue of the day, and there is nothing in the bill before us to tackle it.

Canada is divided on this. Both the Liberals and Conservatives want Canada to be an oil-producer, an energy superpower when it comes to non-renewable fossil fuels. This primarily benefits the western provinces and some maritime provinces. In Quebec, there is a strong consensus instead that we should proceed with the Kyoto protocol and base our economy on non-renewable, non-polluting resources that do not emit greenhouse gases. We could speculate for a long time on how attached Quebeckers are to the environment versus people in the other provinces, but I think their contrasting positions are based more on some very concrete realities.

The Prime Minister obviously does not believe in the Kyoto protocol or even really in global warming. His counterpart, the Liberal opposition leader, argues in favour of the tar sands and is a firm believer in them. Why? Because it is in Canada’s economic interest, at least in the short term, in my opinion. If everyone in Quebec thinks we should follow the Kyoto protocol instead and abandon the other path, it is because this is in Quebec’s economic interest. Why? There is one very simple reason: Quebec produces no oil and very few hydrocarbons. Quebec is made poorer by oil and our dependence on it.

Some federalist parties have the temerity to come to Quebec and say that Alberta’s tar sands are making us richer. I fail to see how Quebec can be enriched by purchasing oil from outside its boundaries. I would make the following comparison. When someone goes to the gas station to fill up, he is made poorer not richer. Every time a barrel of oil enters Quebec, money flows in the other direction out of Quebec. It is in Quebeckers' economic interest to reduce our dependence on oil.

This is not just an economic issue. For a long time, the main political parties in Quebec, both the Parti Québécois and the Liberal Party which forms the present government—I want to be clear that I am referring to the Liberal Party of Quebec, for the Liberal Party of Canada wants to promote and develop the tar sands—have formed a strong consensus on complying with the Kyoto protocol. Basically, this means we have to set an absolute greenhouse gas reduction target relative to 1990 levels.

There is a mechanism whereby a corporation, province, state or territory that exceeds its objective, performs better than its assigned target, can sell emissions credits to an institution, organization, state, province or territory that has not met its targets. This trading principle derives from two things. First, this is a global problem. Reducing a tonne of GHG in Chapais or Djibouti changes nothing, since the objective is one less tonne of GHG on our planet. Global reduction is the objective. On the other hand, reductions may be less expensive in some places than in others, and so this mechanism is put in place.

When the Kyoto protocol was devised, 1990 was set as the base year. The Conservatives and Liberals want to change the base year, to move it ahead to 2003 or 2006. Why? This may seem very technical to those watching us. This is often the misfortune of the political issues we have to debate, for often they are not very sexy or entertaining. What can it change if the year on which our calculations are based is 2003 or 2006 rather than 1990? It changes everything. It is no longer the same concept at all.

Since 1990 industry in Quebec, particularly the manufacturing industry, has made substantial efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile in the rest of Canada the emissions rate has simply exploded, reaching levels never seen in any other western country. That increase occurred under the Liberals, who did nothing to reduce greenhouse gases, and it has continued under the Conservatives. Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that it will probably continue, whether the Conservatives remain or are replaced by the Liberals. There is a consensus in Canada on developing the oil industry. The two parties have even supported a budget in which the main so-called environmental measures consist in helping out the oil companies, which you will agree are in great need of help. You will of course have noted the sarcasm in my words.

By setting the base year at 2003 or 2006, as the government would do, we wipe out all of the efforts that have been made by Quebec industry. At the same time, we wipe out all the economic potential and any possibility for these companies such as Alcan, which are asking the federal government to set up a system based on the Kyoto protocol with 1990 as the base year, to sell greenhouse gas emissions credits and to be somehow compensated for the efforts they have made to reduce their emissions.

Conversely, by moving from 1990 to 2006, we also wipe out the entire explosion of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the industrial sectors that made no effort, and in fact even increased their pollution levels.

The oil sands sector is the perfect example. Since the first efforts in any process of industrial rationalization are always the easiest, instead of it being polluter-pay, it is polluter-paid. Those who have made the least effort since 1990 will be economically rewarded now while those who have done their part, most of them in Quebec, the only province that has made absolute reductions in greenhouse gases, will be punished.

The government also wants to move from an absolute greenhouse gas reduction to a relative one in terms of intensity. What does this mean and what difference does it make? Are these not just highly technical terms that are the stock in trade of environmental specialists, and lack much effect? Absolutely not, they are not trifling in any way. On the contrary, they are very important.

The absolute targets set out in the Kyoto protocol say that there is a limit to what this planet can withstand, and that there is no connection between that limit and the economy. The planet cannot withstand more greenhouse gas emissions because the economy is in better shape. There is no connection between the two. Mankind has to reduce emissions, we must go from x tonnes to y tonnes, and we must not exceed that. Period. On the other hand, the government's approach, with Liberal backing, is intensity targets. They say we must not product more than x tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per production unit. This means that a province, a company, or some other entity, with twice as much oil sands development, for instance, would be authorized to pollute twice as much.

Once again, a greater effort is being demanded of the manufacturing sector, when it has been experiencing economic difficulties and has the same or even lower production volume, than of industrial sectors that are in full development.

Clearly, there is a conflict between two visions that are not guided, at least not solely, by environmental issues. They are closely tied to economic interests, which is also the case for many of the decisions made by every other company in the world. The problem that Quebeckers are dealing with is that they are and always will be in the minority in this Parliament. The Conservative Party, with the support of the Liberal Party and the NDP, have ensured that a shrinking proportion of members of Parliament will be here representing Quebec. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois members, who make up two-thirds of the members from Quebec, are still here to take a stand for Quebeckers. Unfortunately, Quebeckers are getting less and less representation in the other parties, and their voices are being drowned out in caucuses that care only about the Canadian majority's interests. Not because they are mean-spirited or because they dislike Quebeckers, but because the national parties are bound to defend the interests of the majority of citizens.

There is no way for Quebeckers to escape this situation other than by taking control of their own fate and becoming the majority in their own country. Once we become a sovereign country, we will develop our own environment and green energy policy, one that considers our future and the planet we will be leaving to our children, an environment and energy policy that is in line with our economic and development interests.

The Bloc Québécois is also working hard to help Quebeckers understand that it is impossible to advance Quebec's interests on a regular basis in the federal Parliament. The only solution available to Quebeckers in the medium term is to become a sovereign country and to make our own decisions according to our own values and our own interests.

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie's presentation. I was interested in what he had to say about, among other things, the fact that when it comes to the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, Quebec is being penalized by this government's laissez-faire policy, which was also the previous government's policy. They all forget about Quebec. From an environmental standpoint, nothing is happening, and from an economic standpoint, that is a problem for Quebec.

Like me, my colleague is a sovereignist, and I would like to know if he thinks that a sovereign Quebec could come up with a policy that meets its own needs. The Conservatives are protecting Alberta for economic reasons, so could a sovereign Quebec do the same by promoting its own economic interests and helping the planet at the same time?

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today on this issue.

It was said that email is becoming more and more common in our societies. I am an enthusiast myself. It has the advantage of enabling us to do several things at once. While listening to the debate, for instance, I had my computer open in front of me. It makes it possible to communicate with people sometimes at the far ends of the earth, whom I have not seen for a long time. It is also possible to communicate with people who are very close by, such as colleagues in the House or even the lobby coordinator, Marie-Ève. I want to salute her on behalf of all Bloc Québécois members because she does a fantastic job, like all the people who work around us and support us in our tasks.

When viewers watch us on television, they see us proceeding efficiently and think we are all very good and know what to do. The reality is that we would often be lost without the coordinators in the lobby and all the parliamentary personnel who help us. I want to thank them very much for the work they do.

Having made this aside, I want to comment on BillC-27, Electronic Commerce Protection Act. Spam is of ever greater concern in our economies and that is due in large part to the fact that email is free. I want to assure the House right away that I would not dream of changing that. However, individuals who want to send unsolicited documents, mail or advertising can easily do so. They can send them to very large numbers of people at no additional cost. Spam is not very interesting and just a tiny proportion of people pay any attention to it. The volume is so immense, though, that only a small percentage is enough to get some potentially attractive customers, while the user would have to pay for traditional methods of promotion.

If someone wants to send an advertisement to every house by regular mail, there are no laws against it, apart from certain municipal regulations. This is not a problem, though, because people rarely take advantage of the situation to send millions of people in North America a letter announcing some scheme to get millions of dollars out of a particular country, thereby making everyone rich. There is no critical mass to justify doing this by traditional mail.

But in the case of email, there is that sort of critical mass. We have to sort through our email to separate the wheat from the chaff. We also have to have software with anti-spam and anti-phishing systems to identify such messages. These automated systems sometimes make mistakes, with the result that we sometimes do not receive legitimate email messages. They drown in a sea of spam.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is high time we had anti-spam legislation. The task force on spam, which was created in 2004, has been calling for legislation for more than four years.

Four years is an eternity when it comes to computer technology. Most western countries have already passed anti-spam legislation. Canada has unfortunately not yet done so, and we are happy to be able to study this bill. A number of members have pointed out that it is not perfect and that they still have concerns. We share the view that this bill can certainly be improved, but we will support it in principle so that it is referred to committee.

When the issue of prevention and punishment on the Internet comes up, in connection with spam, we often hear the argument that, because the Internet is involved, there is no control—

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister still refuses to act and continues to defend this partisan appointment, claiming that he cannot do anything about it. Yet sections 153(1) (a) and 186 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act clearly indicate that the governor in council can remove a member of the board.

Will the minister admit that he is refusing to assume his responsibilities simply because he wants to continue to protect a Conservative crony?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is hiding behind the IRB to justify the partisan appointment of Pharès Pierre. Yet before the committee, the Auditor General said, “The decision whether or not to appoint a candidate is always the prerogative of the minister and the governor in council.”

The minister therefore could have rejected, and still could reject, this shameful appointment. Pharès Pierre's swearing in is set for June 2. Will the minister take action, assume his responsibilities and remove Pharès Pierre?

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here in this House to express our support for the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on which I sit with great interest. This fifth report states:

In the opinion of the Committee, the government should declare a moratorium on deportations to Sri Lanka until a safe environment exists there, and that it should expedite any family class sponsorships and refugee claims from the danger zone.

It is important that I begin my speech by reading that proposal, because, after all, we are debating the adoption of this committee report. I was not surprised at the argument put forward by the parliamentary secretary—a man for whom I have a great deal of respect—because I had already heard it during our debate in committee, but I am still a bit confused when I hear him say that we do not need this motion because there is no problem and people are not sent back to places where their lives would be in danger. The government is wondering what the problem is.

So what is the risk to the government in supporting a motion that says that we will not deport people to danger zones where their lives would be threatened? The government says that a procedure is already in place. In fact, there is already a procedure to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. It is good to have a procedure, but it is administered by human beings who can make mistakes. When we see the images on TV and hear about what people in Sri Lanka are going through, we cannot afford to make mistakes.

The purpose of the recommendation is not to give all these people permanent residence or citizenship automatically, but to declare a moratorium. We just have to say that we will be applying the precautionary principle. Sri Lanka is a hot spot in the throes of a very violent ethic conflict. It goes without saying that we do not want to risk deporting people to these danger zones when they could end up paying with their lives.

Beyond all the fine policies adopted by Parliament and all the structures put in place by the state, we are dealing with human beings. The government must drop its obsession with viewing all issues, including immigration, through the prism of a bureaucratic machine and a regulated operation. We must remember that human beings are involved in these tragedies.

Therefore, the government should not have any difficulty supporting this recommendation, especially if that is already the case, as it claims. If there is not a problem and no one is being deported, why object to formally stating that individuals who could be at risk in Sri Lanka will not be deported to dangerous areas? There is a stubborn refusal to consider the human dimension of the problem and to detach themselves from the purely bureaucratic aspect.

In this House, various political parties and successive immigration ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, often have been asked to use the special powers at their disposal to settle cases where, clearly, the machine did not do what it was supposed to and failed. We sometimes are faced with totally unacceptable situations where we should intervene.

We are not asking the government to do anything illegal. Under our laws, special powers are granted to ministers, precisely so they can intervene and counteract the shortcomings of the system. This does not mean that they reject the system. On the contrary. They are simply acknowledging that the system is managed by humans and that mistakes can be made. If the legislator has included the possibility of ministerial intervention in the legislation, it is because the legislator acknowledged that, no matter how good a system is put in place, mistakes can be made.

Here is an example, and this is not the first time I have raised it in the House. Abdelkader Belaouni is a resident of my riding and an Algerian refugee. He is diabetic and blind and has taken sanctuary in a church rectory for some years now, since January 2006 to be exact, because he is threatened with expulsion to the U.S., from where he would very likely be returned to Algeria.

This man is in an extremely difficult situation, having lost at “commissioner lotto”, a game some of my colleagues may be familiar with. When people make a refugee claim, they play “commissioner lotto”. If a toss of the dice gives them a good commissioner, they may have some chance of getting accepted, but Mr. Belaouni landed on a bad one, Laurier Thibault, who turns down 98% of applications submitted to him. Imagine going before a judge and learning that this judge finds 98% of those who appear before him guilty. One would get the impression that justice was not being served. There is an obvious problem when people end up in situations like that.

The minister has been asked to intercede, and I am asking him once again. I hope that he will do so, that he will have sufficient compassion and intelligence to recognize that the system can be imperfect and that it is not necessary to do away with it, but merely to correct errors that may crop up.

I am drawing this parallel here because it is important. The motion before us today does not say that the system is not working, that it makes no sense, that it is sending people to their death, or that it does not respect our international obligations. It merely points out that the situation in Sri Lanka is of such concern that the most basic prudence would lead us not to take the risk. People's lives are at stake. These are human beings, just like ourselves. They come from the other side of the world, as we can see on a globe. Looking at it, we can see that Sri Lanka is truly on the other side of the world, both literally and figuratively. These are human beings, people the same as all of us, who are seeking refuge here.

This would be the most humane thing to do. This motion must be passed, we must call a moratorium on deportations to Sri Lanka, until security is restored, and this matter must be given careful study. When the context has changed, we will be able to return to the usual procedure. This would reassure these people and would also enable us to say that we have a real concern for the fate of human beings who are living in extremely distressing situations.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a bit surprised to see how much the Liberals have digressed from the issue since this debate began. Of course, the Conservatives have as well, but we expected that, because they are going to vote against the Bloc Québécois motion. What is surprising is that the Liberals are going to support the motion, yet they are talking about things that have nothing to do with the issue before us today.

In the case of the member for Scarborough Centre, it is even more pathetic. He raised a point of order a bit earlier today because members were going off topic. Yet he just asked a question that has nothing to do with the motion before us.

I am going to talk about this motion, because it is crucial and very important to Quebec. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a motion adopted unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec—our National Assembly of Quebec—on March 31, 2009, not so very long ago. I will not read the entire motion, because unfortunately, I do not have time. I will just read the last paragraph.

Be it resolved that the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to treat Québec justly and equitably, by granting compensation that is comparable to that offered to Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the GST, which would represent an amount of 2.6 billion dollars for Québec.

I would like to remind this House that this unanimous resolution by the National Assembly was not proposed, defended and adopted by the Bloc Québécois alone. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services says he will not negotiate or talk with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois represents unanimous positions in Quebec.

There were two sovereignist parties that supported this resolution. There was Ms. Pauline Marois and the members of the Parti Québecois and also the member of Québec Solidaire, who know very well that sovereignty is the only solution to the ongoing constitutional wrangling. So they obviously supported it. But it was not only sovereignists—those the evil “separatists”, with for or five s's at the end, that we sometimes hear about in this House—who supported it. It is not just the sovereignists who are calling for this. There are two federalist parties—well, we are not sure what one of them stands for. There is the premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, who can definitely not be accused of being a sovereignist. He was once a member of a Conservative government. He is a good friend of Paul Desmarais and company and a strong federalist. He supported this resolution. Not only did he vote in favour of it but he supported the initiative of his then finance minister, also a federalist. Therefore, it is not a Bloc Québécois fantasy. There is clearly a consensus in Quebec.

What does this consensus say? First, we want to continue administering our own sales tax. If it must be harmonized, administration of this tax by the federal government is clearly out of the question. The opposite should prevail, as is presently the case. The federal government should allow the Government of Quebec to administer the tax, in return for appropriate compensation. That is the most logical thing to do and that is what is being done already.

Second, in the interest of equity and justice, compensation must be provided on the same basis as it has been to the other provinces. In addition, a quarter of this compensation from the federal government is paid by Quebec taxpayers. Thus, we are not to be treated any differently.

The motion before us speaks to all this. I found it unfortunate that the Conservative Party attempted, unsuccessfully, to propose an amendment to the motion that would delete the second part. This second part calls on the government to “provide $2.6 billion in compensation to Quebec for this harmonization, and that Quebec continue to administer these harmonized taxes.” This amendment would have weakened the motion, the consensus of the National Assembly and Quebec. Who moved this motion? Was it a member from Ontario, a province that will be receiving $4.6 billion in compensation, which Quebec has not received?

Was it a member from the Maritimes? Was it a member from the west? No, it was a member from Quebec who rose in this House to undermine Quebec.

It makes me sick to my stomach, as a Quebecker, to see such a thing in this House. The member could have simply toed the party line and rose in this House when it was time to vote. But, no; instead, he acted as their puppet and rose in this House to undermine Quebec.

He did the same thing that the Liberals did with the budget. Some members from Newfoundland, if I am not mistaken, or from somewhere in the Atlantic region, were permitted not to support it. They were told they could vote against the budget because their ridings were being fleeced. However, even though everyone knew that the budget was bad for Quebec, the members from Quebec had to be good little soldiers and fall in line behind the Liberal Party leader. They had to betray Quebec.

That is why I am very happy to be a member of the Bloc Québécois. At least when I come here to work and I rise in this House, I never have to betray my own people. My only loyalty is always to Quebec, and I can always be proud to be here, to stand up and have the honour to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, credit card companies are real pros when it comes to hidden fees. Technically, these fees are explained in tiny, pale grey characters on a white background on the back of the contract, but nobody actually understands them. Here is another classic example: if someone misses a—

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had many questions. As for his questions about the speech by the previous Bloc member, I am surprised that he did not take the time to ask them after his speech. He would surely have had some very appropriate and appreciated answers.

With regard to jurisdictions, it is true that the Bloc Québécois defends tooth and nail the responsibilities and jurisdictions of the Quebec government. The motion before us does not say that the federal government must meddle in the jurisdictions of Quebec, but that we must examine the issue and that legislative measures should be introduced. When these legislative measures are presented, we will ensure that they do not interfere in the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. That is what I said throughout my speech.

However, my colleague is quite right when he shows the limitations of Canadian federalism and the difficulties faced by Quebeckers in making their own decisions and their own choices because they do not control all the levers of power. He clearly demonstrated that sovereignty remains the best option for Quebec.