Jean-Yves Roy

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-57. In my view, the amendment in this bill is designed to exempt backers from liability vis-à-vis nuclear energy.

Paragraph 46(3) of the act says:

--any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

This will be replaced by:

—any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

What this amendment would do is exempt backers from liability in the nuclear sector. This assumes that companies which make loans to those who manage nuclear facilities will no longer be liable. They will be able to make loans without subsequently assuming liability for any contamination. When these sites are abandoned, they will have to be decontaminated in any event. We know that this will have to be done at most sites.

We are saying that backers will not be held liable. A company could declare bankruptcy tomorrow morning, disappear, and responsibility would revert to the government. The government would have to assume responsibility for decontaminating the sites in question. There have already been many problems in the past, including with sites which had gas facilities. The companies disappeared, and today the government has to take over responsibility.

In my riding, we had a recent, very obvious example. It involved copper dust contamination. A company in Murdochville, in my riding, has just closed down. This company had used the Mont-Louis and Gaspé ports. Right now, these two ports are owned by Transport Canada; they were extensively contaminated by copper dust. Today, people are calling on the government to decontaminate these facilities.

This amendment is proposing that we tell backers “Go ahead. Make a loan to the company. No matter its responsibility, no matter what it will do. In the end, if it goes out of business, the government will take on the responsibility”. I cannot agree with this proposal; I find it very dangerous and very risky.

Quebec, however, has been asking companies for years now to assume their responsibilities vis-à-vis the environment. The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified; we even think that this protocol does not go far enough. We must get it into our heads that the environment is very important; the future of the planet depends on it. It is as simple as that.

I will tell you what has been said by the present natural resources minister, who has also been the fisheries minister. Concerning this bill, he said the exact same thing I just said, except that he is the one introducing and supporting this amendment. It explains very clearly what the bill is all about, and it shows that the liabilities of investors in the nuclear industry will be removed. The minister said, and I will quote his press release:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise, said Minister Dhaliwal. This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

The minister said “At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner“. For a minister to say such things, it means he is wondering. Is this the way it will happen in the future?

Really, we can say this today, but what will really happen five, ten, or twenty years from now? In 20 or 30 years, when nuclear plants are decommissioned, who will be held responsible? The investors? The amendment says they will not. Will it be corporations that will probably have disappeared in the meantime?

Ontario Hydro and the New Brunswick utility are government corporations, but, if they are privatized, as could happen in Ontario, they will become private corporations.

We are very well aware that a private business can disappear from one day to the next and can therefore deny its responsibilities, totally abandon its responsibilities, particularly if it is a foreign company, that is one whose financing is mainly from out of the country. These people can just take off and forget all the problems they may have created and left behind them.

We are experiencing a similar situation in the riding of Matapédia—Matane, and just next to it, in Gaspé, with the events in Murdochville.

I personally am a member of the fisheries committee. What I would like to say concerning this amendment is that we should apply the same principle to it that we apply to fisheries. In fact, where nuclear energy is concerned, we should apply what is termed the precautionary principle, that is the principle applied to endangered species in the fisheries field.

If the government really wanted to apply what is called the precautionary principle, the amendment we have before us would never have been introduced. Hon. members will of course have understood that I am totally opposed to the amendment we have before us.

I would go beyond that, however, because this is an amendment that opens a very significant door to the creation of companies producing new types of energy. As for the investments that have been made in recent years into nuclear energy, I would point out that this is not a type of energy that can be considered clean. It produces such a lot of waste, and that waste cannot be processed at the present time. It must be stored and stockpiled.

At this time, there is even a proposal to import and try to process waste from other countries. We know that development of a real technology for handing nuclear waste will take years. We know that attempts have been made in the past. The Americans dumped drums of heavy water into the Pacific, and into the Atlantic as well. This constitutes a very considerable environmental risk.

I come from a region that is a little bit different. It was in the forefront when hydroelectric power was being produced 50 years ago. It is a region that is in the forefront today as far as new types of energy are concerned, because we have wind generators in two locations. We produce wind energy at Saint-Ulric and Cap-Chat, where the facilities have been operating very well for some years.

The first wind generator was set up in the Magdalen Islands 25 years ago. People may not remember this. Hydro-Québec had done some experiments. Another one was set up in Cap-Chat. One cannot say that they were a success, because the technology was not developed at the time.

However, since then, the technology has developed. It has evolved to the point where there are two wind energy production plants today in my riding, and there will soon be another one in the neighbouring riding.

We, in the region, were aware at the time—and we still are—since, as far as possible and with the means available to us, we developed clean energy.

Even today, with the Université du Québec à Rimouski, we are quite far ahead in the development of new energies, such as wind energy, among others.

The federal government recently announced a totally minor investment in the wind energy sector, compared to what it is investing and has invested in fossil energies, as well as in nuclear energy.

This is a minor investment, because it will obviously not promote the development of new technology. It will allow for one thing: to get technology somewhere else and implement it here.

However, this does not really create jobs. It does not really create a synergy to support the development of new energies.

I would simply like to remind the House some numbers. My colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes gave them earlier, but it is very important to take note.

Since 1970, direct federal grants to the oil industry—which is one of the most polluting industries and which produces the most greenhouse gas, given the automobiles and the oil that is used—totalled $66.272 billion.

Let us imagine that the federal government had invested $66 billion in the production of new energies and the development of technologies allowing us to have new energies. Where would we be at? We would probably be the most advanced country in the world in terms of new energies.

Today, it might be easier to adopt the Kyoto protocol if, in the past, we had invested as much in new energies as we did in oil. This is very obvious. It is very difficult for people to understand. I do not know anyone in this House who has ever had a billion dollars in his pockets. I do not think anyone has, except perhaps a few people, but they are keeping quiet about it.

I find it very hard to imagine an amount of $66.272 billion. It is a lot of money. This means that huge amounts of money were invested in oil, for the benefit of two provinces: in western Canada, Alberta with the tar sands, and in the east, Newfoundland, with the Hibernia project. It is simple. It is essentially these two provinces that benefited from these $66.272 billion.

Let us also not forget the infamous energy policy proposed by the Trudeau government for oil. Remember its impact in Quebec. We must not forget the Borden Line, which almost killed all businesses in the Montreal region when the issue of oil and the development of the Arthabaska tar sands came up.

I also want to point out that, as regards nuclear energy, we are talking about $6 billion. Again, it is very difficult to imagine such an amount. What does $6 billion mean in concrete terms to people? It is very hard to imagine, but it is a lot of money. These are the amounts that have been invested since 1970.

If we had invested only $6 billion in new energies since 1970, instead of the $66 billion to which I was referring earlier and which were invested in the oil industry, we would be much further ahead in the production of new energies.

I am always going back to the amendment before us. This provision removes the responsibility of businesses, of major banks in the area of nuclear energy. Today, we would not have this problem. Perhaps it would not be necessary to have the amendment now before us if we had invested enough in the production of new energies.

As regards this issue, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a plan. I just toured the region I come from with the Bloc Quebecois leader. We made a very concrete proposal. This concerns only what I just said about new energies, the public's responsibility and the responsibilities of lending institutions and businesses when it comes to using any source of energy, including metals, mines and the environment.

I remind members that we have a similar problem with the closing of the Murdochville mine, where one company has developed copper for 50 years and polluted the area and the environment for the same amount of time. I can assure the House that it will be extremely difficult today to force this company to decontaminate the environment and the river that it contributed significantly to pollute as well as the Bay of Gaspe.

I therefore cannot support such an amendment, which tsays that we are taking the responsibilities away from the lending companies. I certainly hope that those companies lending money in the nuclear energy area will have a certain responsibility. They should be held accountable if there were disaster or a leak in a nuclear plant.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. If the federal government, which as we know is investing almost $12 billion in Hibernia, were now to invest $700 million for the development of new energy sources, like wind energy for example, what immediate consequences would that have? It would create 15,000 jobs in an area like mine. We already have an expertise in this field. Moreover, this is an area where the unemployment rate is close to 27 or 28%, and that has been the case for years because our area has been abandoned by the government, as we know, as all the so-called remote areas have been in the country.

With a small investment of $700 million, we could create 15,000 jobs in the new energy sector. We are talking about wind energy. It is not enough to go get the technology somewhere else. It is not enough to install two or three wind turbines on a hill. This is not what we are suggesting.

We are proposing developing our own technology, which will continue to evolve and grow. We could create 15,000 jobs as early as tomorrow simply by investing $700 million. Imagine, we have invested $60 billion for oil and gas in this country. We are only asking for a $700 million investment, which would allow us to improve our environmental record. This would improve our record when it comes to greenhouse gases.

What are we being told? “We will invest a small amount over a much longer period, over five or ten years”. However, this is almost nothing. What does $25 or 30 million over five years represent in this field? It is a pittance compared to the $60 billion that I referred to earlier. It is a very small amount compared to the $6 billion invested in nuclear energy since 1970.

Who benefited from nuclear energy? A few provinces. My colleague talked about this earlier, there are three provinces that really benefited from nuclear energy.

In Quebec, we developed hydroelectricity. This is a clean, renewable source of energy. We developed hydroelectricity solely with funds from Quebec and from Quebecers. There were no federal subsidies to develop hydroelectricity, yet in Ontario and elsewhere in the country, the government spent a fortune. Six billion dollars to develop nuclear energy. Six billion dollars, which benefited the other provinces. Why were Ontarians not asked to pay for the development of their nuclear energy, the way we did in Quebec, instead of subsidizing them? In my opinion, it is because the federal government has always been biased.

The federal government has always made sure that Quebec makes do without any help. We continue to pay for the other provinces. When it comes to the Kyoto protocol, it is the same thing.

What is being proposed today, is that after having contributed $60 billion to develop the oil and gas energy, and $6 billion to develop nuclear energy, there are problems with signing the Kyoto protocol. The government is realizing that it will not be able to meet the objectives. Why will we not be able to meet the objectives? Because we have spent a fortune developing oil instead of investing sufficient money to develop new energy sources.

Let us take a practical example like developing an electric vehicle. How much money has the government put into developing a new battery for a vehicle that would run on electricity?

Right now, Quebec is losing its only vehicle assembly plant, the GM plant in Boisbriand. Were the federal government a little more conscious of its responsibilities, it could invest in the technology for building an electric vehicle. It would be important, since it is a promising technology. We know that all manufacturers are working on that. We—and I am referring to the federal government here—are doing nothing in that area.

We are having problems with ratifying Kyoto because we did not make any investments in the past. Let us look to the future, take our responsibilities and make massive investments in new energies. Let us at least try to correct the mistakes made in the past. We must ensure a better future for our children. The government created this situation; it should fix it.

Knowing that the government has invested $6 billion of public funds in nuclear energy, I think that it has largely contributed in creating the problem. The same goes for petroleum energy.

When one invests $60 billion in an energy that one knows is not clean and not renewable, one has to take responsibility, and this responsibility belongs to the government.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, which, as we know, replaces Bill C-42, introduced in great haste by the government following the events of September 11.

Members will recall that one of the main issues raised by the Bloc Quebecois at that time dealt with the famous controlled access military zones, which raised a serious moral problem for all those who gave careful thought to the implications of such a measure.

First, we will obviously oppose the bill, because the amendments brought by the government are what I would call, in essence, minor amendments.

Finally, the government has reintroduced a bill that could have very serious implications for the freedoms of our fellow citizens. However, it can be said that the government gave in to the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois by tightening the criteria for the creation of controlled access military zones.

If we accomplished anything, we accomplished that. Besides, Bill C-42 was withdrawn. However, and I insist on the word however, the minister remains the only person empowered to designate controlled access military zones.

What is the significance of this? It means that one man and one man only can designate controlled access zones. He is the one who decides to create them.

We know what is currently going on in this government. We realize that ministers may sometimes be more or less reliable. I hope that the new minister is more reliable than his predecessor. Nevertheless, to give a minister sole responsibility for designating controlled access military zones is to give him a very important power.

This issue also concerns all the provinces. For example, the authorization of the Quebec government is still not required to establish a controlled access military zone on its territory. And the same goes for the other provinces.

The federal government is giving itself a power without asking the authorization of the provinces to establish controlled access military zones. It can do so even without telling the provinces. Indeed, there is no requirement to obtain the approval of the provincial governments.

There is also the fact that the “reasonably necessary” criterion to determine the size of these zones has not really changed. It is still very much a discretionary thing. What it means is that, once again, the decision may be made by a single person. It can be made unilaterally, without any consultation whatsoever.

Another thing that could affect people's lives is the fact that people who suffer a prejudice because of the designation of a military zone, or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation, still cannot take legal action for loss, damage or injury.

The designation of a controlled access military zone means that absolute power is given over a specific zone and that people may be prejudiced following the establishment of such a zone.

This means that people could be prevented from going home. It means that they could be prevented from leaving these zones. It could even mean that, because of the measures taken, people could see their property damaged, yet have no recourse.

This is a very important provision in the bill before us, as it was in the previous legislation. Indeed, these people would not have any recourse against the government. They would not have the right to turn around and ask the government to compensate them. This is very important. This provision should be changed. The bill should be amended in this regard. People who could suffer a prejudice because of the establishment of controlled access military zones should at least have a chance to be compensated when such zones are designated.

We saw what can happen with these types of zones. The name was not the same at the Quebec summit, but the fact remains that some people were adversely affected. Some business owners could not serve their regular clientele and suffered losses because of that.

Of course, the government then offered to compensate these people. However, there is nothing about that in the current bill. That is something that should be changed because it is very important.

Bill C-42 also referred to such things as international relations, defence or national security as grounds for creating military security zones, but these are dropped from Bill C-55. One can therefore assume that all grounds are now acceptable. A controlled access military zone could be created because there is fear of an attack or of some other event. I think that this is very risky and very dangerous because of the discretionary power conferred upon the minister, upon one single person, under the bill before us.

This bill still contains provisions allowing various ministers, and in one case in particular public officials, to make interim orders. This is somewhat related to what I just said. The bill allows ministers or public officials to make interim orders, which would practically create an event.

That is also very dangerous. An amendment is required. The bill needs to be reviewed in light of what I have just said in order to make it less dangerous for members of the public.

Two minor changes were made, however. They deal with the tabling of orders in parliament within 15 days, and reducing from 90 days to 45 the period during which interim orders are in force without cabinet approval. I would call these minor changes because, basically, these controlled access military zones should not be created without first consulting cabinet and even parliament.

I also note that there is no provision for a prior check by the Clerk of the Privy Council for consistency with the charter and the enabling legislation. We are obviously referring to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is very important.

Bill C-55 would also allow two other stakeholders to obtain information about passengers directly from air carriers and operators of reservation systems. They are the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS. This also threatens the freedom of individual citizens.

This information may be provided for two reasons: first, if there are imminent threats against transportation security and, second, to identify individuals for whom a warrant has been issued. Recently, we saw in the newspapers that all the groups which defend individual rights and freedoms were completely opposed to the provisions of this bill regarding information which may be supplied to the RCMP or CSIS.

There is one somewhat positive note concerning the information collected by the RCMP and CSIS. This information could be destroyed within seven days of being obtained or received.

Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We know that this bill amends a number of federal statutes. As people will recall, one result was the establishment of the infamous $24 airport tax. In a place such as the Magdalen Islands, where flying is just about the only means of transportation in winter, people who are already paying a fortune for a plane ticket—it now costs $1,200 to fly from the Magdalen Islands to Montreal—are being slapped with another $24 on a return airfare. People are telling us that this will have quite a negative impact on tourism in the Magdalen Islands.

Fundamentally, when we look at the situation of all of the airports, that is where the events of September 11 have led us. The federal government has come up with measures that I would describe as excessive. The bill, as it has been introduced, is an excessive measure, given the events and what has happened since.

I believe that we have just about all of the elements and laws necessary to protect ourselves. All that was needed was to enforce them and use them properly. This bill grants a minister powers that can only be described as excessive. It gives excessive powers to the cabinet, to the police and to airport staff. Airlines are being required to use excessive powers, to hand over personal information on their clients and to provide information about their passengers. All of this violates the charter of rights and freedoms.

We are supposed to be living in a democratic country. With this bill before us, I am not sure that we will continue to be living in a democratic country. This bill could lead to abuses.

When it comes to establishing controlled access military zones, this power is given to one person, who in recent days has demonstrated that he is not necessarily reliable. I am not referring to the new minister, but the former one had problems.

It is very dangerous to give this power to one single person. We run the risk of denying citizens their freedoms, in an unjustifiable manner.

I wanted to come back to what I was saying about the Magdalen Islands, but since I do not have the time, I would simply like to say that, fundamentally, the bill before us threatens the rights and freedoms of citizens and it is not needed.

[Matane River Salmon, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in mid-July, an innovative project will provide visitors at Montreal's Biodôme with a virtual link to the Matane River salmon.

Through the use of three cameras connected through fibre optics, visitors will be able to witness the migration of Atlantic salmon live from the Matane River observation post, three times a day, from mid-July to early September.

Visitors will also be able to put questions to naturalists, who will also act as interpreters. Congratulations to Bernard Beaudin, the chief executive officer of the Fondation de la faune du Québec, for this wonderful initiative.

Tourisme Québec, the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, the Lower St. Lawrence region, the Fédération québécoise pour le saumon atlantique, the local development centre, the Société d'aide au développement and the Cegep of the Matane region are active partners in this initiative.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the Société de gestion de la rivière Matane, its director general, Réal Soucy, and its president, Daniel Blanchard.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and my colleague from Churchill. I see that both of them do not agree with the bill before us.

My question will be brief, but it would deserve a more elaborate answer. Unfortunately, we will not have the time for this. Concerning the famous controlled access military zones, I consider that this issue is very ill defined in the bill. It gives huge power to the government machinery as well as to people who will have to enforce the provisions of this legislation.

I would like my colleague to further explain what a controlled access military zone means, in practical terms, and what the designation of this type of zone in a critical situation means for the people who will have to deal with this.

[Wind Energy, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what hurts the Gaspé is the government making the same announcement two and even three times, rather than announcing a real program to develop the wind industry in the region.

What is the government waiting for to show as much interest in the wind industry in the Gaspé as it has shown in oil in Newfoundland?

[Wind Energy, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what we have just heard from the member for Beauce—

[Wind Energy, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 2001, the member for Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok announced funding of $2.2 million towards the development of the wind industry in the Gaspé.

Yesterday, the member for Beauce announced another $2.2 million for the same industry.

Are we to understand from these two announcements, including the one made yesterday by the member for Beauce, that Economic Development Canada's investment in Gaspé's wind industry has gone up to $4.4 million?

[Employment Insurance, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government should consider EI insurance, because it is in fact insurance paid for by workers to cover job loss.

By requiring people who have been permanently laid off to have exhausted their severance pay before they are paid benefits, is the government not turning employment insurance into a social program of last resort?

[Employment Insurance, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, workers in Murdochville will not receive their EI benefits until they have exhausted their severance pay.

Does the government not think that it is time to review the EI system and stop considering severance pay as regular pay for workers permanently laid off by a company that is shutting down?

[Fisheries, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council wrote in its recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, “Predation by seals is now the dominant source of exploitation on groundfish in the Gulf”.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us why he is hesitating to bow to the inevitable and announce an increase in the seal quota?