Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Movement Of Hazardous Waste, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recently Mr. Emmett, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, mentioned that the government was negligent in applying the regulations to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste because it had only 15 inspectors for 17,000 registered shipments between Canada and the United States.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Is it not of some concern to see the government contemplating the import into Canada of plutonium, while controls over the import of hazardous waste are already virtually non existent and may be further relaxed?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I liked the beginning of my reform colleague's speech. He said we had to ensure the long term viability of the system and that it could be done while respecting the thousands of Canadian and Quebec workers who paid into the plan. I agree. He also said he found it suspicious that this act will not be audited by the Auditor General of Canada.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that. I would also ask him if he could draw a parallel between the treatment of the EI fund by the federal government and what it intends to do with the public service pension plan.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the membership of the committee.

I do not know if the hon. member comes from a riding where there are many union members, but I want to ask him how he feels about the membership of that committee, on which unions members would not truly be represented, and on which pensioners would not be represented by a majority.

I find that the membership of that committee is tantamount to the minister telling people “I will do as I have always done. I will strike committees and appoint people who are on my side through a bogus process”.

I would like to hear the hon. member on this point.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the hon. member opposite.

Currently, there is no provision concerning the surplus of over $30 billion in the funds' current accounts. With this bill, is the government trying to do exactly what it did with the surpluses accumulated in the employment insurance fund?

Does the government want to repeat what it did and use the surplus in the public service pension plan for the same purposes?

I would like to hear the hon. member opposite on this and I may then have other questions for him.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal member who spoke before me, I come from a riding 90% of which is unionized.

What gets to me in this bill is the make-up of the advisory committee. I think the management of this committee will not always be joint. Who will represent the unions on this committee? Where are the workers? Where are the former workers?

Only one person will represent the pensioners. If that means jointly with the workers, they should look again.

I would ask the member to explain her viewpoint and give her opinion on this.

[The Late Frank McGee, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues following the passing of Frank McGee, a former member of parliament and federal Conservative minister who died on Sunday, April 4, at the age of 73.

Mr. McGee was born in Ottawa on March 3, 1926 and studied journalism at Carleton College, as the university was called in those days. He enlisted at the age of 17 and served during World War II from 1943 to 1945.

In the fifties Mr. McGee settled in Toronto. He worked for a while at Sears as a purchasing manager.

His political career began in 1957 when he was elected for the first time in the riding of York—Scarborough, which was essentially a rural constituency and the third largest riding in the country. Politics was probably in his blood because his grandfathers were both federal members of parliament.

Mr. McGee was re-elected in 1958 with a majority of 35,377 votes, then the largest majority in a federal election. He represented the riding of York—Scarborough again in 1962, in a minority government, and was appointed minister.

Mr. McGee's greatest contribution as a parliamentarian was undoubtedly the private member's bill he tabled in 1960 to abolish the death penalty. Private member's bills rarely become law in Canada, but that bill led to amendments to the Criminal Code that abolished the death penalty for all but a few crimes. The only people still facing the death penalty were those guilty of homicide when the victim was either a police officer or a prison guard.

Mr. McGee later joined the Toronto Star as a reporter specializing in political issues, and he hosted a television series called The Sixties on the CBC network.

Later on, he worked in public relations. He was appointed to the Security Intelligence Review Committee on which he sat from 1984 to 1989. Appointed judge at Toronto's citizenship court in 1990, he held this position until 1996.

On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues I wish to offer my most sincere condolences to his family, his relatives and his many friends.

[Earth Day, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to signal Earth Day today.

First celebrated on April 22, 1970, this day has today become the most important popular environmental event worldwide.

In over 100 countries, Earth Day helps promote projects to provide an awareness of the issues involved in the environment in conjunction with communities, organizations, business and individuals.

I encourage people to find out about ways of using energy, natural resources and chemicals in order to transform used material into new and to sign the reuse pledge campaign.

Let us use this day to help make people aware that the resources of this planet are very valuable so we may keep them and pass on a healthy environment to our children and to generations to come.

By doing just one thing for the environment on Earth Day, we will be contributing to world change.

[Plutonium Imports, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of such a decision by the government, should the Prime Minister not announce without delay that this important issue of importing plutonium will be debated in the House?

[Plutonium Imports, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard that the government categorically rejected the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding the idea of burning MOX fuel.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the government ignore the work of a House committee and take the decision to import plutonium without even consulting the public?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-403, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (lead sinkers and lead jigs).

I must remind this House that Bill C-32 on environmental protection is at report stage. The process at committee stage was quite long and hard in order to not add further amendments to the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois voted against Bill C-32, which contains many gaps in the recognition of provincial jurisdiction, in the poor translation of the bill's clauses from English into French and by the lack of consistency in the amendments brought in committee.

To get back to Bill C-403, I think the intent of the member for Simcoe—Grey is legitimate and laudable, because one of the main problems involving lead sinkers and jigs is the poisoning of the loons, black ducks, brent geese, snow geese and other waterfowl that swallow them.

Most of the lead sinkers and jigs will end up one day or another in the fishing areas, along shore lines, rocky areas and docks on lakes, ponds or streams. These fishing areas are often used for reproduction and feeding by the waterfowl.

An estimated 500 tonnes of this fishing tackle accumulates annually in Canadian waters. According to various studies, between 17% and 56% of loons die from the effects of lead fishing tackle.

Lead sinkers and jigs are often lost when fishing lines become tangled and break. These objects sink and when birds swallow them they often become very sick and sometimes die. Swallowing just one of these objects is enough to kill an aquatic bird.

The problem is as follows. When a bird ingests lead sinkers and jigs, they can remain stuck in its gizzard, a muscular stomach which enables it to break down food. In doing so, the gizzard also breaks down fishing tackle, decomposing it into tiny particles. The acid present in the gizzard dissolves these particles and the lead then passes into the bird's bloodstream. The dissolved lead is then carried throughout the organism and ends up in bones and vital organs.

When it decomposes in the environment, lead can contaminate soil and water. For example, on certain skeet shooting ranges, the soil contains enough lead to be considered dangerous waste. Decades may pass before the lead shot and weights decompose in the environment.

A speedy remedy is therefore necessary against this practice that is harmful to aquatic fauna.

Is it helpful to recall that approximately 50 to 60 million birds are potential targets for this kind of contamination? Lead sinkers and jigs are used exclusively by anglers. These are the users that must be targeted if this hazard is to be eliminated. A well-orchestrated public awareness campaign could be effective in resolving part of the problem.

Possible solutions could include persuading fishers to switch to other materials, such as tin, bismuth, steel, or a special mastic. These materials are not toxic to birds. In addition, lead poisoning of loons and other aquatic fowl must be reduced by cutting back on the volume of lead tackle sold and used. One solution would be to introduce regulations that would simultaneously increase the availability, sale and use of non-toxic substitutes.

Provincial, territorial or federal legislation is becoming essential in order to gradually eliminate small lead sinkers and jigs of 500 grams or less for sports fishing.

The introduction of public education programs could be considered to publicize non-toxic substitutes and suggest methods of recovering, eliminating or recycling lead products.

It is true that the substitutes now available cost more, but they would increase total average annual fishing costs by 1% to 2% at most.

Very tough and effective regulations are needed to eliminate this problem of lead contaminating our waterways. Since 1997, federal regulations have been in force in national reserves and parks. If these regulations are to be extended to other sectors, provincial governments have a responsibility to try to limit the presence of lead in waterways.

The federal government must respect provincial jurisdictions so as not to again interfere in matters that do not concern it. We are obviously not questioning the legitimacy of the bill introduced by the member for Simcoe—Grey, but we are not convinced that including it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the best approach.

We in the Bloc Quebecois think that there are various solutions to this threat to fauna that has gone on for too long.