Marcel Gagnon

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 14th, 2001]

Unfortunately, as the member for Jonquière said, we were dreaming in technicolour.

So, with this bill as with any other bill passed by this government, we have to wonder why the opposition is there at all. It seems that the members opposite are the holders of the absolute truth. Parliamentary commissions are appointed, committees are struck and experts are invited to come to enlighten us and to answer questions. In this case, the Seaborn panel worked some 10 years on this issue. It travelled, conducted studies in Canada as well as in Europe and in the United States. It made recommendations and found, I am told, 95 problems of various kinds, thereby demonstrating the hazardous aspect of nuclear waste.

All these studies fell on deaf ears.

The government, being the only one to receive the tongues of fire the day the Holy Ghost descended and being in sole possession of the truth, decided to do as it pleases.

One recommendation, which was unanimously supported here in the House and which, I think, will be unanimously supported throughout the country, says that the management committee that will be responsible for nuclear waste should not be made up of people who have a stake in this industry. It was said that, if the management committee were made up of people from the nuclear industry itself or of people who have a stake in this industry, it would be like having the fox watch the hen house. This is a serious matter.

The member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie said that nuclear waste has an average life of 24,000 years. That is long. When people say that this bill is the way to the future, we can imagine how long the future would be should a mistake be made in this regard. As René Lévesque, my ex-boss in Quebec City, would have said, “eternity is very long, particularly the last little bit”. We are talking about 24,000 years. It means that, should a mistake be made in the management of nuclear waste, many generations to come will have to live with it.

If this government, which makes decisions on its own, did not make mistakes, or had not made any mistakes, then I would trust it. But I could mention to those listening a few mistakes, including in the field of nuclear energy, that we have to live with.

I live in Champlain, in the area known as the Mauricie, along the St. Lawrence. Over on the other side of the river is the only nuclear power plant in Quebec. It is there in the morning when I wake up and at night when I go to bed.

I had an opportunity to visit it and talk with specialists there. All of them take the dangers involved in nuclear waste management very seriously. While it is true that the benefits of nuclear energy are enormous, there are also major risks if the right precautions are not taken in managing both nuclear waste and the plant itself.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 14th, 2001]

Very kind of you, thank you for your greetings.

This morning we are discussing Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, at third reading stage. Yesterday's debate on the bill was characterized by great eloquence on the part of nearly all those who spoke. I did not have the opportunity of sitting on the parliamentary committee but yesterday we were given explanations and information on a bill that is of the greatest interest to me, given my longstanding personal interest in all things nuclear.

My colleagues, the hon. member for Jonquière among them, have shown just how important this bill is. One example is the eloquent speech by the member for Sherbrooke, in which he indicated how disappointed he was with the way the bill was turning out.

Then there is the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, whose knowledge and sense of honesty assure us that when he makes a speech he has done his research and is not just talking for the sake of talking. What he has to say will really inform his listeners. Then there was the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who showed us just how interested he is in this bill and, I think, just how disappointed he is with the turn of events.

At the second reading stage, the Bloc Quebecois indicated its agreement in principle with this bill, along with the hope that the government would be changing certain things, that the amendments suggested by the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties would be examined and accepted, the bulk of them at least.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to start the debate this morning, December 14, which is probably our last day of debate here in the House before the holidays.

Before the numbers here thin out—since I assume some will go on to other activities—I will, if I may, wish everyone a happy holiday season, a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his very interesting speech.

Since the beginning of the debate this afternoon, I have heard extremely interesting comments. This bill, which the government wants to pass too quickly, should have been discussed more thoroughly. A bill of this importance could have been improved.

Those who have spoken so far agree on one thing. They find that this bill really lacks transparency. The hon. member who just spoke mentioned that he too made suggestions and moved amendments to improve this legislation. He was not opposed to the bill. The Bloc Quebecois supported the principle underlying this legislation, but we wanted to improve it because this is a bill for the future. The management of nuclear fuel waste that will take 24,000 years to become inert or inactive is unquestionably an issue relating to the future. It is unacceptable that the government will not accept any recommendation from the opposition to improve a bill like this one. It is unacceptable and it is a disgrace.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the suggestion that he made to improve transparency for the waste management organization. It does not make sense to ask the industry to manage such dangerous waste. It is absolute nonsense. I would like to know what the hon. member recommended concerning the waste management organization.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 13th, 2001]

I too would like explanations from my colleague.

In listening to the members for Sherbrooke and Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, it appears to me that the area we are in is not child's play. We are talking about nuclear energy and nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for I do not how many hundreds of years. We are talking about consultations in which we were told that maximum safety required an independent organization to manage products.

As my colleague from Sherbrooke said, it is not the fox you ask to run the henhouse. This is a very serious matter.

I would like my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who has more experience in the House than I, to explain how the government can get around a recommendation that is certainly not political? The recommendation was not made to please the Bloc. How can the government, which claims to be responsible, reject such a recommendation when we are trying to find a long term solution?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, an examination of the amounts intended for seniors' benefits reveals that the increase in transfers simply matches the normal growth of the older population.

How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain the Minister of Finance's failure to set aside any sum for the retroactive payment of the guaranteed income supplement for the 68,000 Quebec seniors unfairly deprived of it?

Is this not irrefutable evidence that the government never intended paying the seniors back ?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government has owed them this money for eight years.

When it comes to income tax, the government has no hesitation in applying full retroactivity in order to recover money owing it.

Why then not apply the same principle when it is the one owing money to seniors? Why is the government treating seniors so unfairly?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, seniors are being treated very unfairly by the federal government, which is refusing to consider full retroactive payment for those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and who have not had it, because the process has proven inaccessible to them.

Since the supreme court permits cross-referencing of data to recover money illegally collected from employment insurance, should the government not consider making the same effort to locate the seniors to whom it owes money and give it to them, since this money belongs to them?

[Garanteed Income Supplement, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it might be nice if the minister was familiar with the program.

Does the minister acknowledge that we must give credit to unemployed people, older workers and retired people, because it is thanks to them that this government has been able to balance its budget, and it is from their pockets that this government shamefully stole money in order to reach its objectives?

[Garanteed Income Supplement, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the government's job is simply to inform the population.

Clearly the minister has not had much success with this yet, and she appears to be incapable of advocating for the poorest in our society who have a right to the guaranteed income supplement.

What is the Minister of Human Resources Development waiting for? Do the honourable thing and give these elderly people what they are entitled to.