Antoine Dubé

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is there more than ever, probably because he has also heard about a possible cabinet shuffle. He wants to show that he is present and working hard.

Just kidding. Even if we do not always agree with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, even if we sometimes criticize his sense of humour or his attacks on members of the Bloc Quebecois, I will give him this little gift because the Liberal Party might not do so and I want him to know that, according to what I have heard, he works very hard for his constituents. That is what I am told.

Finally, I let my enthusiasm get the better of me but I would have liked a little Christmas gift for the Davie workers. The measures announced by the Minister of Industry come very late. Can you imagine a minister that establishes a program but forgets to announce it? There are two possible explanations: either the program is bad or the minister hopes that people will not take advantage of it. If the program goes unannounced, then there will be few applicants.

Unfortunately, given the long delay, I want to offer this last thought to the employees at Davie Industries who will spend the holidays under the threat of a possible shutdown, since the company is now under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act.

I know that demagogues in my region have said that this was to be expected. St. John's, which had the largest shipyard in Canada, and was a competitor of Davie, is also closed. Marystown Shipyard Limited, which is in the Minister of Industry's riding, is still closed. Workers in the other shipyard in his riding, in St. John's barely have enough work.

I will conclude by telling my constituents that I will continue to work very hard on the Davie project. Therefore, all topics are important for me. This one is particularly so because it involves the future of our young people and of many generations to come.

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

—a hot potato, as the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles just said, it means that the issue ought to be given serious consideration.

This is an issue that must be dealt with in a way that will reassure the public so that they have confidence. To get their confidence there should be an ongoing and real public consultation with the various stakeholders in the field, not only the scientists, not only the experts, but also the people in the field.

I realize that we must not always say “not in my backyard”, but the fact remains that this must be done somewhere and in appropriate areas. Why should an area accept nuclear waste coming from another area and another country?

I know there are not enough hon. members here this morning and they are not quite awake. Perhaps they are too tired to criticize me and tell me “Come on, why are you saying that? The bill does not say that we will agree to nuclear waste imports”.

Yes, but an issue such as this one is somewhat like the bills on public security that were passed or tabled here in the House, where the government was saying “Yes, but rest assured, this is not written in the bill”. The fact is we are not reassured. We would prefer it were written that there will be no such imports. Why not do so?

I did not take part in the committee's proceedings but I reviewed the amendments put forward by Bloc Quebecois members who wanted to make sure, among other things, that we had better definitions, and rightly so.

The suggestions to correct one of the flaws were aimed at making sure that the authority was not given to one minister or to the cabinet because, on such an important public issue, specific projects or the subject matter should to be reviewed by the House of Commons on a regular basis, and be audited, not just by anyone, but by someone under the Auditor General of Canada.

As the member for Jonquière mentioned earlier, every proposed amendment was turned down one after the other in committee and here at report stage. Members who used to be on the other side, but who have to tow the party line when a bill is put forward by a minister, voted down these amendments because the government bill was supposedly perfect.

I am making an aside here to remind the House that we have been here for eight years now. This is probably the last speech I will make before the end of the 2001. I said it on several occasions, but I believe it bears reminding.

We saw the way the government dealt with anti-terrorism and public security bills after September 11. We realize that the authority is concentrated in the hands of a single minister, or cabinet at times which is made up of members of parliament appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints the Governor General, the senators when the time comes to send members to the other House. He is responsible for appointing people to high offices. Some say that proportionally, Canada is not the United States, and the powers of the Prime Minister of Canada are actually greater than those of the President of the United States.

In the United States, through a veto, both Houses can prevent the president from exercising certain powers such as sending troops abroad or using supplementary funds. He needs to introduce a specific bill or program in both houses of congress. This is not the case here.

In Canada, when we want to buy time, we refer bills to the other place. However, seeing as Liberal Party members also sit in its caucus, they receive instructions from the Prime Minister—naturally, they also share with him what is going on in the other place—saying, “Take your time on that bill”, or the opposite, “Hurry up and adopt that bill”.

An example of this was the bill on organized crime, which has yet to be passed officially by the other place. But they rush through bills on public security, or Bill C-7 on young offenders. Now with Christmas around the corner, during the last sitting of the session before the holidays, we are studying Bill C-27. No doubt an important issue, but the bill is seriously flawed

The Prime Minister or the caucus will have the ability to appoint all of the members of the board for this new waste management organization that will oversee nuclear waste. Who will he appoint? People in whom he has complete trust, or to whom he feels indebted. I know that the word patronage is not necessarily parliamentary, but if the shoe fits, then I do not see how I could avoid the term. So I will use it. This opens the door to patronage.

Under these circumstances, with an issue as important as nuclear waste, how can we expect the public to believe that things will not be decided by the powers that be, the cabinet, the Prime Minister, or the minister responsible?

But it so happens that the minister could be appointed elsewhere, according to the rumour that a cabinet shuffle may take place before Christmas. Therefore, he must please the Prime Minister to make sure that he gets promoted.

The Minister of Finance used to have a degree of independence, but this year, contrary to what he did in the past, he came up with a budget to please the Prime Minister. So much so—it was funny, but it really was not—that a Canadian Alliance member said “Let the real author of that budget rise”, and both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance got up at the same time.

This shows beyond any doubt that, this time, this is not a Minister of Finance's budget, but mostly a Prime Minister's budget. After eight years in office, one would have thought that the Prime Minister would become reasonable, would be less power-hungry, but no. Now, he wants to assume powers which, under our parliamentary system, are normally held by the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am digressing a bit, but I have always recognized your spirit of tolerance and your flexibility. Knowing that this is my last speech in 2001, you are giving me a small Christmas present by allowing me to say what I think, even though this sometimes goes beyond the scope of the bill.

I know that the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik is very jealous of me. Indeed, because of the way the current Canadian parliamentary system works, he will not be able to say what he really thinks, since he has a small hope of being appointed parliamentary secretary, or perhaps minister some day. He hopes that the Prime Minister will forget that he once sat as a Conservative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclearfuel waste.

One needs not be an expert to know that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of in just any regular dump. Today we have a better knowledge of nuclear waste than we did in the 1970s. It was already a concern and the subject of discussions at the time and it still is today.

A few weeks ago the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie reminded us of the Marrakesh summit. One key recommendation of this summit was that we should consider prohibiting the use of nuclear energy in the future. Since the 1970s, and even before that, a number of countries, including Canada, have been using nuclear power to generate electricity.

Today we can say with some pride that the Quebec government undertook a number of projects, of which Gentilly was one and LaPrade another, but it soon abandoned this approach because of deep concerns and because scientists and experts had many objections. Quebec decided to generate electricity from water power instead of nuclear power.

We can consider ourselves lucky since Quebec produces only 3% of Canadian nuclear waste. When we, as members of the Bloc, say that we want to defend Quebec's interests, I think that, in this particular case, we are pleased that it is just 3%. We have a better understanding of the attitude shown by the Liberal government, that has a great number of representatives from Ontario in the House, when we know that that province produces 90% of nuclear waste.

The member for Brome—Missisquoi cannot say it but I know he totally supports the position of the Bloc Quebecois. As a Quebecer, he is just as proud as we are that the Government of Quebec—be it under the Parti Quebecois or under the Quebec Liberal Party of which his brother is a member—made the choice not to proceed any further with nuclear energy in that province.

Now we have before us a bill on this issue. We supported the principle of the bill at second reading because we were sufficiently in favour of the bill to vote for it at that stage. Nuclear waste is a critical issue as it is hazardous in all respects, including health and safety. The Seaborn panel worked for 10 years on the subject and our critics on this issue raised some objections.

I know the member for Jonquière worked on this for a long time, even until the end, with the member for Sherbrooke. I know that the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie would have liked to have his say also as environment critic. Unfortunately, the government decided that this issue fell under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources exclusively and not under the purview of the Department of the Environment.

Therefore, the Standing Committee on the Environment could not be consulted on this. I would say that this is one of the main shortcomings of the bill. It would be the sole responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources, which would work with the waste management organizations from the various provinces, and those who have a stake in the industry would be asked to assess and criticize what is being done in this regard. Yesterday, the member for Sherbrooke said that it was like letting the fox watch the hen house, and I agree with him.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Generally, when we deal with a bill or a legislative measure, we should ensure that an audit or an evaluation is done by a third party, independent people or another department. We should ensure that people or officials do not evaluate themselves. This makes no sense.

When we talk about the nuclear issue we should avoid slipping into demagogy and frightening everyone. However, a number of incidents have occurred throughout the world. Some countries have even recognized that they are incapable of properly managing their nuclear waste. Russia, for example, and the countries of the former Soviet Union are desperately trying to get rid of their nuclear waste: first, because its disposal is very expensive; second, because it is technically difficult to manage; and third, because Russia has abundantly used this source of energy.

I remember the objection of the member for Jonquière. We know all the energy she is capable of showing when she disagrees or agrees with something. To avoid this situation, she launched an initiative in her riding regarding new nuclear waste dumps in the world. She was right.

If the same thing had occurred in my riding of Lévis, members can be sure that I would have done the same thing. I believe that any member having to deal with this kind of situation in his or her own riding would have protested and I believe that everyone would have understood. However, the member for Jonquière reacted with fierceness and no later than yesterday she talked about this issue. I congratulate her for having done so. I also congratulate the member for Sherbrooke who, as usual, dealt with the issue in a very serious manner.

I have heard the member for Rosemont-Petite-Patrie say on occasion that he wanted to talk about this. He could only talk about it in the House since the issue was not dealt with by the Standing Committee on Environment. In his speech, which I listened to yesterday, as well as in the one he made earlier today, he pointed to this issue, which, I believe, reflects another important point. It is the place, in fact, the “lack of place” provided to the public on this issue.

We should not consider this issue simply in a technical or a scientific perspective especially since it seems that the more we move forward on this issue the more we give in to uncertainty. When a scientist trying to reassure us about this issue give us the impression that he is stressed, as though he had in his hands an issue—

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

The hon. member used the word “séparatiste”. He can use any word he wants, but I would like to ask this member a question.

Tax points—and I am not referring to cash transfers—were introduced because, as far back as Duplessis, the provinces did not agree with the federal invasion of provincial jurisdictions, more specifically in health care, education and social assistance.

The provinces realized that the federal government was using its constitutional spending power to do it, and they demanded compensation in the form of tax points and cash transfers.

Let me point out a specific aspect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Does he find it normal that, in 1961, personal income tax generated $2.130 billion in federal revenues, and $89.580 billion in 2000? This is 40 times higher than 40 years ago. This was condemned by all the Canadian provinces, not just by Quebec separatists, not only by the sovereignists, but also all good federalists in Canada.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has dealt with something I am interested in, tax point transfers. He said that members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois do not talk about that. But he forgot to mention—

[Middle East, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the violence in the Middle East is a threat not only to the balance in that region, but worldwide.

Could the government not use its preferential position as a signatory to a free trade agreement with Israel to intervene with its trade partner to advance some lasting solutions to the conflict?

[Middle East, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Middle East requires more than just wishful thinking. It requires extraordinary efforts by the various international stakeholders in order to find a lasting solution to a constantly deteriorating situation.

Given the current unprecedented escalation of violence in the Middle East, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to take advantage of Canada's status as head of the task force on Palestinian refugees to bring influence to bear on the Palestinian Authority in order to get it to assume its full responsibilities for promoting peace in that region?

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Saint John. Her speeches are always delivered with such enthusiasm.

I wish to congratulate her on her ongoing interest and perseverance in the area of shipbuilding. I share her concerns. Unfortunately, the Saint John shipyards are closed, and Davie Industries is in dire financial straits, having been put under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act. I share her ongoing concerns in this area.

After many representations to him, the Minister of Industry has decided to do a little something. It was a step in the right direction, but very little money was involved.

I would like to ask the hon. member for some comments. She referred to the very low wages of Chinese and Korean shipyard workers. How can it be, then, that Canadian shipbuilders I will not take the time to list—but if the hon. member has time she can look them all up—who are aware of the situation, who are aware of the need for an improved Canadian fleet, are getting their ships built in China or Korea while thousands of shipyard workers here are unemployed?

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine that I should have allowed the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot to speak. I will continue using the same logic as the member who has just spoken. According to him, if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot is such a great forecaster, he ought to quit politics and work at getting rich. Applying that same logic to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, does this mean that, as he was in the financial field before, he was such a poor forecaster that he had to leave that field and take a seat in the House of commons, with the associated drop in income?

Last year, he was probably one of the people calling for a raise in MPs' salaries. I would like his comments on this.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

If he has concerns and was not able, as he said, to convince the committee of the validity of his arguments, then there is only one thing left to do. We in the Bloc Quebecois brought forward amendments at committee after having voted in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading. However, since the amendments that we moved and that were important to us were not adopted by the majority, neither in committee nor here at report stage, as we will see during the vote, I suggest that he vote against the bill, or abstain. This is generally not viewed as a good thing, but if he is worried about the Prime Minister's reaction, I would invite him to consider the alternative.

He also stated that this bill allows for the use of less intrusive means in terms of people's privacy. He is referring to electronic surveillance. It is fairly intrusive. We are talking about wiretapping citizens based merely on the suspicion of the Attorney General of Canada, and not a judge.

We would love to believe in the minister's objectivity, as attorney general, but she is nevertheless an elected member from the Liberal Party. She is therefore not immune to certain attempts to influence her. I do not mean to question her motives, but personally, I do not feel any reassurance regarding the interpretation that a future attorney general might have regarding people in my riding who would have the same concerns and worries, and there are some.

Members of the House received numerous e-mails and phone calls and met with people who are concerned for all kinds of reasons, sometimes unjustified, but how are they to know this when it is left to the potentially very broad interpretation of the attorney general and those who advise her? We still do not know to whom this refers. It is not specified in the bills.

If a citizen is not satisfied with the interpretation made for these famous certificates for the so-called protection of secrets, he can go before a judge, where he might win after numerous legal proceedings and considerable legal costs, because we all know how much it costs to hire a lawyer or notary. There is one sitting right behind me. It could end up costing quite a bit for a citizen who is wrongfully accused.

However, I must say that while lawyers cost a lot, my colleague sitting behind me is the cheapest you will find. I will not advertise any more for the member for Chambly. Given the importance of this bill, I think that there has been enough humour as it is.

The hon. member over there admits, and I find some reassurance in the fact that there are some over there who admit it, that this clause of the bill is an unfortunate limitation of rights. He also says that no one on that side is happy dealing with this bill and would have preferred to deal with the budget, and so on.

As far as Motion No. 6 is concerned, as the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm said yesterday, the amendments proposed by colleagues on this side of the House have a certain merit. However, limiting secrecy to 15 years instead of permanently, as before, has, since yesterday, since we started looking at the bill at the report stage, placed us in a situation where we have to deal only with the lesser of two evils. We have the hon. member speaking of the least intrusive means of infringing on people's private lives, while the opposition is trying to find the least bad approach. The best ones have not necessarily been looked at.

Between the least bad and the worst, we are going to vote in favour of the least bad. There will be a period of 15 years during which we will not know exactly what the situation is because these people will not be allowed to disclose.

As I said yesterday, the events of September 11 were terrible, but at the same time, this bill, as was confirmed this morning, would allow us to ratify two international treaties that have been stalled for years.

Prior to September 11, the attorney general was in no hurry to ratify international agreements on terrorism. After that date, she has taken a certain amount of time to examine the situation, but once she gets an idea in her head it is full steam ahead.

This morning what she told us was that other countries had moved faster on this than we have. What came across in her answer this morning was an issue of pride, of seeing who would be the fastest now. She has realized that we have not been as fast as certain other countries and she wants to be in the fast group.

We should take all the time required to examine a bill that violates the fundamental freedoms of individuals and to allow the public to express its views, but what is happening is the opposite. Once the steamroller gets going, time is limited to the minimum under the standing orders; not a minimum plus a quarter of an hour or plus two hours, but a strict minimum, because this is urgent. The Minister of Justice is in a hurry and that is how it is going to be.

The other day a member asked me a question about the organized crime legislation. This bill has already been passed. It took time, but in the end, the Bloc Quebecois and the other parties took a unanimous stand after some 160 deaths. But there have been no deaths from terrorism in Canada yet, and this has been dragging on for a long time. What else are we to make of it except that the minister's pride is involved?