Antoine Dubé

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party touched on something which, to my knowledge, has not been raised so far. He referred to the absence of information regarding Iraq's collaboration with terrorist groups. This continues to be an important point. He is right about this, because what is new with respect to the situation since 1998 is largely what happened on September 11 of last year and the declaration of war against the terrorists.

I would like to give him an opportunity to expand a bit on this. It is true that relatively confidential or secret situations may be involved. But still, before launching into action as far-reaching as the United States is proposing in connection with Iraq, we are entitled to wonder just how far we may go in the search for information or evidence regarding the existence of Iraq's collaboration with terrorist organizations.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party on her speech, which parallels my views. Given her broad political experience, I would like her to explain to me why Canada is headed in this direction. I think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is sincere when he talks about multilateral action. However, it must be emphasized that the Canadian government feels that it has to follow the United States in its rush toward war, which the member so eloquently described.

Given her political experience and her perception, what does she think has driven the Canadian government to this point?

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am delighted that a debate is being held here this evening on this important issue, which is of concern to many people. At the same time, I note that the Minister of Foreign Affairs shared his time with the Minister of National Defence. This puts me in mind of the dove, the weapon and the sword. In his speech, the Minister of National Defence seems to be saying that our sword will be mighty, that it is ready, and so forth.

I have a question for him about this kind of verbal offensive. We know that Canada does not even have a ship with which to transport its equipment and men. It is leasing equipment from other countries and private ships for this purpose.

Finally, since the minister appears to be moving towards an offensive, can he assure the House that he will raise the debate here, and that it will be the subject of a parliamentary vote before troops are authorized to be sent to Iraq?

[International Criminal Court, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the rigidity of the U.S. position, does the government plan to suspend sending Canadian troops on any mission under foreign command, and will he make a commitment to no longer send troops unless they are under the auspices of the UN?

[International Criminal Court, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the United States is opposed to the authority of the future International Criminal Court extending to American military on peace missions. Not only does this attitude threaten the role of the court, but also the very existence of future peace missions that may be organized under the auspices of the UN.

Does the Prime Minister, who will meet with the U.S. president during the G-8 summit, intend to express his opposition, and strongly urge the president to modify his attitude?

[Canadian Transportation Agency, June 10th, 2002]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Canadian Transportation Agency, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the four colleagues who spoke for their respective parties, with the exception of the Conservative Party. I had been notified in advance that they were in agreement with the motion and I thank them.

As they have said, I believe that the first duty of an MP is to reflect the concerns of the people in his or her riding. That is what I wanted to do. I know that other colleagues have experienced similar problems or have been told of them. My NDP colleague has referred to similar problems in Vancouver. This is not, therefore, the concern of a single member, or a single riding. It concerns marshalling yards in particular, where trains are shunted onto sidings, where trains are made up and so on.

I would like to give a quick reply to the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who has shared his concerns with us, but at the same time I would side with what my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said about jurisdictions.

As far as noise is concerned, he is right in saying that municipalities have a certain power over this, which he explained very well, but the land belongs to the federal government. Sound travels, so a municipality might decide to erect a wall outside the federal property, but when residential areas are already established this requires expropriations. This, in my opinion, is contrary to the polluter-pay principle. Who caused the noise? The CN, with its railway activities.

In a situation where each party had equal responsibility, there would be mediation and each would propose remedies to its part of the problem. The CN does not care in the least. It says that the others need to adapt to its presence. The usefulness of CN is acknowledged, and of course we want to see it prosper.

The parliamentary secretary's response is “Yes, but we have carried out studies and have presented a report. In the coming decade we will have a plan to address such situations”. This makes no sense.

What makes even less sense is that my colleague from the Alliance seems friendly but talks about Kyoto in his speech. The railway noise issue has nothing to do with the Kyoto protocol. He must have lacked substance or time to think about the position to say that.

The NDP has supported my motion. I congratulate and thank them for that. However, I would like to correct one misconception. When they say that citizens were right in Oakville, this is not the case. They were indeed right in the first round, but CN appealed the decision and won.

It is therefore a really important matter and, as everybody knows, the parliamentary secretary considers it important too.

If I were to ask unanimous consent of the House to make this issue votable, I know that the government House leader is usually listening--he has been criticized for some things--but as far as listening to the citizens, I think that he should accept my motion and instruct his party so that this motion be can be made votable.

If the Alliance members are opposed, they can vote against it. But those who support private members' motions should be allowed to vote freely in the House. This motion is intended to guide the government and not to force it to do one thing or another. It only asks for legislation that would amend the Canada Transportation Act and the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency. That is it. We are not trying to tell the government exactly what to do.

[Canadian Transportation Agency, June 10th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Canada Transportation Act and the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency to give the Agency the additional responsibility of protecting public health by controlling noise, emissions and vibrations caused by rail cars being moved on the tracks and in the rail yards on interprovincial lines.

Mr. Speaker, members of an opposition party are often told that they “are there only to criticize”. Well, as this motion shows once again, we often suggest to the government solutions that could change things.

In this case, the problem is a real one affecting citizens day and night. Since the CN has been privatized, approximately when this government came to power, the activities have intensified, traffic has grown and some rail yards have undergone some streamlining.

For example, the Taschereau station was closed and its activities were redirected to Montreal and Saint-Lambert so that, in my region near Quebec, there is more freight train traffic and more coupling activities every hour, day and night, at the Joffre station in the former municipality of Charny, which is now part of Lévis. Previously, the traffic was not so intense and the railroad employees could do most of their work during the day.

Since 1998, however, the people of Charny, who have always been aware of rail activities in their area—this being the main rail centre in Quebec, next to Montreal, being located in the middle of Quebec—have noted increased traffic and changes in methods. With privatization, staff has been cut and technology has improved.

For example, trains were made up by human beings, local people who were concerned with respecting the people of the community. They therefore made up the trains with as little commotion as possible.

Today, many mechanisms are more or less set off by remote control. The railway employee is often quite a distance from where the train is being made up and has a tendency to couple more cars than necessary in order to be sure not to have to do it again. This can produce up to 75 decibels of noise, which hon. members will realize is an awful lot.

People started to complain back in 1998 and I got complaints in my riding office. I have always been, and still am, pro-railway. At first, I was a bit hesitant, and told people “It's normal to have noise when there is a marshalling yard”. There is a golf course a bit further on and the golfers do not seem to be particularly bothered. This is not, however, the case for those living nearby. Families with young children have them wakened up several times during the night, and this is becoming more and more frequent.

That is why people started complaining to the CN, but their complaints fell on deaf ears. The people at Transport's response was “There is a case before the courts in Oakville Ontario and CN appealed, because it contended that present jurisdiction did not allow the transportation agency to monitor and regulate this aspect of the problem”.

I will read a paragraph from the July 21, 2001 letter in which CN explains to the city that:

Departmental representatives are monitoring railway activities on an ongoing basis in order to ensure that they are operating safely.

Hon. members will see that safety is emphasized here. Certainly, the department and the transportation agency still have authority over safety. However, there are no regulations on pollution from trains and no federal power exists to deal with the noise and pollution resulting from railway activities.

For this reason, even though they had formed a citizens' committee—and the ruling for other cities confirms the fact that the Canadian Transportation Agency has no authority—, people had a noise study produced by an engineering firm by the name of Dessoprin Inc, in the hopes of influencing CN. The study demonstrated that the level of noise sometimes reached 75 decibels.

This is high. The World Health Organization says that no human should be exposed to sound levels greater than 60 decibels for extended periods of time, they even say 20 to 30 decibels.

This elevated sound level, given the frequency as demonstrated in the aforementioned study, was apparently not enough to convince CN of their case. The people therefore went to the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Chaudière--Appalaches. A study was done to see if the noise was affecting people's health.

Obviously, I will not reveal the entire contents of the report, it would take too long. However, the representatives of the Régie said that the noise did indeed affect residents' health, because it occurs mostly at night and because it is continuous. People are forced to close their windows in the summer, and in addition to the discomfort, it is stressful, which in the longer term can affect the health of vulnerable people, such as children and seniors.

In fact, Maréchal-Joffre Street is located adjacent to the Joffre rail yards. The high level of activity in the yards—given that all of the routes are now being used—, means that trains are being moved and connected in close proximity to residents.

In the standing committee on health, there was a proposal to negotiate with CN—which did happen—to have a sound barrier built, as is done with freeways, as well as undertaking other measures to rectify the situation. I spoke publicly on this for the first time during the election campaign in order to meet with the citizen's committees following these studies.

I went to the citizens' committee and local authorities in Charny. This was before the municipal amalgamation, and negotiations with CN were underway, but behind closed doors. It was during the election campaign in the November 2000.

I told them they should rely on good faith and the negotiations, because passing legislation can take a long time. But the negotiations were so protracted that when I introduced this motion, a few weeks ago, and even now, they are still not concluded.

Patience is wearing thin, especially during the summer. Recently, people made representations to the municipal authorities and they were in touch with me. That is why I decided to introduce this motion. This is not a private member's bill, but simply a motion. I wish it were votable, but the committee decided otherwise. Everybody knows it is not all motions that are votable.

I think that this debate in the House will drive the message home and that the government will come up with and introduce a bill over the summer in order to amend the Department of Transport Act concerning railways. It could grant additional powers to the Canadian Transportation Agency, so that people who have this kind of problem can be heard by the agency.

In my opinion, this should exist in all cases. This is a neighbourhood—that is what originally led to the presentation of my motion and I think other members will speak about this today—the neighbourhood of Saint-Lambert in the Montreal region, where the residents complained to CN for the same reason, as they did in Oakville, Ontario, where authorities lost to CN in appeal. That region of Ontario also agrees, and I am convinced that other members have the same problem in their area.

Personally, I want to be clear. I am not trying to stop operations or to get the rail yards to close. I simply want to ensure that an organization called the Canadian Transportation Agency has the mandate to deal with complaints, and that, contrary to what one of its officials said, the Department of Transport has the power to control noise. If this were made clear to CN, the negotiation process would be different. CN would be more receptive to the public's representations.

Sure, we want CN to be a profitable venture and it is, which is fine. Sure, we want it to create jobs and I agree, because there are 400 jobs in the Charny area that depend on the railways. However, we do not want this to be achieved at the expense of people's quality of life. When we talk about people's health and the stress generated by this noise, I think CN should be more receptive.

Therefore, I invite members from all parties to support my motion. I realize that I filled in for another member at the very last minute. Normally, my motion should not have been on the order of the day, but the hon. member who was scheduled to present his motion today could not do so. Therefore, I was told on Friday that I could bring forward my motion. I am pleased to do so before the summer recess, although no one on this side of the House knows when this will come.

Therefore, I am very pleased to present it this morning. All the concerned citizens in my riding will also be pleased to see that this issue is debated. I will of course save five minutes to reply or urge my colleagues at the end.

Since this is a very important issue, I would ask, through the Chair, the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion a votable item.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

As my colleague says, it is in the food chain. At a certain point it is not just a matter of breathing in pesticide residue, it can go as far as to involve the foods we eat. Our health can be affected by what we eat.

I wish to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his work on the environment, as well as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. They informed us in caucus and raised our awareness of the issue. I would not go so far as to say that they harassed us, but they were pretty tenacious. They explained that it was worthwhile supporting this government bill. Of all the provinces in Canada, I think Quebec has the best legislation in this area. Quebec's municipalities are very concerned about this aspect. When it comes to federal legislation, in this case, the shared responsibility must be recognized.

We have no objection to voting in favour of this bill because, even if it is not perfect, our colleagues will try to improve it. The values involved, that is health, the environment and sustainable development, are important to the Bloc Quebecois. We have therefore decided to vote in favour of this bill.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

—now mayor of the new city of Lévis—whom I would like to greet in passing—which makes up 95% of my riding.

Sometimes the agricultural sector is said to have reservations about this, because they need pesticides, and I believe the bill allows for this. It is not about getting rid of, or restricting them altogether. Once again, caution must serve as our guide.

On the subject of new cities, my area is now an urban area, with the exception of the municipality of Saint-Henri. In urban areas, is it really necessary, in terms of aesthetics, to use so many pesticides on lawns?

I remember when I was in charge of parks and recreation in Saint-Nicolas, there was a contest for cities and towns in bloom.

I do, in fact, support ornamental horticulture. I support beautifying cities, but at the same time, one has to weigh beautiful lawns against the health of children and the public. I may be a golfer, but I do not believe we should sacrifice our health for beautifully green golf courses. Some may criticize me, saying that I am forgetting certain allies.

I take this issue seriously. As legislators, when an important issue is raised, we must rise above purely electoral considerations. Yes, we must consider opposite views, but we must also return to real values and principles.

In my opinion, two very important values frame this bill. First, there is the environment and why we want it to be healthy. This is first and foremost for the health and survival of planet Earth. Yes, we are talking about lawn pesticides. I do not remember who wrote this, but there is a saying. Think globally, act locally. We have to make our contribution to the environment. Every action, however small it may be, is important.

In an urban setting, there is an analogy to the situation with the recycling of paper, plastics and other materials. This is very important. During the Montreal municipal election campaign, some candidates got in trouble for not complying with the recycling bylaws. This is kind of the same situation. Everyone must make an effort. If we recycle,and if we are careful about pesticides, we are contributing to a better environment and a sustainable environment. We are helping to leave a clean environment for future generations.

As far as health is concerned, we know how costly this is to society. I do not want to get into unsubstantiated claims, but it is a cause of considerable concern that so many people have cancer or other serious conditions. I am not saying that there is a link with pesticides, but neither has it been proven that certain pesticides do not play a role.