Bernard Bigras

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-344 presented by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

As far as the Bloc Quebecois and myself are concerned, unlike his Alliance colleague, we have no hesitations concerning this bill, and this is a bit of a paradox. A colleague of the member presenting the bill is not sure about supporting it. I wish to state that we will be in favour of Bill C-344 , an act to amend the Contraventions Act.

The purpose of amending the Contraventions Act is to decriminalize marijuana use. Under the current legislation, a person guilty of simple possession, that is of having in his or her possession less than 30 grams of marijuana, has a criminal record, is liable to imprisonment for six months and a $1,000 fine. This bill would impose only a fine. For a first offence, the amount of the fine would be $200; for the second, $500; for any subsequent offence, $1,000.

This is an important debate, and we must remember to make the distinction between what we are calling the decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes, and the decriminalization of marijuana for other uses. The House adopted a motion, Motion No. 381, an initiative of the Bloc Quebecois that I moved. This motion was adopted by more than 88% of the members present in the House of Commons.

This motion called on the federal government to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. This motion was adopted on May 25, 1999. We in the Bloc Quebecois believed, and still believe, that this is about compassion. How can we set up legal and political restrictions on the use of marijuana by someone who is in the terminal stages of a disease? Whether they have AIDS, multiple sclerosis or cancer, people may want to purchase and use a substance that, for them, is a medication. Of the members present in the House at the time, 88% supported this motion.

The issue raised by our colleague from the Alliance today is part of a larger debate on the decriminalization of marijuana. The debate has reached a whole new level in fact. There are all kinds of questions to be asked before voting. On the one hand, we have to remember that the World Health Organization, the WHO, in an significant and exhaustive report, concluded that marijuana was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. The WHO is not some group of novice doctors. It is a solid organization, a credible organization, that demonstrated that the ill effects of marijuana are less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco.

Our colleague is asking us to reflect on a different issue. Should someone in possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana be considered a criminal? Should this person—as is the case under the existing legislation—be subject to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail for having possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana?

And more important, should he have a criminal record? Should his future be ruined? For it must not be forgotten that when we have a criminal record for possession of marijuana, our whole future may be ruined. This debate is therefore a healthy one and I think that parliament should give its speedy attention to this.

The member who introduced this bill is not the only one who thinks that marijuana should be decriminalized. Those responsible for enforcing the legislation, including chiefs of police and the RCMP, have indicated that marijuana needs to be decriminalized, and soon.

Naturally, the associations I have just mentioned are not completely in favour of the bill introduced by the Canadian Alliance member, because they feel that the fines are a little lower than those provided for in the legislation. They think, however, that a major step towards decriminalization must be taken.

I am also thinking of the Canadian Medical Association, which has already indicated its unqualified support for decriminalizing marijuana in its monthly journal. In addition, the latest most up to date poll shows that 22% of Canadians feel that someone with less than 30 grams of marijuana in their possession should be considered a criminal. Only 22% of Canadians feel that someone should have a criminal record and be liable to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, compared to 40% in 1985.

There has therefore been an important shift in Canadian public opinion, which we, as parliamentarians, who represent this public opinion, should be listening to and taking into consideration.

The senate committee on drugs, chaired by Senator Nolin, has already examined this issue. In addition, I would remind the House that, following an opposition motion, we struck a committee chaired by a Liberal member, which is now examining the issue of drugs. This committee will be in Toronto in a few weeks to take a closer look at the situation. So we are already looking at this issue.

Different avenues are being considered, including decriminalization. We must wait for the report, but it is clear that an issue such as this must be debated and those actually affected taken into consideration.

A recent federal report said that $150 million would be saved if we were not as tough on small users. We must go after the source, and not individual citizens who, sometimes, perhaps in an ill-considered moment, decide to have in their possession less than 30 grams of marijuana.

On January 21, 2001, I proposed that Canada pass a bill patterned on the model developed by the Belgians, in other words, that marijuana be decriminalized, but that we be able to identify those members of the public who use it in a socially irresponsible manner. For instance, it is no more acceptable for someone to decide to drink alcohol and drive than it is for someone else to use marijuana and do the same.

There is therefore no doubt that the member's bill must be amended, but it provides a good point of departure for debate.

[The environment, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what I understand from the non-answer given by the Minister of the Environment is that there is no commitment to ratify the protocol before next June.

However, the oil industry claims that Canada cannot ratify the Kyoto Protocol, since the federal government did not release any study on the costs of such a commitment. It is totally unbelievable that the government would not have a study on this issue.

Could the Minister of the Environment confirm whether a study on the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol exists and, if so, will he table it in the House?

[The environment, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta and the oil industry are trying to make the government back off on its commitment to ratify the Kyoto protocol next June. We know that the Minister of the Environment said that he wanted that document to be ratified. We also know that Canada, excluding Quebec, has the world's worst record on greenhouse gases.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House that the government shares the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and that it is firmly determined to ratify the Kyoto protocol by June?

[Child Abduction, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Fabienne Brin, a French national currently in Canada, is searching for her daughter, who was kidnapped by her former partner. Although there was an international warrant out for him, he was able to enter Canada, eluding the RCMP, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and Immigration Canada.

Will the minister explain how an individual for whom an international warrant has been issued for kidnapping can make it across the Canadian border and wander freely around the country with a kidnapped child?

[Thérèse Daviau, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that we learned this morning of the passing of Thérèse Daviau.

Thérèse Daviau was a great pioneer, one of the first women elected to council in 1974 with the Rassemblement des citoyens de Montréal, in the Plateau Mont-Royal ward.

A lawyer by training, Thérèse Daviau was a woman who was involved in advocating for the rights of Quebec society. We will all remember her as a great lady who made a priority of being available to hear from her fellow citizens.

Her lengthy political career was full of milestones, but her fate was also touched by tragedy, when her daughter died in the Polytechnique shooting. This tragic event prompted her to work tirelessly in the fight against firearms.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois has lost a friend. On behalf of all of my colleagues, I would like to extend my most sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Thérèse Daviau.

[The Budget, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has added to this cynicism by asserting that employment insurance benefits were increased when in fact the benefits are lower and the criteria more restrictive.

How can he make such an offensive statement when we know that it is harder than ever for young people and women to qualify for employment insurance and that benefit periods have never been so short and so meagre?

Given the context, how can he claim that they have increased?

[The Budget, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to our great astonishment, the Minister of Finance stated that the health transfers to the provinces had been increased. The minister's statement is surprising because we know that all of the figures indicate the opposite.

How can the minister be so cynical and make such comments, when we know that the current levels of health transfers are below what they were in 1994-95?

Given the circumstances, how can the minister say that there has been an increase?

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

Yes, of course, an independent panel in which taxpayers invested millions of dollars to consult the public on the processes that should be established. The panel's mandate was twofold.

First, it had to evaluate the technical processes to manage waste. The method most often proposed was to bury this waste more than 30,000 metres deep in the geological layers of the Canadian Shield.

However when we were advocating this solution, we found out that the public wanted to be consulted. However, the bill clearly shows that the government refused to include the recommendations of the Seaborn panel in it. This is even more obvious when we consider that the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House proposed amendments reflecting the recommendations of the Seaborn panel only to see the government reject them.

The hon. member knows better than anyone else what the government is doing in the area of waste management. I am of course referring to nuclear waste, but also to other waste, including residual and military waste. This brings me to the issue of shells. The way the federal government dealt with military shells shows how bad a manager it can be.

Could the hon. member tell us what is happening with Lake Saint-Pierre, which is directly connected to the St. Lawrence River and where thousands of shells litter the bottom, sometimes unexploded? Some shells are even found on the beaches by children. We are not making this up: this is the truth.

Could the hon. member tell us how this government manages waste, particularly military waste in Lake Saint-Pierre?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for his speech, which lasted 15 minutes. Above all, I wish to underline the issue of balance, because I am pleased to have heard his speech, one day after the one by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance, who, taking the opposite stand, sang the praises of the nuclear industry in Canada.

She even said she hoped to see the establishment of a nuclear economy in Canada. She was in favour of importing plutonium from Russia in order to create jobs. Yet we all know two or three things about nuclear energy, and plutonium in particular. The mean life of plutonium in terms of dangerousness and radioactivity is 24,000 years. It is wrong to believe that this substance can be neutralized in a few years. It has a mean life of 24,000 years.

There is one other important aspect, which we mentioned to the Alliance member. Plutonium is one of the most carcigonenic substances known to mankind. I believe it is totally ridiculous and unacceptable to favour the development and the establishment of what I call a nuclear economy.

The bottom line of the speech by my colleague from Champlain can be summarized as follows: this government, and this is what we should remember about this bill, under the provisions set out in the bill, is promoting a one track approach in terms of management of the nuclear industry through the establishment of nuclear management agencies.

Why does the bill favour a one track approach? Because those management agencies will have a single partner, the energy corporations, which have been, throughout Canadian history, the main source of nuclear waste. Therefore, how could an energy corporation, in New Brunswick, Ontario or elsewhere--and it should be remembered that Ontario produces 90% of the waste in Canada--be part of an organization responsible for the management of the waste? We should remember that the government had every opportunity to include municipalities in its agencies. Municipalities are the ones who have to live day to day with nuclear waste. Besides, the government had a unique opportunity to involve the public in management agencies.

When it comes to nuclear waste or nuclear waste imports in Canada, such as in the riding of my colleague, the public wants to be consulted. It would have been easy to include members of the public in these waste management organizations. This is the underlying message in the hon. member's speech on waste management.

Another issue relates to the Seaborn panel, which sat for 10 years in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, first off, I really enjoyed the speech by my NDP colleague. Since the start of the session, our positions have been quite similar, except, naturally—and I see him nodding—on the national issue, where our positions are truly diametrically opposed.

I would like to go over a few points in his speech. He spoke, as did his colleague from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition, of the fact that we must focus on developing renewable sources of energy, specifically of hydroelectricity. I agree, of course, since it was not only a major force behind the economy of Quebec but also an environmental solution.

However, there is another factor to be taken into consideration. The effect of climate change is a significant drop in the level of the basins. Yesterday, if I am not mistaken, a report on Radio-Canada's Téléjournal brought home the fact that climate change is having a significant impact on our economy.

We cannot avoid dealing with the question of major climate change and, in my opinion, we must look to the development of new renewable energies. Wind energy, among others, comes to mind.

My colleague mentioned that the state of California has acted on demand. He neglected to point out, however, that it also acted on supply, that there are refundable tax credit programs for wind turbine production. The state government pays 7 cents per kilowatthour produced. Why are we not doing this in Canada, it may be asked.

This is one failing of the latest budget in which this same sort of program was announced, but with an investment of only $165 million and not for one year, but for 15 years, whereas we invest $150 million annually in Canada in nuclear fission. The latest budget provides sums of $165 million over 15 years for the development of wind energy, while we invest $150 million each year in nuclear fission alone.

What does he think of the Bloc Quebecois proposal to have this $150 million spent annually on nuclear fission transferred to green energy, including wind and hydroelectricity?