Bernard Bigras

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

I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes for his speech. I believe his presentation was rather eloquent because since the beginning of our review of Bill C-27 we have been given many examples, but very few made it as clear how huge the impact of this bill is on us.

I remember visiting in 1997 or 1998, at Tokamak and in the area, people who tried to show us the benefits of the nuclear fusion industry.

I stress this fact because I would like the hon. member to explain how nuclear fusion is different from nuclear fission—there is a world of difference between the two—to really scrutinize the topic and popularize it. That is my first question.

Second, I would like the member to talk about an election promise. With regard to nuclear energy and fission, the Bloc Quebecois did not wait for Bill C-27 to make proposals. This is a reflection that came about as the result of ongoing work within our party. Our colleague was one of those who took part in the reflection that led to the election promise made by the Bloc Quebecois. It is important to look back at the commitments we have made as a political party, something the government opposite should do more often by the way.

I will remind the House that during the last election campaign the Bloc Quebecois promised to push for the federal government to stop funding the nuclear fission industry altogether, and for the $150 million put toward that industry every year to be redirected to research and development on green energy.

To sum up, I would like the member first to explain the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion and, second, to tell us about the solemn promise made by the Bloc Quebecois during the last election campaign, namely to take the $150 million that goes to the nuclear fission industry every year and reinvest in research and development on green energy.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised to hear members of the House, who were democratically elected by their constituents, promote an economy based on nuclear energy in Canada. It is quite paradoxical.

I will point out some numbers: nuclear material, particularly plutonium, has an average life of 24,000 years. That is a fact. Also, I will remind my hon. colleague that according to scientific evidence plutonium has the most serious and best known carcinogenic effects.

Today this issue cannot be considered strictly from the point of view of the economy and of commercial and economic interests, that is with a view to promoting an economy based on nuclear energy. Safety, public health and environmental considerations must be taken into consideration in every decision made by the government.

On that subject , I would remind members that a spokesperson for a Canadian energy corporation I shall not name clearly stated, speaking of the safety of our nuclear facilities, “I cannot, however, say anything about missile safety”.

Therefore, on one hand it is totally incorrect to say that our storage facilities are safe, because energy companies themselves recognize that there are problems, especially in today's global context. On the other hand, it is pure demagoguery to say that there is no public health risk when plutonium is known as one of the substances with the most serious carcinogenic effects. Let me repeat once more that the average life of plutonium extends far beyond five or ten years. It has an average life of 24,000 years.

I would like the hon. member to tell me how she can say today that this aspect of nuclear waste management must be viewed in a purely economic context without any consideration of safety, health and environmental hazards.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's statement that the Bloc Quebecois made proposals and amendments is absolutely true.

As I said earlier, the management organizations and particularly the energy corporations cannot form the boards of management organizations, because they then would become judge and jury. This is why transparency must be the aim.

Let us recall the conclusions of the Seaborn panel, which led the Bloc to propose amendments with respect to subclause 6(3), to the effect that we wanted the concept of management to be overseen by regulatory bodies that had our confidence. We think the public has to have confidence in these management organizations. This is what we would like.

Another element of the Seaborn panel's recommendations concerned transparency. The panel felt that transparency in the process of selecting a style of management was a condition essential to its acceptability. It provided that and I quote “To be considered acceptable, a concept for managing nuclear waste must have been developed within a sound ethical and social assessment framework”.

Energy corporations cannot therefore be judge and jury. There must be greater transparency on the boards.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, with regard to the Bonn agreement and the Marrakesh agreement, it is worth noting that Quebec probably was the province that was most in favour of excluding the use of nuclear energy under the Kyoto agreement and the Bonn agreement.

We know full well—and we must be aware of the situation—that 90% of Canada's nuclear waste comes from Ontario. It is clear that nuclear plants are used to a much greater extent in Ontario than in Quebec. We also know that Alberta and western Canada make greater use of oil and tar sands. We know as well that nuclear power is more prevalent in Ontario, whereas hydro power is more prevalent in Quebec since it is the main lever, a major economic lever.

But Quebec made important economic and environmental choices in the 1960s that should be followed. In this regard, I think that the energy choices made by Quebec must be geared toward exporting our technological know-how in this area. We must set an example.

To answer my colleague I would say that there are three methods that could be used. They will have to be considered by the waste management organization. Of course, there is burial in the Canadian Shield, and as my colleague from Sherbrooke said earlier, we must be watchf ul to ensure that Quebec does not become a dump for Ontario's waste.

Since Quebec produces only 3% of Canadian nuclear waste and Ontario 90%, a long term solution could be, for example, to bury this waste in the deep geological formation of the Canadian Shield. This could result in Quebec becoming a nuclear waste dump. Everything is possible. History tells us that when it comes to waste, Quebec is often the victim.

Currently, section 187 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act could allow U.S. waste to cross the border and be buried in the Eastern Townships. Why? Because we are next to a state that produces waste and cannot find a permanent solution. Quebec must not become a dump.

I believe waste management must be fair for the provinces and those that generate the waste. I said that this bill might facilitate the importation of nuclear waste from Russia to Canada, for example, but the biggest danger is that Canada will get into the nuclear waste business. This is dangerous. Why? Because some communities could be affected by it.

We need a solution that deals with two aspects, two basic parameters: technical solutions—as the Seaborn commission did of course and as the government could consider with this bill—but also solutions aimed at protecting public safety by taking public consultation into account.

In this respect, regardless of the bill, I believe that any possible solution must be along both those lines.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill, as I did about a week and a half ago.

Bill C-27 was introduced at first reading on April 25, 2001. It is 15 pages long. In my opinion, this bill ought to trigger discussion at the international level, not only on the management of our waste but also on the use of waste as a productive source of energy in the world.

I stress this point, because a month and a half ago I had the opportunity to attend a major international conference in Marrakesh, namely, the seventh conference of the parties to the framework agreement on climate change, to follow up on the Bonn agreement on climate change.

A major development occurred at the conference, in that a consensus led to the drafting of a legal text to the effect that member countries of the conference of the parties—this is an international consensus—should abstain from using nuclear energy as a future source of energy in the world.

As my colleague from Sherbrooke has already pointed out, even though nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases, it is a fact that using nuclear fuel waste poses a major threat to public safety. In this regard, I reiterate the Bloc Quebecois position, which would have preferred the term “abstain” in the Marrakesh agreement to have a more direct and legal meaning, closer to the term “prohibit”. This is why the discussion on the use of nuclear fuel waste should go well beyond the management of that waste.

As for the bill before us today, let us not forget that its purpose is, first, to require owners of nuclear fuel waste to assume adequate financial responsibility and, second, to require these owners to carry out their management activities in an integrated, effective and, I might add, safe global fashion, because the threats to public safety are, as I said earlier, obvious and real.

Let us recall that there are three kinds of nuclear waste: waste from nuclear fuel, low level radioactive waste and uranium mine and mill tailings. It is important to mention them, because the different types of waste must not be confused. We can also refer to residual waste, because my colleague from Sherbrooke is also experiencing a situation in which the Eastern Townships may be called upon to become the dumping ground for residual waste produced in the United States. The bill does not deal with this. It deals instead with the first type of waste, that is, nuclear fuel waste.

Let us recall also that in Canada most of this waste comes from nuclear fuel bundles that are currently located, or submerged, as they say, in 22 reactors, especially Candu reactors that use a technology from the end of the 1970s. This waste was for the most part produced towards the end of the 1970s. However, there is a problem today. That is the problem of storing and stocking waste.

Earlier I mentioned that there was an estimated 1.3 million spent nuclear fuel bundles currently submerged in what is known as cooling pools, which corresponds to 18,000 tonnes of waste being stored. However, there is a clear problem. These pools are currently overloaded.

As my colleague, the member for Jonquière, and I have said, not only are these pools overloaded but the infrastructure itself is aging and we most certainly need to make improvements in them.

Everyone agrees on one thing: the current method of storing waste does not constitute a long term solution for Canadians to ensure our public safety. For this reason, it is important to find a better and more efficient way to manage this waste in the years to come.

More specifically, of the 18,000 tonnes of waste currently being stored in Canada, only 3% is located in Quebec, most of which is stored by Hydro-Québec at the Gentilly plant. We have only 3% of the waste, while Ontario, through Ontario Power Generation Inc., with its 20 operational plants, has 90% of the waste. Once again, the 22 Candu reactors produced this waste in the late 1970s.

We must also remember that the New Brunswick Power Corporation, which has only one reactor, is responsible for 5% of all waste. Finally, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which currently has experimental reactors, is responsible for 2% of the waste. It all adds up to 1.3 million nuclear fuel bundles, 18,000 tonnes, 22 reactors, 20 of them in Ontario, one in Quebec and one in New Brunswick. The remainder of the waste comes from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's experimental reactors.

Storing the waste is not a long term solution. This is why the federal government has implemented a nuclear fuel waste management plan for storage over a 20 year period in the geological layers of the Canadian Shield.

This possibility, which is now on the table, has the support of certain experts. I am thinking of Don Wiles, a chemist at Carleton University, who felt as recently as September 23, and I quote:

—the best solution to the problem remains the burial of nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield—

According to him:

—such waste could be stored for 30,000 years without posing any risk to people or to the environment.

There are in fact some people who favour this form of storage. Let there be no mistake: this is long term storage.

Following the introduction of the federal nuclear fuel waste management plan, the federal government decided in 1989 to create the famous independent Seaborn panel, whose mandate the member for Sherbrooke has spoken to us about.

Basically this panel had two main objectives. The first was clear: to examine the technological merits of the solution proposed. What proposal? The proposal to store waste in the Canadian Shield.

The panel's second objective was to examine the criteria for evaluating safety and accessibility. This is quite a task. One can imagine an independent panel sitting and doing its work over a period of ten years. This represents extensive consultations. I will come back to the recommendations later.

One fundamental issue began to take on importance over the ten years of the panel's existence, and that was the issue of public consultation. I will come back to this in the recommendations. It began to overshadow the evaluation of the technical merits of the solution being proposed. Public consultation became an important issue.

All storage and security aspects of the solution proposed by certain scientists, including the scientist from the Ottawa University whom I quoted, were considered by the panel and through broad public consultation. This was one of the major and main conclusions, and I insist on that point, of the panel.

I will quote one of the conclusions:

Canadian public support is vital to the acceptability of the concept of nuclear waste management. Moreover, safety is only one of the vital elements of acceptability. It must be considered from two complementary angles, namely the technical and social points of view.

Therefore the panel did not limit itself to a simple technical conclusion. It considered all the societal implications of the project. Public consultation was the important aspect. And this is why we are disappointed.

I saw the work done by my two colleagues from Jonquière and Sherbrooke on this issue in committee and I know that my colleague from Mercier has moved amendments in the House which would have made consultation unavoidable under this bill. However, the government rejected those amendments out of hand.

This shows that this government cares about the management of waste only from the technical point of view but not in terms of societal implications or respect for individuals.

When hazardous materials are imported, and my colleague saw plutonium and MOX residue and waste imported into her own area, local communities come together to protest and take a common stand but this government refuses to listen to the people.

The minister and the government have been consistent from the beginning. Nuclear waste was imported into the riding of my colleague from Jonquière. Then this bill was introduced in last April and the government rejected all the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois. If there is one thing we can hold against the government, it is that it refused to hold public consultations.

This the people of Quebec will long remember when they see projects like these cropping up in the ridings of our Quebec colleagues. Hon. members will recall how the public rallied around when there was talk of burying nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield and said no to this. The public has a right to be included in the solution. The proposed solutions must not be solely in the hands of scientists and government. There must also be respect for the consultation process and for the transparency Quebecers have a right to demand of their government.

The consultation aspect was therefore a fundamental element of the Seaborn panel, and this has been, basically, translated into the Bloc Quebecois proposals. It must be kept in mind that the Bloc was the direct conduit for the Seaborn conclusions. This government must realize that commissioners cannot be mandated to hold consultations and examine such questions for ten years and then the outcome of their consultations and their work just have brushed aside. This is a totally stupid way to proceed, and one that shows disrespect for the panel and also for the public, which has the right to be consulted and respected as well as included in the process.

We are therefore disappointed to see the government acting this way, disappointed as well to see that this bill includes one other aspect, the creation of nuclear management bodies via trust fund. Our regret, consistent as we are, is that it makes no sense for the energy companies to also be the nuclear management bodies. There must be transparency. Why could the public not be integrated with these management bodies? Why could local communities not be entitled to a seat on these management bodies instead of leaving the big energy companies to themselves to manage the waste they themselves have produced and are now responsible for? This is a disappointment.

It's a disappointment because the proposal these management bodies need to make integrates three important parameters and requires them, keeping in mind that with this bill the federal government will transfer to the provinces full responsibility for waste management while it is in large part responsible, and the energy companies in particular, to present a proposal that integrates, first of all, the method for burial in the Canadian Shield; second, the method for storage at nuclear reactor sites; and third, the method for centralized storage.

It is obvious to us that this bill opens the door to the importation of nuclear waste. We should not forget that under the leadership of my colleague from Jonquière the municipalities mobilized around special events and demonstrations against importing plutonium.

On June 21, 2001, Greenpeace, which is not in the habit of associating with political organizations, did so in order to fight against the importation of plutonium waste.

Since my time is almost up, let me remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois also has condemned the importation of plutonium waste. We fear, and that will be my conclusion on this bill, that this will open the door to the importation of nuclear waste.

I will quote from the conclusion of a press release by Greenpeace on June 21, 2000, “We cannot allow Canada to become a nuclear waste dump”. We too wish to avoid that.

We would have liked the government to support Bloc amendments for greater openness and better management to secure the future of civilization.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleagues, the members for Sherbrooke and Jonquière, for the magnificent work they did in committee during the review of this bill.

I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Mercier; we should not forget that she submitted amendments to the House. If I am not mistaken, they were all rejected. This shows clearly how this parliament works, and especially the Liberal majority, which is at liberty to adopt or not adopt the proposed amendments. What did these amendments suggest? Public consultation.

When one looks at the whole issue of importing plutonium into my colleague's riding of Jonquière, one clearly sees that even before the discussion on Bill C-27 the federal government had no intention whatsoever of undertaking public consultation on such issues, even if they were at the forefront of the news or were of the utmost importance for public security.

When I say such issues are important for public security, I am quoting a specialist. These days in the House, it is normal to relate all bills or matters discussed in the House to the issues of the day, particularly with the current war on terrorism.

I will remind members of the remarks made by Don Wiles, a professor of chemistry at Carleton University. As recently as September 23 of this year, he said:

These attacks are an example that shows that the stability of civilization remains fragile to a certain extent and that it is preferable to deal with the issue of nuclear waste in the safest manner possible.

More than ever, we sometimes have the feeling that we are studying bills that are of little or no importance. On the contrary, this issue is fundamental in the context of a war against terrorism. Canada's and Quebec's nuclear facilities must be protected, but most of all the waste coming from these facilities must be stored in safe places that will present no danger to the public.

The amount of nuclear fuel waste in Canada is estimated at 18,000 tonnes. There is only one nuclear plant in Quebec, the Gentilly plant, which stores 3% of Canada's nuclear waste. This is a reality.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Sherbrooke. How can he explain that a government like the one opposite rejected the amendments moved by the Bloc with regard to public consultation, regardless of the techniques which could be used and which I will have the opportunity to discuss in a few minutes?

How can he explain that this government rejected the opposition's amendments dealing with public consultation?

[Broadcasting Act, December 12th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-420, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts).

Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure today to introduce this bill to amend the Broadcasting Act.

This bill has three purposes: first, to register the public's concern regarding violence on television, second, to include in the act a regulation on violence on television based on the standards established by the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council and others; and finally, to prohibit the broadcasting of violent programs during children's prime time viewing hours.

This bill was developed based on consultations in Quebec, in particular in the riding of my colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I hope that the bill will be passed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition— interlock device programs).

The shortness of this bill belies its importance. As the Minister of Justice has indicated, it includes in the criminal code a program that some provinces have already put in place. Its effectiveness has been proven in the United States and in some provinces, including Alberta and Quebec, a fact that the minister has emphasized. Later on, I will explain why Quebec created its own alcohol ignition—interlock device program in 1997.

Before dealing any further with this bill, whose shortness, as I said, belies its importance, amending as it does the criminal code, I would like to put on the record a number of statistics and facts. If we are to debate and vote on this bill, it is important to have a good picture of the present situation.

Let us take the situation over 20 years. These are the figures currently available to us, for the period between 1977 and 1996. Let us keep in mind that, at the present time in Canada, 40% of accidents where the driver was at fault and was sentenced to anywhere from licence suspension to imprisonment involved a fatality, and 30% of them injuries. I repeat, among accidents in which the driver was at fault and was sentenced to anywhere from licence suspension to imprisonment, 40% involved a fatality and 30% involved injuries. All of these figures are for 1977-96.

In addition, let us keep in mind that, during that same period, 1977 to 1996, 35,000 people were killed or sustained severe injuries in collisions involving a driver found guilty of impaired driving. This is far from an insignificant number.

This number of 35,000 may seem modest, but if thought of in terms of days, it translates into 4.5 people daily who are killed in accidents involving impaired drivers.

There is a cost attached to this, the personal cost to the impaired driver who receives a sentence, as well as major social and economic costs. The economic costs up to 1996 are estimated at $52.1 billion. So, the costs are high: social, personal and economic.

In addition, the estimated number of injuries to people involved in impaired driving accidents is 1,505,000 in 20 years. This means more than one million people have sustained serious or less serious injuries. This is a significant number. Very often these automobile accidents involve people who have broken the law, have got behind the wheel when they are over the allowed limit, a limit they often are not aware of and are not in a position to assess, because they do not have a breathalyzer available to them.

So, 1.5 million people have been injured in 20 years in accidents involving impaired drivers and costs of $42 million. This is not insignificant.

It is an economic problem, as I have just said because of the costs arising from the collisions, which are sometimes fatal—the luckier ones escape with a few injuries—but significant social costs to our health care system are also involved.

So responsible action is needed both in penalizing and in helping impaired drivers. It is not just a matter of clamping down. History has shown, and I will cite other figures a little later, that simple sanctions—if I can call prison sentences and the suspension and revocation of drivers' licences sanctions—have not in the past prevented people from driving while impaired and even from repeating the offence several times.

Experience has also shown that repression is not always the best solution to the problem of drivers who take the wheel while under the influence of alcohol.

We must come up with, not an alternative, I would say, but with something complementary, between what we have now in terms of sanctions, which I described earlier, and a more humane and supportive approach for the drunk driver.

Not only is the ignition interlock system of help to the accident victim, but it is to the driver who is under the influence as well. It saves lives.

This is why, since 1997, Quebec, along with Alberta and other provinces, have considered the question—and similar programs exist in the States—in an effort to come up with some positive results and render service.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has also considered the matter of drunk driving since 1999. A number of committee sittings have focussed on this matter. A number of witnesses have appeared, including specialists on the matter and parents, who have decided to join together and form a group called MADD, which offers help to the victims.

I would also point out the eloquent figures and studies reported by a witness, who appeared on February 4, 1999 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will name him. He is Herb Simpson, a member of the board of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

Mr. Simpson's testimony was important and eloquent, but I will simply refer to one study that he mentioned. This was a fairly recent study, which concluded that 70% of offenders are often repeat offenders.

The moral of the story is that there is a hard core of drivers who, having driven once while drunk, are arrested and either have their licences suspended or receive some other penalty.

In 70% of cases, these are people who have already been charged once. These are the drivers the study described as hard core, those who, despite government sponsored awareness campaigns, despite promotion and awareness campaigns by citizens' groups, which are doing everything they can to inform the public about the dangers of drinking and driving, still continue to get behind the wheel drunk.

What is worse, these repeat offenders, these hard core, are responsible for 65% of serious accidents. That says a lot. Furthermore, 70% of those arrested for impaired driving have already been arrested once for the same offence. Road safety surveys done after driving accidents reveal that those responsible are often repeat offenders.

Some caution is in order, however. Do these figures mean that the majority of the population continues to repeat the offence and drive while impaired after an initial offence? The answer is no. According to the studies, this group of repeat offenders represents only 1% of the total population of Canada.

I think the three parameters that have been studied—the percentage of repeat offenders; the percentage of repeat offenders involved in serious accidents; and whether people in general are drinking and driving or are repeat offenders, which is not the case—must show to us the policy to be followed.

This policy must be balanced. For example, should we install an ignition interlock device in all motor vehicles? Would this be socially acceptable and economically effective? Should this be the norm? The answer is no. I think there must be a fair balance between sanctions and the ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device must never be considered as an alternative to sanctions, but we must add this provision to the criminal code to provide the judge with the possibility of ordering that this device be installed in motor vehicles.

Our examination of the issue leads us to say yes to an ignition antilock device, especially a device such as this one, for repeat offenders, and not for all Quebecers and Canadians. If this were done, it would not constitute an appropriate, justifiable and balanced response to the sociological reality and the actual facts I mentioned earlier with regard to the three parameters.

Another point that I would like to address deals with criminal law that applies in the case of drinking and driving. One must remember that, in Quebec, it is the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec that has this management responsibility.

We have to remember that if drivers with probationary licences or learners' licences cannot drink any alcohol and drive, which is tolerance zero, nothing prevents drivers with regular licences to drink alcohol before driving. However, the limit of alcohol consumption remains at 0.08%, which means that anyone respecting that limit does not commit an offence.

Another issue deals with sanctions. Are the sanctions provided in the criminal code, and I may quote them later, the true answer to the serious current situation?

Let us not forget that the Bloc Quebecois initiated the fight for the use of an ignition interlock device. This campaign was spearheaded by the Bloc. Through the member for Témiscamingue and chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois, and also my colleague from Berthier--Montcalm, the Bloc Quebecois led the battle in committee. Why? Because the voters in our ridings who came to see us had relatives or children who became the victims of impaired drivers. Several organizations also contacted us.

The first question one should ask is the following: do the sanctions provided in the criminal code appropriately reflect how serious the situation is, especially in the case of repeat offenders? Again, I stress that a difference should be made for impaired driving, not so much in terms of sanctions but in terms of support and proposed solutions, between a first time offender and a repeat offender. The solution cannot be the same in both cases, because numbers, studies and cases have shown that 70% of individuals found with a blood alcohol content higher than 0.08% are often second time offenders. Therefore the solution cannot be the same for everyone.

In this respect, there are two major studies to take into consideration. The first one was conducted in Toronto and involved 27,390 offenders who had committed all kinds of offences. We are not only talking about people who had their driver's licence suspended or revoked. This sampling of 27,000 offenders included people who had received all sorts of sentences, including fines, jail terms, probation periods, driver's licence suspensions and so on. It was found that, in the case of first time offenders, suspending their driver's licence was probably the greatest deterrent, even more so than a jail term. This is quite the paradox. Telling a person that he was under greater risk of losing his driver's licence than going to jail was the most convincing argument to deter him from driving under the influence.

The hard line, which is imposing a life sentence, is not always the best solution. The threat of going to jail does not always deter people from driving under the influence.

Therefore, our approach must take into account not only the facts, but also the attitude, the behaviour and the way a person reacts to awareness campaigns by the government and other groups or lobbies. The situation is very different when the individual is taken into consideration.

Another study conducted in 1991 showed that suspending drivers' licences reduced by 30% to 50% the number of offences related to driving under the influence.

Therefore, revoking a person's driver's licence is the greatest deterrent. A study done in California showed that suspending drivers' licences reduced by 30% to 50% the number of offences related to driving under the influence.

This illustrates the importance of using tools that ensure complementarity between the various sanctions. There is a new element that allows us and societies such as ours to apply modern solutions to complex issues, namely technology.

Twenty or 30 years ago, we could never have hoped to change behaviours and attitudes through effective technological means such as the ignition interlock device. Back then, we could only rely on criminal penalties. Today, technology allows us to use comprehensive and effective programs which, while they do not meet people's needs as such, allow them to behave responsibly by respecting a number of social standards.

This is why the ignition interlock device program is, in my opinion, a good solution that involves new technologies. However, as I said earlier, this program should not replace existing penalties and sanctions.

I would like to remind people of what an ignition interlock device is. It is a breath analyzer. It can be installed in a vehicle and can be connected to the ignition, the starter, the electrical circuits and all the other instrument panel systems.

Moreover, this device can be used to measure the driver's blood alcohol level and to prevent the engine from starting or the car from being used if the alcohol level exceeds a predetermined limit.

The driver has to submit to a breathalyzer test before starting the engine or using the car. Other tests are required on a random basis as long as the engine is running. If those tests are not complied with or the level exceeds the predetermined limit, an alarm goes off and it keeps ringing until the driver passes the test or the engine is turned off.

The new models also contain mechanisms that prevent improper use. This concerns the interlock device technology.

What is the ignition interlock device program set up in Quebec, in Alberta and in the United States used for? This program provides for the monitoring and supervision of all offenders accused of impaired driving. It is enforced by the court officials under a probation order or by the licensing authorities as a prerequisite for the restoration of the driving licence.

The ignition interlock device records the breathalyzer tests results and all the other data pertaining to the program conditions.

These figures may then be studied by program administrators when the vehicle goes in for maintenance. The device must undergo regular maintenance checks every 30 to 60 days. The maintenance requirements must be adhered to strictly, if not, the device will prevent the vehicle from starting.

The purpose of the alcohol ignition interlock device program is not, I repeat, to replace the penalties for impaired driving. Instead, it provides an additional means to lower the number of repeat offences. Enrollment in the program could be in addition to the sentence, as a condition of probation, or a condition to be fulfilled for the reissuing of a driver's license.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the device and the program, because there are not very many provinces that have implemented this type of program. Today, by modifying the criminal code, we are acting at the level of federal legislation, but in the coming months, we will need to ensure that these legislative changes are adjusted to provincial programs in order to lower the rate of repeat offences. Programs such as those that I have just described—despite the fact that described them rather quickly—must be implemented.

Many people believe that this type of provision and measure would cost a great deal, that there are tremendous costs associated with it. I would like to remind the House that it would cost a mere $3 per day to install such a device on the vehicle of a driver accused of impaired driving.

Some people often refer to cost as a factor in the government's policy decisions. However, we must also consider the benefits. Costs must not always be seen as economic costs. They must also be viewed in terms of opportunity costs, and in terms of social costs too, because at the end of the day, as a number of studies have shown, the alcohol ignition interlock device program is very effective.

The arrest rate among offenders whose vehicles were equipped with ignition devices was up to 75% lower than that of offenders whose vehicle was not equipped with the device. This program has lead to some considerable improvements.

You will say we are short 25%. Of course, as is the case with all technology, there are always ways to get around it. I do not need to tell you the ways to get around this type of device, but they do exist. We have to recognize they are effective, if only in the case of drunken driving, because this is the aim of the amendments put forward by the government.

The offenders pay for the program. That is interesting. So, they are prepared to pay the sum, amortized of course, of $3 a day. The offenders are the ones who are prepared to assume the cost of this program.

So, in this regard, I think there is evidence that, even in the case of a repeat offender, the individual, if it is his second time, may determine his blood alcohol level at some point. Imprisonment is not always the best route, especially not life imprisonment.

So there are some people who accept to have a device installed in their vehicle at their own expense. As I have said, 38 states in the U.S., as well as the provinces of Alberta and Quebec, have such a program in place. More than 40,000 ignition interlock devices are in use in the world, 4,500 of those in Canada. I repeat, 40,000 in the world and only 4,500 in Canada. There certainly cannot be more than that number, when these programs are only in place in Alberta and Quebec.

It is clear that, if we were to pass these legislative amendments, and the provinces set up programs such as those already in place in Quebec and Alberta, we would, without a doubt, be in a position to state that Canada is playing a lead role in this novel solution, which places responsibility with the individual, initially, and also makes our roads safer.

Provided actions follow on the decisions we take now or in the days to come, we could see Quebec and Alberta —they having been the first—and Canada as a whole, becoming a world leader in this area. This is nothing to sneeze at.

I should also mention the position of an organization whose representatives I personally met in my riding, because they came to see me. MADD, which helps victims, led an exceptional public awareness campaign in Canada, in November 1999. The organization's representative, Ms. Swinson, appeared before the committee and clearly said that:

New federal acts passed in July allow judges to demand the use of an ignition interlock device as a conditional measure. Moreover, this device is very affordable.

Organizations, groups and boards told my colleagues from Témiscamingue and Berthier—Montcalm about the importance of adopting such legislative changes. I am thinking of the Fondation de la recherche sur les blessures de la route and of MADD.

Does this mean we should go faster and demand that such a device become standard in vehicles in Canada? The answer is no. Why? Because the rate of recidivism is only 1%. That being said, some measures are in order.

I should also mention the position expressed on February 16, 1999, by the Council on Drug Abuse. Mr. Bates appeared before the committee. He said that these ignition interlock devices should be installed in vehicles, subject to two conditions.

First, they should be installed if an individual is guilty and has a blood alcohol level over 0.165—as people know, the current level is 0.08—and, second, if the individual is a repeat offender, one of what I described earlier as hard core drinking drivers.

We must therefore, in my opinion, take responsible action, but only after careful consideration.

In conclusion, yes, we support these amendments to the criminal code; yes, we believe that the alcohol ignition interlock device must be incorporated into the criminal code; and, yes, provincial programs must be put in place. But this device must not become a standard feature of automobiles. And we also agree that these devices should be installed in the vehicles of repeat offenders.

We would thus be able to help Quebecers and Canadians, including those who abuse alcohol, live in a more balanced society as well as continue to be near their families, and to ensure that all of us have a very merry Christmas and a happy 2002.

[An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, November 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I think I have been patient so far in listening to the invectives hurled by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and I will now continue with my speech.

It must be said also that the National Capital Commission is not a model of transparency, as evidenced by its in camera proceedings. It has the nasty habit of keeping the public away, even though its decisions have repercussions on more than 1 million people on both sides of the river.

Amendments made to the legislation regarding Telefilm Canada indicate the need to modernize that organization. An expert report tabled in September 2000 proposes stricter controls on the use of funding allocated to the motion picture and television production industry.

I will quote from a report on the management practices of the federal government, where the head of the auditing team at Canadian Heritage said “We will work more closely, share information and increase the number of audits”.

This statement comes from a report on the management practices of the federal government. The government had a golden opportunity to amend this act to meet the expectations of the Auditor General of Canada, Anne Scotton. She was clear, and the quote is rather eloquent in that respect.

Furthermore, as I was saying earlier, the matter involving Cinar speaks eloquently of the need to clean up the grants attribution system, for example, once and for all.

We will recall this matter and the work of my colleague for Verchères--Les-Patriotes in this regard. It was—we must face the facts— a major issue that revealed the way grants were awarded. I think it is more than ever important to restore transparency so that the government may truly reveal everything in granting funds.

We will remember that the Bloc Quebecois revealed at the time that Cinar had used false names to obtain tax credits. Cinar had had access to various tax credit programs of Telefilm Canada and the Canadian television fund, and had also received government funding earmarked for productions by Canadian craftspeople.

I am happy to note the arrival of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions and I hope he will remain around a long time. We do, despite what is being said today, not only in the papers, but on the hill. I thank him for arriving two minutes before the end of my speech in order to hear my remarks.

I would like him to know that we would have expected from this government major amendments, and not cosmetic ones. We would have expected this government to act in the interests of the people of Quebec and Canada.

[An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, November 30th, 2001]

The government House leader says “exactly”. Since 1982, this board, the Fisheries Prices Support Board, has not been in existence. Now, in 2001, we are discussing and debating a bill that, essentially, changes certain provisions regarding a board that has not been operational for more than 18 years. I also have to point out that the mandate of the Fisheries Prices Support Board was to stabilize prices by providing financial support to buyers.

And finally, the bill substitutes the corporate designation of the Canadian Film Development Corporation to the name that it has been using since 1994, Telefilm Canada.

This is where it becomes evident that the government has nothing to propose to us in terms of a legislative agenda, so it has come up with a bill, Bill C-43, which basically is making adjustments to an office that has not been operational since 1982, and amends a statute which officializes the use of the name Telefilm Canada, which it has been using since 1994. This government is proposing to us nothing but these bills, which are basically nothing more than making cosmetic changes, when what we expect of it is proactive efforts, acting like, and being, a government of which the people of Quebec and of Canada can be proud.

While there are important issues to be dealt with in Canada, fundamental debates that must be carried out, it has come up with a bill that makes some cosmetic changes.

The changes to the National Capital Act offer the Bloc Quebecois the opportunity to remind hon. members that the national capital is not bilingual. The Bloc Quebecois again draws attention to the failure of the federal language policy.

The failure is all the more flagrant because it is played out in the Canadian capital, which should reflect linguistic duality better than anywhere else in Canada. I believe that—