Bernard Bigras

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not seem to recognize that there is an urgent need for resources. Again, I quote from the environment commissioner's 2001 report.

She said, and I quote:

In Quebec, we also observed that Environment Canada lacks the capacity to manage all its national wildlife areas effectively. For example, the Lac Saint-François National Wildlife Area, a Ramsar site, has a management plan dating back to 1986 and no federal staff on site.

In section 5.1.18 of the commissioner's report, she said “There is limited monitoring of public access” in a significant number of national reserves.

It must be understood that the resources allocated to national reserves must be increased if we want to make these reserves and our natural heritage accessible.

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked a question of the Minister of Environment about the funding of the Lake St. Francis National Wildlife Area, among other things.

At the end of May, I went to the Valleyfield area; at Lake St. Francis, there is a national wildlife area that is managed by the Friends of the Valleyfield Wildlife Area. They reminded me of one thing: back in 1978, the Canadian Wildlife Service had acquired 14,000 hectares of land to use as a national wildlife area.

Under international conventions, this wildlife area is considered a Ramsar area, with an ecosystem of international importance. There are many plant species, several species at risk. But the Friends of the Wildlife Area have been suffering from a chronic lack of funding for several years.

Indeed, the whole management of the Lake St. Francis National Wildlife Area has been left to volunteers. The federal government is not taking its responsibilities as the protector of threatened species on its lands. It acquires 14,000 hectares of land, but refuses to take responsibility for supervision, coordination, promotion and development.

As an example, for the Lake St. Francis National Wildlife Area, 24.8% of the funding came from the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1997-1998. In 2002-2003, it will be only 9%. Clearly, the $12,000 available for the reserve will not be enough to ensure adequate funding to protect our natural heritage.

There are limits to having everything done by volunteers. These people put in a lot of time and energy, but they do not have to assume the federal government's role with regard to the management of its national wildlife areas.

I remind members that the mandate of national wildlife areas is essentially to protect wildlife and not to organize recreational activities to increase revenues.

Funding for national wildlife areas has to be increased. I humbly say so because, in 2001, the environment commissioner's report was very negative on the issue of national reserve management.

In 1999 and 2000, the budget was $83,000 in Ontario for ten national reserves; in Quebec, it was $102,000 for eight reserves. It is clear that there is a chronic lack of funding.

I will come back later to the statements made by the environment commissioner, who believes that the current resources allocated to national wildlife areas, particularly the Lake St. Francis reserve, are insufficient to enable them to fulfill their mandate.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. I hope the Minister of the Environment will listen to the answer.

The best example is probably Germany, one of the European countries that produces wind energy. I see my NDP colleague, with whom I had the good fortune to go to Marrakesh, where we met people from the German embassy who explained to us—and I remember clearly—how Germany made the transition from nuclear to wind energy.

I have a few figures to show that it is feasible. In a few years, Germany went from producing nuclear energy to producing wind energy. Its current production is 8,753 megawatts, which accounts for 35.8% of the world's total wind energy production.

These countries did not succeed in making this transition by adopting measures that favour nuclear energy, as we are about to do today. On the contrary, they did it with financial incentives for every kilowatt-hour produced through wind energy. There are examples, including in California, where subsidies of nearly 2.6 ¢ per kilowatt hour have been given for wind energy.

This allows a country such as Germany to go from nuclear energy, a polluting type of energy, to wind energy, a non polluting type of energy. It also helps the environmental sector.

Let us not forget one thing. Those who claim that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol will create considerable economic costs for Canada are mistaken. In that regard, Germany is a conclusive example. Denmark is another example where wind energy production has been greatly increased.

To conclude, I will say that Germany is the best example. It went from nuclear energy to wind energy, which brought not only economic benefits, but also environmental benefits.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is interesting. These 18,000 tonnes of waste represent 1.3 million bundles and it is only one kind of waste. As I said, there are three different kinds of waste: nuclear fuel waste, low radioactivity waste and uranium mine and mill tailings.

I mentioned earlier the issue of spent fuel storage bays. Since these 18,000 tonnes of waste represent only one kind of nuclear waste, members can easily see how much nuclear waste there is in Canada. I was referring only to nuclear fuel waste dealt with in Bill C-57.

We know that storing this kind of nuclear waste is a problem at present. Spent fuel storage bays are overflowing. The capacity for conventional storage of nuclear waste, the conventional method of storing and stockpiling nuclear waste is being exceeded. There is no more room. Meanwhile, the government is putting forward a bill to foster the nuclear industry in Canada. This does not make sense. Here in Canada, we have to have a real debate on the various sources of energy.

Canada is at a crossroad. We must change direction and put forward measures, both legislative and fiscal, to develop renewable energy. In a few years, we will no longer be able to provide non polluting green energy, but we will be stuck with waste we have nowhere to store except in the Canadian Shield. We debated this solution, but nothing has been decided yet.

We must not look for ways to increase the number of storage bays. We must not look for new methods of storing nuclear waste. A logical situation would be to reduce waste. At present, we have nowhere left to store waste and we are looking for new ways to do so.

What we should do is stop producing nuclear waste. To this end, we need a Canadian energy policy designed to develop renewable energy.

We are still waiting for a wind energy policy, for which the government has been announcing a few million dollars here and there. We are waiting for the greening of the energy sector for the sake of future generations, but also to comply with the Kyoto protocol, which Canada has yet to ratify.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, which was introduced at first reading on May 31, 2002.

It is fair to say that in this House we have seen more comprehensive bills amending a number of acts. However, the bill before us today amends a single section of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. According to the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Natural Resources, the bill is designed to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. He calls it an administrative amendment or bill, meaning that it is not a complete overhaul of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

However, this amendment, even though this is not obvious yet, will have a serious impact on the way the nuclear industry operates here in Canada. It is significant that the minister has decided to introduce the bill we are debating today. The bill amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Of course, I will speak about Bill C-57 and the amendments at issue, but I would also like to talk about the long term management of nuclear waste.

Members will recall that there has already been a debate in the House on the disposal of nuclear waste. This debate took place in the context of Bill C-27. This was an interesting bill, as it was introduced and considered in committee. It was also interesting because Canada studied the issue of nuclear waste management for a ten year period with the Seaborn commission, which I will speak about later.

Of course, I will speak to Bill C-57, and I will also refer to Bill C-27 and the whole issue of nuclear waste disposal. I will also speak to the issue of the importance of public consultations in cases where the disposal of such waste is being considered in locations and regions in Quebec and Canada.

As an example, there is a case we asked questions about to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission just this morning in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. There was even a ruling on this case by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It is the case of the Bruce complex in Ontario. This is a site where radioactive waste will be stored on the shores of Lake Huron, and the residents would have liked a commission to have been set up, through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to consult with residents and to study the projects.

The Bruce complex is located on the shores of Lake Huron and has been designated, first, as a high level complex. Second, it is one of the biggest disposal sites in the world. The residents would therefore have liked to have been consulted.

Finally, I would like to close by outlining to Canadians and Quebecers the impact that nuclear waste and nuclear energy can have on human health. A number of reports have been published on this. These reports conclude that nuclear waste and nuclear energy are significant in the development of certain diseases when workers, residents and more specifically children are near this waste.

So, Bill C-57 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Clause 1 would replace a paragraph in the current legislation, which reads as follows: “--any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

Bill C-57 would amend paragraph 46(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to read as follows: “--any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

In fact, only a few words will be changed if this bill is passed. But the impact will be considerable.

In his press release, the minister tells us that these amendments are purely administrative. That may be so from a cosmetic point of view, but the impact will be considerable.

What are the government's true intentions in introducing this amendment? It is good to ask ourselves this question. If the amendment is purely administrative, there should not be any impact. But this bill amends the act significantly and will have a considerable impact on the development of the nuclear industry here in Canada.

Basically, the government wants this amendment to exempt one group from decontamination obligations. Third parties should no longer be responsible for decontamination.

In this connection, we know what the government's intentions are. Its true intentions are to ensure, for example, that a bank making a loan to a nuclear plant could—under the existing legislation, if we succeed in defeating this bill—be taken to court and would inevitably incur very high costs.

It is primarily to exempt these third parties, the banks, those able to finance the nuclear industry, that this bill was introduced.

The government wants to arrange it so that those parties—be they banks or other interests—who have helped developed the nuclear industry in Canada are exempt from their decontamination obligation.

This runs counter to a fundamental principle recognized in Quebec which is that the polluter pays. Anyone who contributed to the contamination of a site must share the costs of decontamination.

We on this side of the House are of the opinion that to the extent that a citizen, a third party, but more importantly a citizen, whether a corporate entity or not, has contributed to contamination by nuclear wastes, he must assume the costs thereof. This is what the government is trying to take away with this bill and this is basically what we are opposed to.

There have been some significant debates on this in the past. As my colleague from Sherbrooke has indicated, a commission was set up here in Canada because the storage of nuclear waste needed to be given some thought. There are 20,000 metric tonnes of waste—or 18,000 to be more precise—in Canada at the present time.

This represents 1.3 million bundles, as we know, and we also know that there are three types of waste: nuclear fuel waste, low level radioactive waste and uranium mine and mill tailings.

It is worthwhile taking the time to look at the nuclear waste situation in Canada. It must be pointed out that, of these 20,000 tonnes of waste, the bulk of it comes from spent nuclear fuel bundles. We are talking here of the 22 Candu reactors, most of which date back to the 1970s. Ontario Power Generation Inc. is currently operating 20 reactors. At the present time, 90% of the nuclear waste is in Ontario.

Hydro Québec produces some at its Gentilly plant, of course, but the nuclear waste produced in Quebec accounts for only 3% of the total of 20,000 tonnes currently available, if I may use such a term.

An energy company in New Brunswick accounts for another 5%. Atomic Energy of Canada' experimental reactors produce 2%, of the total of 1.3 million bundles.

We have trouble understanding how certain obligations can be taken away, how steps can be taken so that third parties will no longer be responsible for decontamination, when we can see what the problem is like in Canada at this time as far as the management of nuclear waste storage is concerned. How can bills get passed in this House that will facilitate the development of the Canadian nuclear industry while we are having such trouble managing the present 18,000 tonnes? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Why, as a matter of public policy, are we not focusing on the development of clean renewable energies, as my colleague from Jonquière suggested about ten minutes ago? How can we adopt measures like the one in front of us, which benefits this industry, while we are still waiting for financial incentives to develop renewable energies?

I am glad to see that the Minister of Environment is present to hear what I have to say. How can he feel comfortable in a debate on this issue? How can we reject that proposal and apply the polluter pay principle? This bill raises some questions.

I will summarize the Seaborn commission findings. For one thing, what we are expecting from the government in terms of a nuclear fuel waste management plan is that the technical aspects of the storage program be taken into consideration at the planning stage.

Public consultation has to be at the basis of the Canadian policy on waste management. Canadians livre right beside the waste storage complexes. The best solution cannot be only technical. It has to include a sociological approach to management. We would have liked to see the government focus on green energy instead of making social choices that favour the Canadian nuclear industry.

The government is again being called to account for its refusal to hold public consultations, which were called for by the Seaborn commission.

On May 30, 2002, Normand de la Chevrotière appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, on the issue of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-19. He told us that his group, which includes 300 families, had asked the government to establish an environmental assessment board to examine the Bruce complex, which is designed to store radioactive nuclear waste near his community.

This complex on the shore of Huron Lake and the waste storage site are considered among the biggest in the world and are termed high level facilities, and experts will understand what I mean. People from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission told us this morning that they are certainly the biggest in North America.

I was reading some papers this morning, particularly an article from the September 1996 issue of Québec Science . Six years ago, the possibility of storing weapons grade plutonium from Russia and the U.S. at the Bruce complex was being examined . Six years ago, papers in the scientific community were considering this possibility.

The Department of Environment deemed that it was not appropriate to consult the public. It does not matter that 300 families will be living close to this site.

I want to go back to what I was saying two minutes ago when I was referring to the conclusions of the Seaborn panel. Sure, it is necessary to evaluate storage techniques but, more importantly, the public must be consulted.

I am under the impression that this bill is providing oxygen to the Canadian nuclear industry. The government is promoting the establishment in Canada of places to store nuclear waste, while ensuring that third parties, who may not necessarily have the responsibility to manage these sites, cannot be required to decontaminate them.

If a bank decides to fund the Bruce complex storage project, will it be responsible for decontaminating the site if this bill is passed? The answer is no. Those who will have provided the necessary funding to establish this complex on the shores of Lake Huron will have no environmental responsibility.

We want this government to send to the nuclear industry a clear message that its members must behave like good corporate citizens. The legislation already provides for the funding of storage projects by banks. However, it is totally unacceptable on the part of the government to remove the banks' responsibilities by condoning this.

So, this bill must be examined from a different perspective, not from the perspective of the government, which is trying to fool us with mere administrative and cosmetic arguments, because it wants to ram this legislation through the House. This shows how, sometimes, bills that amend only one section may have a major impact.

This is why we are opposed to the bill's only clause. It will have a major impact on the development of Canada's nuclear industry.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, not only has this bill been criticized on this side of the House, not only has it been criticized by the privacy commissioner, but it has also been criticized by the Liberal member for Mount Royal.

As I was saying earlier, as recently as May 3, the member for Mount Royal stated that the new terrorism bill constitutes a troubling threat to civil liberties. So, this is rather troubling for a bill, and there seems to be some consensus on this.

From this morning's editorials, it is clear that there is a trend, and that this government would like to give the impression that it is, in theory, the defender of fundamental rights, the rights of citizens around the world. Which begs us to ask a number of questions.

In its report, Amnesty International—a fairly well known organization—points out that there are no less than six regional human rights treaties that Canada has yet to ratify.

This is rather troublesome when one considers, for example, that next Tuesday, the House of Commons will be debating a motion that I moved and that calls on the government to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which comes under the Organization of American States, and that only nine countries, including Canada and the United States, have not ratified.

If we want to establish a free trade zone for the Americas, it seems to be fundamental to me—and I will end on this—to maintain this important balance between freedom and security, something towards which this government seems very insensitive, given Bill C-55.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, could you put an end to this, because I can hardy think.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, getting back to Bill C-55, the measures it contains are rather worrisome because, as I have said, they resemble measures and laws in totalitarian countries so much that you cannot tell them apart.

We are not the only ones saying so. The privacy commissioner said so. It is rather worrisome and it is even more disturbing that certain Liberal members opposite--whose names I will not mention because it is forbidden to do so--including one member in particular, have asked for a review of the national security bill, saying that “the new anti-terrorism bill is a serious threat to civil liberties”.

As I said, it is rather worrisome to see the government introduce such measures. We need to be vigilant and remember that, yes, September 11 profoundly changed the circumstances for the United States, the relationship that may exist in terms of service delivery in different areas—

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

The hon. member is asking me to quote the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, when he was sitting on this side of the House, not too long ago. However, I know that he always smiles when I get out the three sheets that I have here—

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to speak again to Bill C-55. The government revamped this bill in order to introduce, for all practical purposes, some rather special measures.

In doing so, it set the tone for what the government probably did not foresee in terms of an impact on the international stage. It triggered in the rest of the world a movement restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms.

I will come back to this in a moment, because the very essence of my whole argument lies in the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. This amendment puts the emphasis on Amnesty International's recent report. According to this report, in the aftermath of September 11, measures were taken and legislation was passed in many countries, but these also resulted in a restriction of the most fundamental freedoms.

On the international stage, Canada has always boasted of being one of the greatest champions of fundamental human rights and of passing a charter of rights. Some countries—Zimbabwe or India, for example—were inspired to a certain degree by the measures taken by this government in Bill C-55.

As several editorial writers have indicated this morning, whether in the Journal de Montréal or in Le Devoir , Bill C-55 would clearly lead to abuse, which is totally unacceptable. Why? Because, where controlled access military zones are concerned, for example, it is still the minister alone who would have the power to designate such zones, the same minister who omitted to inform his government in the prisoners of war matter. It is not only the Bloc Quebecois that said this several weeks and several months ago. Earlier this week, even Amnesty International indicated in its report, and I quote from the editorial in this morning edition of Le Devoir , “The Canadian section of Amnesty International said that it was concerned with policies that have been developed for refugees, with Ottawa's cowardly agreement with the legal status given by the Americans to prisoners of war”.

This was already part of our arguments on Bill C-55. My colleagues pointed that out several weeks ago. These are essentially the same findings that were made in an Amnesty International report that was made public yesterday or the day before.

The first argument of the Bloc then is to the effect that it is still the minister who would have the power to designate these controlled access military zones. The Amnesty International report said that this is totally unacceptable, given the way prisoners of war are being treated.

Another aspect is the fact that the consent of the Quebec government is still not required to establish a controlled access military zone on its territory. It seems essential that the federal government would inform the Quebec government of its intention to set up such controlled access military zones.

So, in light of all this, there is not much change between what was proposed in Bill C-42 and what we now find in Bill C-55.

This is cause for concern, because a number of countries refer to Canada as a protector of fundamental rights. This bill gives some legitimacy to and, unfortunately, justifies up to a point measures taken in Zimbabwe or in India, because Canada itself, which is seen as a protector of rights, adopts measures that violate freedoms. So, this is rather disturbing. The message sent by the federal government today is that it is now prepared to adopt measures that, until now, were associated with totalitarian countries and states.

One would never had thought that Canada would adopt such measures. No one would ever have believed that. I see that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is smiling. He does not agree with my comments. Yet, the Bloc Quebecois is not the only saying it. The privacy commissioner condemned Bill C-55, as the Bloc Quebecois did, when he said—and I would ask the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to listen—“that some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.