Mr. Speaker, would you please call the Liberal member on the other side to order. He has not stopped heckling me for my entire speech. If he would like to speak, let him wait to have the floor.
Furthermore, we have to ask ourselves if nuclear energy is safe. The government, just like its engineers, claims that the Candu technology is the best. But is that true?
In a report aired by the French CBC on August 11, 2000, we learned that:
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is concerned about the quality of the maintenance of the main reactor at the Chalk River plant, close to Ottawa. The commission fears that the departure of several experts and engineers in recent years may jeopardize the safety of the plant's operations.
The problem is that, in 1999, a great number of very well trained people have left the plant. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has made an assessment and concluded that Atomic Energy Canada does not invest all the resources needed in replacement personnel training.
Since 1957, we have been relying on a system of on the job training.
Clearly what is happening within our nuclear plants makes no sense. The Bloc Quebecois therefore proposes different ways for the government to deal with nuclear energy.
Recently, and it is important to remind the House of this; my colleagues have said this and I want to remind the House—the Bloc has proposed an investment plan of $700 million over five years to encourage the development of a wind industry in Quebec. This plan could help create more than 15,000 jobs in Quebec, mainly in the Gaspé Peninsula.
We know that we must help the people in the Gaspé Peninsula. We must help these people, and we know that the ideal place in Canada and in Quebec to invest in the wind industry is the Gaspé Peninsula, because of the wind, because of the unique sites there for this type of energy.
I remind the House that in 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, Canada undertook to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% compared to the 1990 level by the year 2008 to 2010.
For the federal government, the only alternative to clean and green energy is oil and nuclear energy. This is serious. It has put $6 billion into the atomic energy program alone.
As for financial assistance to the fossil energy industry, since 1970—the Canadian people have to know this—the federal government has paid $66 billion in direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry. By comparison, businesses in the renewable energy sector received 200 times less from the federal government, which gave absolutely nothing for the development of hydroelectric power—not one cent to Quebec—a type of really clean energy that produces no greenhouse gases and no radioactive material. Quebec has been developing this type of energy for more than 40 years.
This is why we believe that Canada should give up on the development of nuclear energy.
No wonder Canada lags far behind the leaders, with a production of only 207 megawatts installed. Even the United States has significant incentives, such as a subsidy of 2.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, to reach a capacity of more than 5,000 kilowatts-hour.
Quebec accounts for 50% of this production, which is minimal considering its potential.