Jean-Yves Roy

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that what happened in Newfoundland is very similar to what people experienced in the Gaspé, particularly east of Matane, which is in my riding, and also from Chaleurs Bay all the way around the Gaspé Peninsula.

It is obvious that this was a true catastrophe; a whole economy was totally destroyed, just like in Newfoundland. The impact of this is still being felt to this day. Ten years have gone by since the 1992 moratorium. Whole villages practically shut down. To this day, the Gaspé is losing its people, just like the whole province of Newfoundland.

I did not mention this earlier, but according to the latest census figures, Newfoundland is experiencing the same situation as the Gaspé. It must be realized that Newfoundland's population is constantly diminishing and that whole villages have shut down following the moratorium. It is the same thing in my region and in the Gaspé.

The economy, which had been based on fishing for 300 years, was doing very well, but was totally destroyed. Everything closed down overnight. This is what a moratorium means. It means the complete destruction of an economy.

Let us try to imagine what this means to people who experience such a situation. It is almost like living through a war. People find themselves depending on governments when they are used to fending for themselves, to being gainfully employed. They become dependent on governments, on small ad hoc programs that provide them with what I would call a measly income. These people are kept in poverty, because the government was not aware of what was going on. It did not act with caution. It let the situation deteriorate.

In conclusion, if the government does not implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, things will not change. If it does not implement the committee's recommendations, if it does not act with caution, and display excellence, then it is not governing properly.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion by my colleague concerning the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Foreign Overfishing: Its Impacts and Solutions, Conservation on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap” off Newfoundland.

As most of my colleagues who have spoken have said, this is a unanimous report tabled by all of the committee's members. I would like to thank all my colleagues who were on the committee with me for their excellent work, as well as its chair, who is with us at this time.

The objective of the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was a very simple one: to protect the resource off Newfoundland, that is the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. We were made aware of the real tragedy that ensued as a result of the loss of this resource, both in Newfoundland and in Quebec, the Gaspé in particular.

I have just been rereading some of the witnesses' statements and would like to quote Richard Cashin, who headed the task force on incomes and adjustment in the Atlantic fishery in 1993.

It is now 2002, and we are still in the same boat. In fact, the situation is worse. In 1993, Mr. Cashin said:

We are dealing... with a famine of biblical scale—a great destruction. the Social and economic consequences of this... destruction are a challenge to be met and a burden [on] the [entire] nation, not just... its victims.

It was a real tragedy because fisheries management, prior to 1992 and the moratorium, was extremely lax. Things were let slide until they realized that the resource was at risk of disappearing. The day this was realized, the decision was made to establish a moratorium, and this totally demolished the economy of Newfoundland and the region I come from, the Gaspé.

My colleagues, particularly those from Newfoundland, have already referred to this. It is a veritable human tragedy, a profound and unfathomable one, that these people have had to live through. The tragedy continues to this day. In Gaspé as in Newfoundland, fishing was people's livelihood and an honourable one. It brought them in a decent income. Since the 1992 moratorium, they are faced with a totally catastrophic economic situation.

We know that since 1992, the federal government has had to create programs to assist these people. These assistance programs only kept the people of Newfoundland and the Gaspé in a state of poverty that continues to worsen today.

When there is a strong economy, based on resources that belong to the people, it is impossible, by way of assistance and support programs, to completely replace the economy of a province or a region like the Gaspé overnight when the resource disappears. Small projects, that last a few weeks, with paltry wages, cannot jump start the economy of a province or a region such as ours.

Basically, what the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is asking for is quite simple. We made five recommendations, which I believe should have been made back in 1992, and thought of well before the moratorium and well before we reached the catastrophic situation that we experienced in 1992.

It is incomprehensible that today, despite the 1992 moratorium, the federal government is still hesitating to implement real measures to ensure that the resource is protected. Right now, we cannot claim that the resource is being protected.

On the contrary, reports continually point out that the resource is at risk, that it continues to decline and that the fish stocks are not rebuilding themselves. This is what we are being told right now.

Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans are asking for something quite simple: that custodial management be implemented for the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

Why implement this type of management? It is quite simple. It is so that the resource can some day rebuild itself, so that some day, the people who traditionally lived off the resource, and who are still waiting to do so, can have some hope of living off the resource again.

Unfortunately, there are people who are still denied the resource and they have very low incomes. In my region, fishers make approximately $20,000 or $22,000 per year. These are people who could be making $100,000, and even more. These people are living on what I would describe as modest incomes, are being kept in poverty.

In the meantime, the federal government is hesitating to take the necessary measures, some proposed by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Yet, these measures are very simple.

Along with all its other partners, the federal government has set up what is called the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

All the stakeholders and witnesses who appeared before our committee said—and we were able to see this for ourselves—that the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization is not working and will never work.

The reason is very simple: member countries set quotas, decide whether or not to implement regulations, and decide, at some point, to give themselves additional quotas, in spite of the fact that the resource is in jeopardy and that scientists, who are paid by NAFO, come and tell them that the resource is in jeopardy and that quotas must be reduced.

These people form a majority within NAFO and vote additional quotas for themselves, in order to support their economy. However, they are supporting their economy while wearing blinkers, because soon the resource will be all gone. Soon, these people will find themselves in the situation that we experienced, that Newfoundland experienced and that the Gaspé experienced.

What is even more serious is that this resource is our resource. As the hon. member mentioned earlier, it is obvious that even though there is a 200 mile zone, groundfish does not stay outside that 200 mile limit. It crosses that limit and, therefore, it becomes our resource. This is what we call straddling stocks. Under the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, we have the right to protect our jurisdiction over the resource within the 200 mile zone, our resource called straddling stocks.

To show how disappointed people are about NAFO, I will quote some of the comments made to us when we were in Newfoundland and in the Atlantic regions, including remarks by the hon. Gerry Reid, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Reid said:

If you want to look at what happened at the last NAFO meeting back in January, it becomes obvious that NAFO is not working for the benefit of Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

We are well aware that NAFO is only working for the benefit of the European Union countries, which represent the majority within this organization, including Spain and Portugal, which are probably the worst offenders when it comes to respecting the resource.

Here is what was said by Jim Morgan, a spokesperson for the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association.

NAFO was an organization that failed desperately in controlling and managing the stocks on the edge of our continental shelf.

It is obvious that NAFO failed “desperately”, as Mr. Morgan, the witness we heard from, said. This is not surprising, because they basically have no interest in enforcing the rules. They have no interest in depriving themselves of a resource that we are leaving for them, giving to them.

We are applying the rules stringently for Newfoundland fishers, and we have police to monitor Gaspé fishers. But we are letting fishers from these countries, NAFO members, deprive us of our resource and, as my father would have said, take the bread right out of our mouth. This is what the present federal government is letting happen and what it is hesitating to change.

I have here in front of me the five recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. These are very simple recommendations which would enable us to protect and safeguard the resources. They would perhaps give us some hope of being able to restore a fishery in Newfoundland, as well as in the Gaspé. These recommendations must be approved by the federal government. This parliament must give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the mandate to implement these recommendations.

These recommendations are not difficult to implement. They are simple recommendations. First, custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap must be implemented no later than one year following the September 2002 NAFO meeting.

We are not asking the government to do it overnight, because we are well aware that this would be impossible. On the other hand, one year after the September 2002 meeting, that is September 2003, is a possibility. It is not impossible, if government decides this is important and necessary.

Another recommendation is that, as I have said, basically all witnesses felt that NAFO is totally ineffective. The countries themselves are the ones allocated resources, when we know very well they really have no intention of protecting the resource, which is not theirs anyway.

Considering that NAFO is totally inefficient and ineffective, and considering that we bear 40% of the costs—if memory serves, the Canadian government pays very close to $500,000 to NAFO to have its resource stolen from it—let us cease to be a member. Let us withdraw from NAFO, useless and totally ineffective organization that it is.

When an organization is ineffective, when one is a member of an organization that does not function, and when one pays 40% of its costs moreover, I believe it is our duty to withdraw from it and to announce that we are going to take control and decide on our own what to do, that is to say protect the resource and ensure that our fishers, whether from the Gaspé or from Newfoundland, can benefit from this resource which belongs to the community.

The fishers of Newfoundland and the people of Gaspé are not the only ones affected by this groundfish catastrophe which has affected all maritime fishers since 1992, or even earlier. They are not alone. Everyone in Quebec, in the maritimes, and in the rest of Canada is affected.

The resource is not the property of only one province or of certain European countries; it belongs to us all collectively.

I call upon parliament to support the motion submitted to us, so that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans may be implemented, so that Canada may withdraw from NAFO, and so that custodial management is implemented on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

[Species at Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me answer to my colleague that it would be difficult for me to support this bill for two reasons, as I indicated in my remarks.

First and foremost, I think the Canadian government should not wait until a species is at risk before affording some protection. Essentially, there is nothing in this bill on what I would call the prevention principe. It is nowhere to be found in the bill.

Speaking about prevention, I could talk about our fish resources. There has been no prevention for 30 years, and our fisheries have been decimated. This is another case of species at risk. Not only did the government not take its responsibilities, but it also made the problem worse with the action it has taken in the last five years.

Take the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, for example. The government did not take its responsibilities. It did not demand that its partners stop overfishing in the Grand Banks area. This is but one example.

The hon. member is asking me how I could support the government. Why am I not prepared to support it? Because there is no point. It is that simple. There is no point, because it will not take its responsibilities anyway.

Another case in point is the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases. Will the government give a clear signal and ratify the protocol? We do not know. Why is it reluctant to ratify a protocol that is a strict minimum to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I say it is a minimum because pollution will keep increasing and could endanger human life on this planet.

[Species at Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act.

I also spoke at first reading stage. Let me begin by saying that this legislation is but a drop of water in the ocean. And I am not playing on words, because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Bill C-5 involves more specifically three departments: Heritage Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada.

That bill is only a drop in the ocean because we must realize what the situation is right now. For example, we must recognize that greenhouse gas could bring about some serious disasters in various regions of our planet. Even if we want to create areas where we could protect species at risk, a much wider and serious problem will remain.

We should consider, among other things, the adoption of the Kyoto protocol, which the Department of the Environment and the Canadian government are still reluctant to ratify. We could also consider acid rain, which have a very major impact on our environment and could, in several areas, put our wildlife and some wildlife species at risk.

At present, with Bill C-5, the government is acting much like someone who, because his roof is leaking, is running around trying to find pots and pans to catch the leaks. The first thing we have to do is to ratify the Kyoto protocol and reduce greenhouse gases. An increase of only one or two degrees in the global temperature is enough to put thousands of species at risk and ultimately thousands of animal and plant species at risk. Whole habitats could be destroyed by a global warming of only one or two degrees. This is a very important aspect.

This is why it is vital to ratify the Kyoto protocol and even to improve it. At present, we face a very serious situation. We know that global warming produces disturbances and can cause major disasters.

Besides, the Canadian government seems really weak when it comes to negotiating with our neighbours to the south, who are the main source of greenhouse gases. These airborne gases cause acid rain. As we know, all regions in our country, especially the east, are in the path of the winds blowing from the United States. The Americans are sending us their pollution. Recently, the U.S. government announced that it intended to continue to use fossil fuels, including coal, which is one of the main sources of pollution and the biggest cause of acid rain.

Acid rain has a major impact on the environment, on trees, plants and endangered species. Ultimately, acid rain gets into the rivers and the oceans and destroys the environment. Greenhouse gases may even cause some species to disappear and threaten ecosystems on a global scale.

As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis said earlier, we must have a look at what is going on on a global scale to realize that very little has been done to protect the environment. The Department of the Environment has a major responsibility to help find a way to deal with endangered species.

Being a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and knowing that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has and will have a huge responsibility with regard to species at risk under the bill before us, I must say that I am quite concerned about the possible results when we are talking about the protection of species at risk by that department.

This morning, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans tabled in the House a unanimous report about protecting the resource so that future generations can benefit from that particular resource.

Managing the fish resource in Quebec has been the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1982. This has led to a major ecological disaster. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not done its job.

The same goes for Newfoundland, as we discussed at length this morning at the news conference regarding the tabling of that report.

For centuries, Newfoundlanders and people from member countries of the European Economic Community enjoyed the resource that was found off our shores. For the past 10 years, that resource has been diminishing to the point where certain species could go extinct. It became necessary to impose moratoria to allow the resource to recover.

Despite these moratoria, the resource continues to dwindle, and there is reason to fear the worse for certain species. They are important species not only because they are indigenous species, but because communities that used to depend on them for their livelihood can no longer depend on them today.

That is a good example of an ecological disaster and the mismanagement by the entire federal government since it has taken over the management of that resource. That is why I am extremely concerned when the federal government brings us a bill like Bill C-5.

It is often said that the past is an indication of what the future holds in store. If I look to the past performance of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I am in no way reassured as to the future. I cannot trust the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect the resource. On the contrary, I think that it has mismanaged the resource so that it has been destroyed and is no longer available.

Entire communities, whether in Newfoundland, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, the North Shore or the maritimes, who lived off an important resource are now the victims of a real catastrophe from a human and ecological point of view because, in all these regions, the moratoria imposed on groundfish, for example, means that thousands of people were left without jobs and hundreds of plants shut down.

We were speaking about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Canadian Heritage, which would be responsible for protecting species at risk.

Let us suppose that what the Canadian government and the department try to do is create small areas where so-called species at risk could be protected.

We cannot oppose the desire to protect such species, to help them survive.

I was the mayor of a municipality and, with the help of Canadian heritage, Environment Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada, we created a park in order to protect certain species and help them survive and thrive. I repeat, however, that these were extremely limited areas.

When I look at the past performance of the Canadian government, I cannot trust it when it comes to protecting our environment and species at risk, and when it comes to protecting human health itself. There is no way that we can trust this government.

For the past 100 or so years, there has been a constant increase in the number of species disappearing from the face of the planet. For the past 100 or so years, this process has speeded up for a very simple reason. Since the industrial revolution, since the appearance of the new technologies, including cars, trains, planes and so on, the environment has taken a back seat. People went for the easy solution first: technology.

Some countries had to react quickly. I am thinking of England, for one, which has succeeded in cleaning up the pollution in the Thames. As a result, it has been able to regain some of the life it lost during the industrial revolution.

This was a major ecological catastrophe, and some species disappeared. Today efforts are being made to reintroduce them to the Thames, but this is not necessarily a possibility.

The industrial revolution left us with the heritage of science based solely on technology, with its objective of facilitating human existence, while partially destroying the environment at the same time.

Only recently have people begun to be aware of the great importance of the environment, and only recently has heavy pressure been brought to bear on governments to make them realize that, if we destroy the environment in which we live, there will be a price to pay. This is very important.

This week, we debated the pesticide legislation. I am thinking of what happened during the 1950s, with DDT in particular. This was a major problem, because we could have harmed our environment to a very considerable extent.

I remember how forests were sprayed with DDT and we were told there was no danger whatsoever to human beings. Afterward, we found out that this was totally wrong and that there was considerable danger, not just for humans, but also for our environment. I am sure there was a very serious impact on certain species.

Among the examples one might think of is the beluga in the St. Lawrence. This is a species we are trying to protect today, and would like to see multiply, but it has nearly disappeared.

Unfortunately, we have come to realize that pesticides have affected the Far North as well, although we used to think it was a very limited phenomenon. Scientists have discovered that northern species were affected by DDT although it had been spread in the south.

These products are the results of what I would call modern technology, because I make a distinction between technology and science. Modern technology has led us to commit some very significant abuses, and they continue to this day.

Concerning greenhouse gas, it is critical—and I go back to this once again—that the Canadian government ratify Kyoto and even improve on it in the near future. As I was saying earlier, global warming has already caused major changes and will cause more in the future.

Of course, we could consider, as we heard earlier, that the environment is not a priority in certain circles. Priority is given to the industry and to production, as opposed to our environment. In the short term, this is possible. However, in the long term, we will all pay the price.

There is another reason why we cannot agree with the bill before us. Like other bills put forward by the Canadian government, this bill does not in any way take jurisdictions into consideration.

The government essentially tells people “What you have done in the past—I am talking about three provinces and Quebec—we do not care about. We will not take it into account. We will have a blanket policy because only four of your governments have done work in this area. So we must extend this work to the entire country”.

Once again, it is the government's approach that seems totally wrong and unwarranted to me. It should take into consideration what has already been done; it should work with its partners; it should work not only with provincial partners, but also with local partners, because when it comes to the environment, public awareness is very important.

It is crucial to involve the public when it comes to the issue of the environment. If citizens are not involved, there cannot be real changes in the environment and the protection of species at risk, especially when areas that are created must be respected and considered in a particular way.

Again, the government is forgetting its partners. It is ignoring them and the good work they did on Bill C-5.

The minister will say that he consulted and heard various groups. It is not enough to consult them. The government must follow up on these consultations with agreements, it must take into consideration what was said. Unfortunately, there are very few things in Bill C-5 to show that the government took into account the representations that were made. It only took into consideration the suggestions that suited it, particularly as regards the supposedly Canada-wide organizations on the protection of species at risk and of the environment.

For these reasons, it will of course be difficult to support this bill.

Another thing that is difficult to accept is the limitation put by Bill C-5 on the true protection of species. As I said earlier, it is one thing to create restricted areas, but it takes major investments to ensure that an ecosystem can survive and thrive. Right now, the government's investments to protect our environment seem minor, in my opinion.

In conclusion, unfortunately, we cannot support this legislation for all these reasons.

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, almost two years ago, the Prime Minister's closest advisers were aware of the problems surrounding the sponsorship program. Therefore, the Prime Minister knew.

Their solution was to prepare a communication plan that is now being used, two years later. The Prime Minister tried to prevent the controversy by hiding his government's misuse of funds.

The abuses did not stop, far from it; things continued for two years. The Prime Minister approved the system and gave it his blessing.

Instead of punishing the guilty parties, he reappointed Alfonso Gagliano as minister of public works. The Prime Minister rewarded his henchmen. He pointed the finger at public servants, when it was people from his office who were calling the shots. The Prime Minister is now evading his responsibilities.

In short, the Prime Minister is guilty on all counts: he knew, he covered up and he let things go on. The only way to really clean things up is to launch an independent public inquiry.

[Petitions, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House a petition to recognize that Canada Post Corporation workers who deliver mail in rural areas should be able to benefit from acceptable working conditions, unlike what has been done in the past.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to Bill C-53, and I am happy to be able to do so briefly today.

In any event, I believe that I will have the opportunity to come back to it and to express my opinion on the bill now before the House. I will probably have the opportunity to express my opinion and talk about my experience to those who are listening to us.

What I wanted to talk about today is my personal experience with pesticides, as I was the mayor of a municipality for a long time. I wanted to indicate what I have accomplished. That would have given the people who are listening today an actual example of this. I will, however, have the opportunity to come back to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech earlier, I had the feeling something I said had raised your eyebrows, but I did not want to panic anybody about nuclear energy.

I wanted to make people aware of the fact that, at present, nuclear energy is not clean. It produces waste which cannot be really disposed of for now.

However, I would like to get back to the speech by my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière which I found excellent. Of course, he praised my area, and that made me happy. This does not happen very often. So I should enjoy it.

He mentioned, among other things, shipyards. If only we had had a program to invest in clean energy. One must understand that the future of wind energy is not only on land.

In the future, we will have platforms out to sea, on which windmills would be installed. This has already started in other parts of the world. If such platforms are set up at sea, shipyards such as Verreault Navigation, at les Méchins, and the one in Lévis could benefit from it. Not only could the Lévis shipyard benefit from it, but it could be its future because this technology could be exported across the world, across the whole planet, to replace nuclear energy, which we will never be able to properly master and which will continue to produce a lot of waste.

I would simply like to quote what the Minister of Natural Resources wrote recently. I am doing it with regard to the proposed amendment. I believe this will help us understand something. This is what the minister said, talking about the backers of companies that finance nuclear energy. I will read slowly so that everybody understands properly.

Lenders were faced with unknown financial obligations that may exceed by far their commercial interest. The consequence has been to discourage private sector interest in lending to the nuclear industry.

If lenders are faced with unknown financial obligation, how about the public? What does it mean for the public? I quote the minister, who said that lenders were faced with unknown risks. So is the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I am absolutely opposed to privatizing nuclear plants. I believe we have enough problems as it is with nuclear plants.

I think of what happened last year, or several years ago, with Ontario Hydro. It was realized that the plants were poorly maintained, and that several of them were a risk because of aging and poor maintenance. Just imagine for a moment if it were a private enterprise whose sole purpose was to make money.

I have nothing against private enterprise, but when dealing with such a thing as nuclear energy, I do not believe that the state should withdraw and stop exercising very strict control, especially with regard to nuclear power plants built 15 and 20 years ago. They are aging very fast and in need of investment. I am looking at the situation in New Brunswick. We have just been told that the Government of New Brunswick does not know what to do any more and wants to turn to the private sector because otherwise it will cost a fortune. If it does not succeed in attracting investors, the government of New Brunswick will have to close the plant. It will have to forget about it. This is what it means.

With regard to using nuclear energy, when these plants were built, this type of energy was not well known and neither were the consequences that could result from building nuclear plants. Scientists were allowed to play around with this type of energy without knowing what the consequences would be.

As I am running out of time, I would just like to add one thing. With regard to nuclear energy, let us not forget that in the area of medicine, we used to talk about nuclear magnetic resonance. Today, people are so afraid of nuclear energy that this kind of equipment is called magnetic resonance. People have every right to be afraid of nuclear plants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides for asking me this question, because I did not elaborate enough indeed. I would have liked to elaborate further because, as I was telling her, I come from a region where we are quite far ahead in the wind energy sector.

I come from a region where a university took its responsibilities and went ahead and developed new energies, particularly wind energy.

I mentioned earlier that the federal government is investing hardly anything in new energies. In the last budget, an announcement was made concerning a possible reduction in electricity fees, thanks to a grant for electricity produced from wind energy and from new energy.

However, this is very minor. This is not an investment program, as we all wish for, that is an investment program of at least $700 million. This amount seems huge, but, as I remind the House, the government has invested $6 billion in nuclear energy since 1970.

It has invested $66 billion of the taxpayers' money in the gas industry. These are not investments by private companies; these are investments by this government using your tax dollars. Since 1970, the government has invested $66 billion on research to produce oil, to extract oil.

Furthermore, there is a member who sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with me and who comes from Newfoundland. He knows that the federal government has invested billions of dollars in Hibernia. At the time, that was fine.

But now, more is required. Renewable energies must be produced. Research must be done into such things as electrically powered cars, because this is the way of the future. And finally, if we want to be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol one day, we will have to invest in renewable energies. We know that the primary reason for the increase in greenhouse gases is the use of oil.

So let us stop investing in oil and temporarily invest in the new energies. Let us at least make the effort. Let us do research. Right now, it is non-existent; there is no investment in research.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—I would like to get back to my colleague—, I gave as an example what is known as the precautionary principle in such areas as the fishery, when it is a question of saving the resource. The amendment now before us ignores the precautionary principle.

The precautionary principle is a basic principle of government. The idea is for a government to ensure that companies assume their responsibilities from beginning to end, for a body like the Nuclear Energy Agency, which produces nuclear energy, to shoulder its responsibilities from beginning to end.

What would happen if, tomorrow morning, a nuclear plant were privatized, handed over to the private sector, with primarily foreign capital at stake, and these people pulled out after a catastrophe or the company went bankrupt? Once again, the government would be left holding the bag. The government would have to shell out.

But this is not how the precautionary principle works. With the precautionary principle, backers of these companies also have a responsibility. And this is the exact opposite of what is being proposed today. I cannot agree with this amendment.