Debates of Feb. 14th, 1995

Income Tax Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

It being 6.10 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

moved that Bill C-285, an act to eliminate financial support for nuclear reactor design and construction in Canada or abroad and to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have the chance to raise this private member's bill today. It is very timely. Today is Valentine's Day when we acknowledge the special relationships that we have in our lives.

Today I call into question the relationship that the federal government has with the nuclear industry. For many years it has been a sweetheart deal between the federal government and the nuclear industry of Canada.

Essentially this bill is intended to cut the subsidies that the federal government over the years has provided for the nuclear sector. I have a list from 1948 until 1992. I will not read it out because it goes on and on. It clearly identifies the hundreds of millions of dollars with which the Canadian taxpayers subsidize Canada's nuclear industry.

I want to make clear from the start that this in no way reflects a reduction in support for the use of isotopes for medical use. We all acknowledge the benefits that accrue from a whole set of medical initiatives.

Perhaps I should read what this bill does. The title is Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act.

It says:

Notwithstanding any act of Parliament, no payment shall be made from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of subsidizing or paying or loaning any part of the cost or of guaranteeing any loan that is for the purpose of subsidizing or paying or loaning any part of the cost of any real property, intellectual property, goods or services that are used for the research, investigation, design, testing, construction, manufacture, operation, use, application or licensing of any thing or property of any nature that will be used in or for a nuclear reactor.

It goes on to elaborate on this theme. Basically it is a bill that would eliminate the subsidies that the federal government provides to the nuclear sector. These are substantial. I think if one were to generalize, it would not be an elaboration to suggest that on average about $200 million a year of taxpayers' money goes to subsidizing this particular industry.

This is a time when we are all conscious of the need for fiscal restraint and aware of the need for evaluating every subsidy, grant and expenditure on a cost benefit basis. We can apply any cost benefit analysis to ask whether the $200 million year after year is a good investment for the taxpayers of Canada. There is only one conclusion in economic, health and environmental terms. It does not stand up to scrutiny.

I want to elaborate on a few points. We talk about being on the dole. A previous leader went on at some time about the corporate welfare bums. If there were ever a corporate welfare bum it has to be the nuclear sector. We would assume the nuclear industry is a major player in the energy sector because of the tremendous subsidies it receives.

We would assume the nuclear sector contributes a significant percentage of the overall energy sector of Canada. It does not. It is actually beneath firewood. In other words, more people use firewood for energy than nuclear energy. By firewood I am talking about hog fuels as opposed to what people are using in a fireplace or whatever. We typically burn chunks of wood.

Wood accounts for about 7 per cent of the energy picture. Coal, electric and others account for 6 per cent. Hydro accounts for 14 per cent, gas for 33 per cent, oil for 36 per cent, nuclear 4 per cent. Out of all of the various energy options in our country, nuclear accounts for about 4 per cent of the entire energy package. Yet in terms of research and development monies coming from the federal government, it receives more than all others combined.

When we add up the $200 million a year over the life of this particular government, it will come to nearly $1 billion. I think if taxpayers were put the question in a referendum: "Are you prepared to spend $1 billion over the life of this particular federal government to support and subsidize the nuclear energy sector?", my guess is that overwhelmingly people would say no.

I know that an argument people often use for example is there are a number of people employed in this sector. Of course, we could say that about any sector. If that were the sole motivation, I suppose we should be subsidizing the marijuana industry or the drug industry if jobs are the criteria.

Any economic activity will create jobs, including the nuclear sector. Of greater relevance is whether such jobs are sustainable, including the overall cost to society of maintaining those jobs.

When I talk about the $200 million subsidy annually, that is not the actual cost to Canadians. That is the cost today. Eventually we are going to have to start dismantling these nuclear reactors, 22 of them with Ontario Hydro alone. We are going to start decommissioning these nuclear reactors. To decommission a nuclear reactor is not some minor financial undertaking.

The Auditor General, I think in the 1992 report, indicated that a major cost that is never counted into the accounting system of Atomic Energy Canada is the cost accruing in terms of eventual dismantling. We have some evidence of what that cost would be. I think the most recent nuclear reactor that was dismantled in New Jersey cost $157 million U.S. Rounding it out, for one nuclear reactor alone we are adding another $200 million for the decommissioning. That is just decommissioning. What do we do with the nuclear waste? Again, we have yet to come up with something for what is at this moment a serious problem and likely to be a problem for perhaps hundreds, thousands or millions of years to come.

Here we are on this treadmill developing nuclear reactors, going head long in terms of these incredible subsidies to this one energy sector that only accounts for 4 per cent of the total energy package for Canada at a time when they are unsafe, we do not

know what to do with the waste. Even now the subsidies do not reflect the true cost.

We just had on Parliament Hill a reception. The minister welcomed the nuclear industry to Parliament Hill. We heard what people are really worried about, that this is very economical.

If it is so economical why have we had to subsidize this industry since 1948? Why does it cost the taxpayers of Canada, not $200 million, not $1 billion, but close to $20 billion? Is this what we call economical? That industry after decades of subsidization still cannot stand on its own two feel. It requires this incredible subsidy by the federal government on an annual basis.

Talk about being on the dole. That industry should be hanging its head in disgrace, coming here wearing out the knees of its pants asking for that kind of handout from the taxpayers of Canada year after year. Has it no grace? Has it no pride?-not as long as those people are across the way, whether they be Tories or Liberals, it does not make any difference. They are there, backing up the old truck and shovelling out the taxpayers' dollars, $200 million to start with on an annual basis.

I think my Liberal friends across the way surely should be waiting for me to sit down so they can get up and condemn this abuse of taxpayers' money and to say now is the time to send a message to our Minister of Finance. They should stand up and be counted. Do the right thing. Listen to Canadians and stop this handout to the nuclear industry.

I got a little worked up but I cannot help it when I see the kind of abuses we tolerate.

What can we say about this? I want to reiterate a few points. The nuclear industry represents 4 per cent of the energy package of Canada and yet receives more than the natural gas sector, the oil sector, the coal sector, the renewable sector and conservation combined in terms of subsidies.

I ask my Liberal friends across the way-I know my Reform friends will agree with me and certainly the Bloc will agree with me-if we are going to subsidize any part of the energy sector should it not make more sense to subsidize the area that is looking into how to replace this kind of industry, the renewable resources or the alternative, the conservationist options that are available to us?

We heard sometime ago that down in New York they decided to back out of the big James Bay hydro project. The reason they did that was the conservation elements that they introduced in the state of New York were so overwhelmingly successful they did not need the power. There might be other factors that we have to take into consideration but fundamentally the energy authority in the state of New York said the conservation methods introduced have been so successful that it does not have to enter into that long term energy agreement with Quebec Hydro.

Again, where we have evidence it works. Yet this government seems to be walking around with a real hearing problem, a real sight problem. It cannot see what is obviously the right thing to do. I say to the government if it is confident in what it says it does, ask the people of Canada what they think; if we should be handing out money by the basket full, $200 million a year plus to one energy sector that accounts for only 4 per cent of the whole energy package in Canada.

If there is a country in the world that does not have to subsidize the nuclear industry, that does not need a nuclear industry, it is Canada.

We have energy coming out of our yin-yang. We have coal, we have-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Yin-yang is a town in Saskatchewan, I think. I am not certain of that.

[An hon. member]

It is a little town in China.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My friend says it is a little town in China. That sounds better.

Despite 50 years of massive government subsidies, being on the dole, asking for handouts, the nuclear industry still cannot stand on its own two feet. Should that not get all of our attention in this House? After 50 years of handouts, after 50 years of coming in here and begging for support, it still cannot stand on its own two feet. Should we not say it is time it reassess how viable it is in terms of the future of Canada?

This gets almost obscene. The federal government wrote off a $70 million loan to AECL for the Douglas Point reactor at Bruce site. Quebec's number one reactor never operated properly and had to be shut down. A $90 million loan to AECL was written off by the federal government.

Despite the failure of that reactor Ottawa has now financed a second one to the tune of $151 million. It gets worse. It is very embarrassing.

It is the standing policy of this government, the Tories before and the Liberals now, to finance one-half of the estimated cost of any province's first nuclear plant. That is policy. The Government of Canada has written off about $800 million in unpaid loans to Nova Scotia and Quebec heavy water plants. In 1977-78 the federal government wrote off about $190 million in loans to AECL.

Canada's Nuclear Liability Act limits the liability of nuclear operators to $75 million in the event of a nuclear accident. It has been estimated that a severe accident at the Darlington nuclear

station would cost at least a trillion dollars and could lead to over 200,000 fatalities.

I could go on and on. That brings me to an important point, whether the nuclear energy sector is safe? I think this is fundamental in people's minds. It is certainly not economical. It is certainly environmentally unsound and I think that is a given. Is it safe?

Mr. Speaker, I think you will be shocked. During 1993 the Atomic Energy Control Board recorded 700 "unusual incidents" at Canada's 22 operating nuclear reactors. That is almost two a day. You are astonished. I am too. These incidents range from spills of radioactive heavy water to unexplained power surges. Of these, 270 were serious enough to warrant a full report to AECB and a follow up investigation. That is incredible, two incidents a day that warranted full scale investigations.

The annual reports of the Atomic Energy Control Board provide ample evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear technology. The following really got me riled up in terms of having to do something to prevent this catastrophe that is about to happen. It is reported that in August 1992 radioactive heavy water from the Pickering A nuclear reactor leaked into Lake Ontario downstream from the water supply plants for the communities of Ajax and Whitby, forcing a shutdown of the plants. This incident resulted in the highest single emission of radioactive tritium into the lake since the reactor began operating in 1971.

This goes on and on. No wonder those whales are whipping up on the beaches in Quebec all scarred up, sick and blue. We have nuclear waste draining into the Great Lakes.

The 1992 annual report, the one that really got my attention, states that in March 1993 Ontario Hydro discovered a serious deficiency in the analysis of an accident involving a large loss of reactor coolant. The analysis showed that the consequence of such an accident, if it were to occur while operating at full power, would be unacceptable. The term unacceptable is a euphemism for a disaster, probably.

They are not safe. They are not economical. They are environmentally unsound. They are a threat to our health and they are breaking the treasury. Why on earth would we continue on this sort of treadmill to nowhere, forking out that kind of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Speaker, my time is quickly coming to an end. So I will sit down now while I wait for my friends across the way to explain to the taxpayers of Canada how this incredible subsidy ought to continue.

Hopefully, a little lightening bolt will come out of the sky and give them a little snap so they will say: "Yes, tomorrow morning I am going to walk over to the Minister of Finance's desk, sit down beside him and say: "Mr. Minister of Finance, it is time to end this madness. Save the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. Bring them a safer environment, a healthier environment and something that is economically and environmentally sound now". The only way we can do that is to stop funding Canada's nuclear sector.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Earlier in his intervention the member referred to the Speaker being shocked. I am not so sure about that, but I am still looking for that little town in the Chinese province of Saskatchewan.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, well here we go again. The NDP party with the same bill it brought in before. The same old party. The same worn out rhetoric. The same wrong conclusions-

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to hear the hon. member's speech however, he mentioned the NDP party. Think about it. That would be the New Democratic Party party. If he is going to refer to us, at least say the New Democratic Party.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Respectfully, the member does not have a point of order.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very kind because I have heard them called worse.

I want to remind the hon. member that Ontario Premier Bob Ray stood with the Prime Minister of Canada when we sold two reactors to China. He was so proud of our Canadian technology. I know he got into a bit of criticism over that, but he understands what research and development means and we respect him for that.

This bill will prevent the federal government from giving any financial assistance or technical support to nuclear reactor projects, except those making isotopes for medical use.

The hon. member made a great deal out of wasting money. Let me state one important point right off the bat, and this is for Canadian consumption in view of what the hon. member has said. From 1952 to 1992 the Canadian government invested $4.7 billion in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. During the 30 year period from 1962 until 1992 the nuclear industry in Canada had a return for Canadians of $23 billion. Now, if we are going to get a return of $5 for every dollar invested, I do not think that is a bad investment.

NDP members have learned one thing. It took them some time to learn it, but they learned that isotopes are useful in medicine. Radioisotopes have various applications. One use is for sterilizing medical instruments. The hon. member does not seem to understand that cobalt 60 which is a byproduct from Ontario Hydro's power reactors is an isotope product. He wants to

destroy the reactors that produce it, yet he wants isotopes saved for medical purposes.

Come on, do your homework here. In their press conference material the hon. member and his colleagues do not want the production of isotopes for medical use interfered with, but in this bill they are proposing to cripple hydro power reactors which produce isotopes. What a contradiction.

Molly 99 which is a shortened version of Molybdenum 99 is produced at the NRU research reactor at Chalk River. This is a radioisotope product which is supplied to Nordion International Incorporated so that Canada can continue to control the 88 to 90 per cent of the world market we control today in isotopes. However, the NDP today wants to cripple some of the production facilities of isotopes while at the same time wanting to maintain isotope production. That sounds like the modern day rhetoric of the NDP.

I want to get on to some other very interesting things in reply to what the hon. member has said. Those are items about the economic factors.

In 1993, 50 per cent of Ontario's electricity came from nuclear generators and in New Brunswick, 35 per cent came from nuclear generators. In 1993, Ontario Hydro's published generating costs were 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour for fossil fuel and 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear power. This is a 20 per cent advantage for nuclear power, yet the NDP calls that waste. We can understand that.

In terms of lifetime performance, five in the top 20 reactors in the entire world were Candu reactors made in Canada by Canadians. Canada's Pointe Lepreau reactor was the number two reactor in the entire world.

The automobile industry uses nuclear technology to test steel quality in cars. The paper industry uses it in the production of coded stock. Manufacturers use it to check for flaws in jet engines. Construction crews gauge the density of road surfaces and subsurfaces with it. Pipeline companies test the strength of welds, and oil and gas mining companies map the contours of test wells and mine bores with it. But NDP members want to do away with all this. They are very progressive in their thinking. It is no wonder they are sitting where they are today.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited engineers developed the first commercial sterilizers in 1964. There are roughly 170 such units currently in use in 46 countries and 90 of them are Canadian designs.

Radioisotopes are used extensively by industry in quality control and process management. The petroleum industry uses them to test pipeline welds. The pulp and paper industry uses them to measure the thickness of paper. Many industries use them to trace the flows of material through process systems.

Imagine what would happen to our modern day industry if we destroyed the basis of all this. In environmental matters, the worldwide use of nuclear power plants results in lowered CO2 emissions globally by 1.5 billion tonnes a year.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

And they are opposed to this?

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Yes, they are opposed to this.

If Ontario Hydro had used coal fired generating plants to produce the same amount of electricity as has been made by its nuclear plants to date, it would have released 9.9 million tonnes of acid gas into the atmosphere and produced 23.3 million tonnes of ashes.

All of the used fuel from Canada's nuclear plants would fit into one olympic size swimming pool. The coal ashes would require about 25,000 times as much space if coal had been used.

What is more, the nuclear fuel still has the potential for recycling to produce much more energy. A single uranium fuel bundle of about 10 centimetres in diameter and 50 centimetres long and weighing 25 kilograms produces as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil. But the NDP wants to do away with this.

A large nuclear power reactor uses 150 tonnes of natural uranium per year, equivalent to two million tonnes of black coal or 10 million barrels of oil. Is that what the NDP stands for?

Since 1973 nuclear power plants worldwide have cut fossil fuels used to generate electricity by 17.6 billion barrels of oil worth $470 billion U.S., 2.2 billion tonnes of coal, 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is not a bad saving. It is not bad for conservation.

For medical applications almost every facet of modern medicine relies in some way on nuclear technology, from nuclear powered units in heart pacemakers to the sutures, surgical gloves and medical supplies that are sterilized by radiation and used in hospitals each day.

Millions of diagnostic procedures are carried out annually using nuclear technology. Cancer treatment systems using nuclear technology are used to save thousands of lives throughout the world. More than 1,300 of the world's cobalt therapy machines have been supplied by Canada. This figure represents close to 50 per cent of the total cobalt 60 therapy machines used to date.

Every year in 70 countries an estimated one-half million people are treated for cancer using cobalt therapy machines designed and built in Canada. Canada is a world leader in the production of cobalt 60. The country supplies more than 80 per cent of the world's total cobalt 60 used in medical and industrial applications. AECL was instrumental in the development of the cobalt 60 treatment for cancer.

Cobalt 60 is a human-made radioisotope produced using a nuclear reactor. Radioisotopes are used to help diagnose medical ailments and prescribe remedies. Such isotopes can detect how well organs are functioning, how well the body absorbs particular substances, and where tumours might be located. They have a range of valuable uses.

The hon. member has told this House of Commons and all Canadians that AECL is a waste of money. Are all these facts a waste of money? The hon. member should take a second look and do his homework.

I will end my comments here. I have much more I would like to say to educate the hon. member, but I will pay due respect to the Chair. My time is up.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I am very happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-285. First of all, I wish to thank the NDP member who introduced this bill and who has done so in such an entertaining and informative way.

Bill C-285 provides for the elimination of financial support for nuclear reactor design and construction. That prospect is viewed by the Bloc Quebecois as interesting and relevant under the present circumstances.

Indeed, how could we not have doubts about the nuclear energy development policy of the Canadian government and the significant investments required for the implementation of that policy. As the Official Opposition of the House of Commons, we are deeply concerned by energy development policies.

Our concerns are twofold. First, we should wonder about the environmental costs of the development of any type of energy, in this instance nuclear energy, and second, about the impact the development of such energy may have on the economy of a country. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss those two issues.

The Minister of Natural Resources of Canada said recently to the Nuclear Awareness Project that she believed it would be appropriate to continue to develop nuclear energy in Canada. But at what cost to the environment and the Canadian taxpayers, that is the question.

First of all, in the industrial process of long term development of nuclear energy, the risks for the human environment are very high. Indeed, we know fully well that radioactive waste produced by the nuclear industry is most dangerous to the human species. Spent fuel represents not only the highest risks, but also the most difficult challenge if we want to find a safe, long term method of storage.

After 500 years, for example, nuclear fission material produced by the Canadian nuclear industry will still be active. In December 1992, there were 21,000 tonnes of spent fuel stored in Canada, 90 per cent of which was produced by Ontario Hydro, and the Canadian nuclear industry is not even 50 years old. For human beings, radioactivity is highly cancerous and very harmful genetically.

Clearly, the results of the accidents that occurred at the nuclear compounds of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are very good examples of that. We must also remember that the nuclear industry in eastern European countries is in such a state that it is a time bomb for humanity and we can all see clearly what political problems that creates. The coming apart of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics left nuclear power plants almost abandoned everywhere because the people in charge of those plants moved from Eastern Europe to more financially secure countries where they can earn a better living. Mechanics and plumbers generally speaking operate the power plants and these certainly are time bombs for humanity.

Not only does the nuclear reaction from the fuel produce radioactive elements, it also produces neutrons which strike other components of the reactor itself and activate some of its substances which also become radioactive. This means that the reactor structure will have to be stored as radioactive waste once the reactor has reached the end of its useful life. The Chalk River nuclear laboratory of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited contains three outdated nuclear reactors, and the site itself is seriously contaminated by radioactive waste. Atomic Energy is also responsible for two outdated reactors, at Whitshell, Manitoba, for the NPD reactor at Rolphton and the Douglas Point reactor at Bruce, both in Ontario, and for the Gentilly 1 reactor in Bécancour. All of these reactors are no longer in use and should be stored.

The cost of a stockpiling system is astronomical. The estimated cost of stockpiling a little over 100,000 tonnes of used fuel is $9 billion. We share the view of the Auditor General of Canada that Atomic Energy of Canada will require even larger subsidies in order to cover the costs of dismantling these outdated reactors. This means that the costs the government is calculating now, in terms of the cost of this energy, the costs that have to be budgeted later, to ensure safe storage of the waste from these plants when the government is no longer in power, simply because hundreds of years are involved, these costs are never calculated.

This leads to the next question of whether the nuclear industry can turn a profit over the long term. Another question with respect to the human environment concerns the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. Uranium 235 and 238 are consumed in Canadian reactors of the CANDU type; they are elements which, when bombarded by a neutron to cause fission and create energy, become plutonium 239 atoms. The creation of plutonium 239 in nuclear reactors raises a very serious problem in regard to nuclear weapons and world peace. Plutonium 239 is

fissionable and can be used in the production of nuclear weapons.

Even if plutonium 239 is the isotope preferred by arms manufacturers, other plutonium isotopes are also fissionable and can be used to manufacture bombs. Knowing that Atomic Energy of Canada, the body responsible for promoting nuclear energy in Canada, is trying to sell CANDU reactors by any means possible, which is, after all, why they are building them all over the world, we must look into this very closely. Despite the many multilateral and bilateral treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons between Canada and the rest of the world, we must be realistic: there will be a real risk of nuclear technology being used for military purposes as long as the nuclear industry is developing in the world.

The second facet of Canada's nuclear industry is government financing. I have already mentioned the astronomical costs of storing radioactive waste. Maintenance at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is subsidized by the public purse, and has been for the past six years, to the tune of $1.2 billion. The cost of building a reactor is $1.5 billion, an investment on which even a long term return is not guaranteed. We are justified in questioning the investment of public funds in this industry.

During the Prime Minister's trip to China last fall, according to representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited who were interviewed in Peking, Atomic Energy made a proposal to build two reactors on Chinese territory under a turnkey proposal without requiring a large investment by China. The representatives said that acquiring these reactors, valued at $3 billion, would be extremely advantageous for the Chinese, who would not have to tie up foreign currency holdings for a long period. In other words, we are selling CANDUs, but we are financing them entirely.

What about the people of Canada who pay the major part of the construction costs of such reactors? Is the present evolution of Chinese society collateral enough for Canadian investments? These are legitimate questions we should ask ourselves.

The present Canadian policy in the area of nuclear development is costly and dangerous, in terms of both public finance and the human environment. This is why, considering that Canada is trying to reduce its deficit, we believe that Bill C-285, which seeks to eliminate financial support for nuclear reactor design and construction in Canada and abroad, is a worthwhile initiative.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the millennium has arrived. We have just had an NDP member suggesting that we cut off subsidies to a major crown corporation. I thought I would never see the day. Actually what he is in effect proposing in the practical sense is the privatization of AECL.

If he wants to make the same proposal with respect to the CBC, the National Film Board and what is left of the government's stake in Petro-Canada, I will move over one seat and let him join us. We will make him a Reformer, an honorary Reformer.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Thanks but no thanks.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

It is a good idea to talk about privatizing AECL but it is not simple. We cannot do that in one quick step.

We must remember that more than 80 per cent of the nuclear industry in Canada is already private. The only parts that are still under government supervision and are still being subsidized by the government are the parts that do not make money, the research facilities primarily. Everything else is being operated by the private sector. There are 150 companies out there that compete with suppliers in client countries. They are efficient and they make money.

The Koreans have been so delighted with what we have done with the private end of the industry, the building of the reactors, that they have ordered three more. I would have to take issue with the hon. member who spoke for the Liberals. Wolsong 1 is probably a better reactor even than Point Lepreau. It has been up and running since 1982. They love it and they want more of them.

Let us get back to AECL specifically. Among the major crown corporations it is the only one that is seriously cutting costs. This formerly bloated entity has cut its staff from 4,500 to 3,700. Even more commendable is that it has reduced its Ottawa head office staff from 160 to 54, a two-thirds reduction.

I was out at Chalk River a couple of months ago to look the place over and what I found was quite a tight ship. There was none of the opulence that we have come to associate with government. It was nothing like the Department of National Defence, for example, or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This is an outfit that knows what money is for.

Let us take a look at the specifics of the bill. Clause 3(b) speaks of research, investigation, design, testing, construction, manufacture, operation, use, application or licensing of any thing or property of any nature that will be used in or for a nuclear reactor. If the world were only that simple. We cannot pigeon hole or categorize scientific research like that. Much of what is being done at Chalk River at the moment is pure scientific research which may or may not be applicable to reactor design.

The line between pure and applied science is very hard to draw. That is why privatization although necessary and desirable will be difficult. An entirely new company of researchers will have to be formed to sell their services to the people who have the reactors. That is going on now to some extent. They take in $86 million a year in fees for the work that is done at Chalk River on behalf of reactor owners. Eventually they will have to become self-sufficient and I do not think it will happen until it is privatized.

With all the pure science going on out there it is not going to be an easy sell. However we do not just kill the flagship of Canadian R and D. Let us remember the Avro Arrow, because this is the sort of thing we are talking about. Clause 4 would preclude provision to any person, any professional, scientific technical information or assistance that relates to research investigation, design, testing, construction, manufacture, operation, use, application or licensing of any thing or property of any nature that would be used in or for a nuclear reactor. In plain English, it would make orphans of the Candu reactors that provide almost half of Ontario's electricity.

The work being done at AECL that is not pure science is bankrolled by the utilities. As I have mentioned they spend about $86 million a year on it. It is to enhance plant safety, prolong operational lives and cut maintenance costs. If we want to remain in the forefront of an industry we have to do R and D and we have to do it continuously.

They are doing work out there now on the applications of computer technology to the construction and operation of plants, improving reactor fuel channels, better fuel design and so on. Bill C-285 would stop this cold.

Clause 5 says that the act does not apply to a nuclear reactor that has as its sole purpose the manufacture or development of isotopes for medical use. The hon. member for Kamloops should know that this function of AECL has already been privatized. Nordion was sold for $165 million. Incidentally the government of the day pocketed the funds into general revenue and did not leave a penny for the operations.

During his long harangue about the technical side of nuclear energy the hon. member for Kamloops reflected the anti-industrial primitivism that is so common among a small segment of his party, the people we refer to as the nuts and berries crowd.

We live in a climate of irrational fear of the atom because most people do not understand it. They do not have a vague notion of how a reactor works. Polls indicate that 10 per cent of the public actually believes that a reactor can explode like an atomic bomb. Vast numbers who at least know better than that believe a nuclear plant constantly emits streams of deadly radiation that will induce cancer, make them sterile or cause them to conceive defective children.

A few highly visible crusaders have seized upon the fears as a convenient means of attacking a social order that they find distasteful and have found highly successful careers as virtual cult leaders. When primitive man was troubled by fears of the unknown, he consulted the witch doctor or the shaman. Sophisticated modern man appeals to Amory Lovins, Ralph Nader or Barry Commoner.

The hon. member was engaging in a little shameless sophistry when talked about 4 per cent of the energy uses of Canada coming from nuclear. For God's sake that includes the use of fuel in cars. There are not very many nuclear cars. What it does produce is 20 per cent of the electrical energy that is used in the country and, as has been stated two or three times, nearly 50 per cent of Ontario's electrical energy. We used to have a bumper sticker out west that said: "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark". Apparently this is what the hon. member for Kamloops is suggesting we do again.

He mentioned the decommissioning cost of $13 billion. That is not bad for an industry that produces $4 billion worth of electricity annually over a period of probably 30 years of operational life for a plant. Remember, that $13 billion is not just for one reactor, that is for the whole shooting match. At least that is a number which both the pro and the anti-nukes agree on.

There has been a lot of talk about the waste. It is an insoluble problem. It will be with us forever. The nuclear priesthood will have to guard it. I am reminded of a quote from Goethe that the phrases men repeat incessantly end by becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence.

If Canada went 100 per cent nuclear for its electricity each family share of spent fuel, or high level waste if you prefer that term, would be seven ounces a year. This stuff is put into the swimming pools at the plants. As somebody said, there are 21,000 tonnes of it around now. Within 10 years the radioactivity is reduced by 90 per cent. Within 1,000 years in dead storage the radioactive levels would be sufficiently reduced to make it perfectly safe to eat a few spoonfuls of the stuff.

You get these anti-technological myths about plutonium, because there is plutonium in the waste. It is the deadliest thing known to man. It is evil. God did not create it. That is garbage. That stuff is an alpha emitter, for openers. You could wrap it in a piece of tissue paper, put it in your pant's pocket and walk around with it with impunity because it emits no gamma radiation and no beta radiation. It is not dangerous. If you were to eat a bunch of it, it is 50 times less poisonous than ordinary arsenic trioxide. Mr. Speaker, you can look that up in any good journal of toxicology.

It has been studied in great detail. The toxicity of plutonium on a weight dose basis is much less than that of many items which are kept commonly around the home. It is lethal only if breathed into the lungs or directly injected into the bloodstream. Then it will kill you, and it will kill you quick, but not as quickly as botulism poison, for example, which is fairly abundant, and anthrax. Again, there are many natural toxins which are more toxic than this horrible stuff that we all have to worry about so much.

I see the Speaker starting to rise from his seat. I wish I could have spent some time on the technical aspects of this. As you have probably gathered I do have some knowledge of nuclear energy production. Perhaps another day.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-285 on behalf of the people of the Whiteshell facility in my riding of Provencher and to say that this bill would in effect eliminate Canada's nuclear industry.

The government believes that to do so would be fundamentally wrong. Not only has the nuclear industry provided a good return for investment to Canadians, and I will get into that later, it has achieved international acclaim. That recognition includes the recent Nobel prize to Dr. Bert Brockhouse for pioneering scientific work carried out at the Chalk River laboratories of AECL.

I would like to look at the myths and also address the facts of the Canadian nuclear industry. Nuclear energy supplies 15 per cent of Canada's nuclear electricity with a value of close to $4 billion.

The hon. member for Kamloops stated earlier that the nuclear industry provides 4 per cent of Ontario's power. That is not true. The fact is the 22 reactors in Ontario provide 66 per cent of that power.

Direct employment in the nuclear sector is estimated at 30,000 jobs and at least 10,000 jobs in other sectors depend directly on the nuclear industry. Many of these jobs are highly skilled and knowledge based, the kind of jobs that are consistent and compatible with the new economy. They are the kind of jobs that we are trying to develop and encourage in Canada. Indeed in the last year we have created 437,000 of those kinds of jobs.

More than 150 companies across six provinces supply manufacturing and engineering products or services. In addition to those that we directly subcontract to, there are another 400 or 500 companies beyond that who subcontract to those 150 companies.

The recent sale of three Candus to Korea has generated more than $1 billion in Canadian content, providing some 25,000 person-years of work over six years. The Korean Candu sale in 1992 was Canada's largest export order. It is well known to most Canadians and certainly to all those interested in the nuclear industry of the Prime Minister's most successful and recent trip to China where letters of undertaking were signed with the Chinese for two more reactors, estimated to bring back a total of $4 billion worth of investment in Canada.

In 1991 the industry had a trade surplus of approximately $500 million and that trend continues. Ontario Hydro estimates that from 1965 to 1989 the nuclear industry saved the Canadian economy $17 billion in foreign exchange. Were we to have imported oil and coal, it would have cost the Canadian taxpayers another $17 billion, to say nothing about the points addressed by my hon. colleague from Renfrew about the acid rain emissions and other kinds of global warming effects that would inevitably occur from burning these other kinds of fuels. For each year of the 1990s foreign exchange savings will amount to about $1 billion.

The federal government has supported the development of Canada's nuclear energy capability. In the period between 1952 and 1994 the nuclear industry contributed at least $23 billion to the gross domestic product. The federal government received $700 million annually from the nuclear industry in the form of income and sales taxes.

I can tell you of a similar study to the one that Ernst & Whinney completed for the Government of Canada done in Manitoba which demonstrates clearly that the investment that the government makes in the facility close to where I live generates $30 million of tax a year in the Manitoba economy alone.

The private sector also benefits. In the four years between 1988 and 1992 private sector companies that provide nuclear products and services had sales of almost $10 billion. The performance of the research reactors has been the envy of the world. The performance of the Candu reactor is second to none.

Out of the 369 power reactors which provide significant amounts of electricity in 29 countries throughout the world there are four Candus in the top 10 in lifetime performance. As was pointed out earlier, the reactor at Point Lepreau, New Brunswick is number one. That is a formidable record.

With the kind of high-tech job-creation initiative that is inherent in the nuclear industry why the member for Kamloops would want to oppose that kind of job creation and that kind of record for Canadians and Canadian researchers.

Nuclear energy's contribution to electricity supply is not its only benefit to humankind. It also contributes to the quality of life. Its spinoff benefits to the environment and to medicine are equally significant. I refer to clause 5 of this bill where the member for Kamloops wants to keep isotope production but toss out everything else.

Let me make a couple of other points about some of the more recent research and possibilities.

In the biotech area, for example, in terms of a radiation facility we can design new kinds of drugs. A nuclear capacity allows us to investigate small, molecular membrane interactions which will help in terms of the health care, the medical field and the life chances of Canadians who are unfortunate enough to have trouble with cancer or other kinds of illnesses. This is a record breaking and ground breaking kind of technology that is important to us all.

The boron neutron capture therapy is another example. It is a new mode of radio therapy that combines tumour seeking components to destroy cancer cells and tumours. Is that wrong? Is that bad? Is that not a worthy undertaking for the Canadian economy? Is that not a legitimate expense for the Government of Canada?

It was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues that we have built in AECL through one of its spin-off companies over 1,300 of the world's cobalt therapy machines. Each year 500 million people are treated for cancer through those 1,300 machines. Is that not a wonderful contribution and worth the effort of the Government of Canada to participate with our world neighbours in cancer treatment research? I think so.

The nuclear industry is an important factor in the sustainable development equation. Nuclear electricity generation is clean, burning an abundant fuel and has no other practical uses. It does not emit the acid gases, as I referred to earlier, carbon dioxides and particulates associated with fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy has been and continues to be a good investment for Canadians and for Canada. It plays an important role not only in providing clean electricity, but in the creation of jobs, revenues and in spin-off benefits that have improved the quality of life of Canadians and the people in other nations.

We talked earlier about some of the financial aspects in the Ernst & Whinney study which I think was important and timely in terms of allowing Parliament to tell Canadians what this kind of investment has meant over the past 30 years.

As my hon. colleague from Renfrew pointed out earlier, surely I could go to any Canadian taxpayer or the the Canadian business person and say: "For every dollar you give me, I promise you a 400 or 500 per cent return, a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio". Surely that is a wise investment of Canadian tax dollars to bring those revenues back to the Government of Canada, to create jobs in Canada and to continue to place Canada and Canadians at the front of the Canadian nuclear industry.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand our time is up for debate on this issue. Unfortunately I am not going to get the opportunity to deliver the tremendous speech I had prepared for this time.

I would like to go on record, with your permission, to advise the House that I was going to speak in favour of Bill C-285 and that I fully support the House referring this to the Standing Committee on Finance for-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

That is not a point of order, but I guess the member was able to get his view on the record.

Under right of reply, the member for Kamloops. No one else will speak to the motion and this will close the debate in a maximum of two minutes.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I wrap up my comments, my hon. friend was obviously waiting for an opportunity to get in on the debate and I think has a speech with him. Would it be appropriate for the House to seek unanimous consent to have him table his speech as part of Hansard ?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has obviously been a difference of views presented here this afternoon. I respect the views of my colleagues, although they are perhaps not exactly the same as my own. Others are similar and supportive.

I make two requests. The other day the minister announced that the government was to examine the whole nuclear industry and the support of that. The question was put to her at that time whether she would allow public input. At that point I think she mumbled a bit.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.