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-