House of Commons Hansard #132 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was waste.
The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel wastebe read the third time and passed; and on the motion that this question be now put.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to start the debate this morning, December 14, which is probably our last day of debate here in the House before the holidays.
Before the numbers here thin out—since I assume some will go on to other activities—I will, if I may, wish everyone a happy holiday season, a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Very kind of you, thank you for your greetings.
This morning we are discussing Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, at third reading stage. Yesterday's debate on the bill was characterized by great eloquence on the part of nearly all those who spoke. I did not have the opportunity of sitting on the parliamentary committee but yesterday we were given explanations and information on a bill that is of the greatest interest to me, given my longstanding personal interest in all things nuclear.
My colleagues, the hon. member for Jonquière among them, have shown just how important this bill is. One example is the eloquent speech by the member for Sherbrooke, in which he indicated how disappointed he was with the way the bill was turning out.
Then there is the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, whose knowledge and sense of honesty assure us that when he makes a speech he has done his research and is not just talking for the sake of talking. What he has to say will really inform his listeners. Then there was the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who showed us just how interested he is in this bill and, I think, just how disappointed he is with the turn of events.
At the second reading stage, the Bloc Quebecois indicated its agreement in principle with this bill, along with the hope that the government would be changing certain things, that the amendments suggested by the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties would be examined and accepted, the bulk of them at least.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
We were dreaming in technicolor.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Unfortunately, as the member for Jonquière said, we were dreaming in technicolour.
So, with this bill as with any other bill passed by this government, we have to wonder why the opposition is there at all. It seems that the members opposite are the holders of the absolute truth. Parliamentary commissions are appointed, committees are struck and experts are invited to come to enlighten us and to answer questions. In this case, the Seaborn panel worked some 10 years on this issue. It travelled, conducted studies in Canada as well as in Europe and in the United States. It made recommendations and found, I am told, 95 problems of various kinds, thereby demonstrating the hazardous aspect of nuclear waste.
All these studies fell on deaf ears.
The government, being the only one to receive the tongues of fire the day the Holy Ghost descended and being in sole possession of the truth, decided to do as it pleases.
One recommendation, which was unanimously supported here in the House and which, I think, will be unanimously supported throughout the country, says that the management committee that will be responsible for nuclear waste should not be made up of people who have a stake in this industry. It was said that, if the management committee were made up of people from the nuclear industry itself or of people who have a stake in this industry, it would be like having the fox watch the hen house. This is a serious matter.
The member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie said that nuclear waste has an average life of 24,000 years. That is long. When people say that this bill is the way to the future, we can imagine how long the future would be should a mistake be made in this regard. As René Lévesque, my ex-boss in Quebec City, would have said, “eternity is very long, particularly the last little bit”. We are talking about 24,000 years. It means that, should a mistake be made in the management of nuclear waste, many generations to come will have to live with it.
If this government, which makes decisions on its own, did not make mistakes, or had not made any mistakes, then I would trust it. But I could mention to those listening a few mistakes, including in the field of nuclear energy, that we have to live with.
I live in Champlain, in the area known as the Mauricie, along the St. Lawrence. Over on the other side of the river is the only nuclear power plant in Quebec. It is there in the morning when I wake up and at night when I go to bed.
I had an opportunity to visit it and talk with specialists there. All of them take the dangers involved in nuclear waste management very seriously. While it is true that the benefits of nuclear energy are enormous, there are also major risks if the right precautions are not taken in managing both nuclear waste and the plant itself.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Indeed. One only has to think of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Yesterday I was surprised to hear a member, who is supposedly an expert on this, say that there was really no danger whatsoever in managing a nuclear power plant. I wondered if maybe the victims of Chernobyl did not die by some simple mistake. Perhaps people were not being careful enough. Perhaps there was so little danger that the accident that occurred at Chernobyl was almost a minor one.
It is hard to imagine that there are people out there who think this way about products that will influence our lives and the lives of those who will come after us, that is, if we become aware of the planet enough so as not to bring about its destruction in the near future. One wonders sometimes how long the planet will exist, when one sees how little attention we pay to the environment.
I was saying earlier that the government had made mistakes in the past. Toward the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s I was a member of the Government of Quebec, Mr. Trudeau was the Prime Minister of Canada, with the same Liberal government, and the current Prime Minister was a key minister in the Trudeau cabinet.
In Quebec we did not want a nuclear plant. Finally an agreement was reached between the two governments, because Mr. Trudeau wanted to sell Candu reactors, to build a nuclear plant in Gentilly, just to “join the club”, as they said. This meant that 3% of our energy would come from that nuclear plant.
In order to convince us, Mr. Trudeau said “If you do it, I will build a heavy water plant in LaPrade”. Three-quarters of the plant was built. Three-quarters of a billion dollars were spent in 1980. An economist could tell us what it is worth today, but it is around two or three billion dollars.
I had the honour of having these candles just in front of me until last spring, when it was decided to tear down the plant and sell it for scrap. Three-quarters of a billion dollars for the LaPrade plant. And the government got as much mileage as it could in terms of patronage. Such was the result of the agreement on the LaPrade plant, on the heavy water plant that was going to supply nuclear plants in Quebec and in part of Ontario.
This decision was made by a government that claims to be in sole possession of the truth. We can trust governments like this one. Last year, when I saw a plant that cost three-quarters of a billion dollars to build in 1980 being demolished, I found it rather painful to watch. And this government boasts about being a good manager. This is rather extraordinary.
I was told that the government will follow the recommendations of the committees that review these issues and make recommendations to the minister. I no longer have much faith in this process, and this bill reinforces that impression, because I attended the sittings of other committees. I did not have the opportunity to attend sittings of this particular committee but I attended those of other committees, including agriculture and human resources development.
When we studied issues such as employment insurance in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the Liberals, the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democrats, and the Progressive Conservatives unanimously condemned the theft from the EI fund. The report was tabled in the House. The minister told us that she was going to study the issue, the recommendations and the report.
We can see that the EI money has disappeared and that the workers, who paid their premiums, are the ones who are now paying down Canada's debt in part, if not in whole.
What is rather surprising about all this, Mr. Speaker, is that neither you nor I, nor the Minister of Finance, nor the Prime Minister, nor any of the ministers, nor any member of this House are paying EI premiums. The EI fund belongs to workers and to industry, which contributes to it.
Those who are deciding to help themselves to this fund and to use it to pay down government debt are not paying into it. Who else is not paying into it, apart from us? Our staff here in Parliament pay into the fund. They and other workers in Quebec and in Canada are paying down Canada's debt to the tune of about $40 billion.
I saw the same thing on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, where we realized that approximately 20% of seniors eligible for the guaranteed income supplement are not receiving it because they cannot be found.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
They have indeed already been appointed. This is the main problem we have with the management of nuclear waste, the nuclear future, and my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes has made that clear. He said that nuclear fusion is simply like trying to stuff the sun in a bottle. It is extremely clean energy, energy of the future that should be useful if we continue research. I also recall this matter, because, when we debated nuclear fusion and the importance of researching nuclear fusion, I was assistant to the Quebec minister of the environment.
While it spends millions on the nuclear industry in general, the government in its great wisdom has decided, as far as cuts are concerned, to go after what is unimportant. It cut some $7.5 million a year in research on nuclear fusion. The wisdom of the government leaves something to be desired. What it does for me is leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
The $3 billion saved over the past eight years will also be used to pay down the debt.
The minister has said “We will look into the matter, and the committee will look into it too, and you will make recommendations”. The recommendations have still not been followed up on. We are not in possession of the truth here. And those who do not, like us, pay for it.
I now want to come back to Bill C-27. One of the committee's recommendations, as I mentioned earlier, was not to give the job of managing nuclear waste to the industry because of the risk involved. Waste management must be given to independent and competent bodies by municipalities and people who will live with waste management, and not to the industry. However, we discover that the bill provides that the industry will manage this waste.
It surprises me that the government did not establish another foundation for that. It would provide work for the friends of the government.
Nuclear Fuel Waste ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
They will find work for some of them anyway.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
I am told they will manage to find them something. I am sure they will.
Once again, I hope that the will will suddenly be there and that the government will decide before the vote at third reading, before this bill is passed—if it stays the way it is, the Bloc Quebecois will certainly be voting against it—to get serious and remember that the future we are talking about is not just the immediate future of the Liberal Party but the future of all Canadians and all the generations to come.
I am one of those who thinks that the management of nuclear waste should become more important for this government. There is still time. Someone said that this would perhaps be the nicest Christmas present the government could give Quebecers and Canadians, tell them that is withdrawing Bill C-27, rethinking it, taking another look at the consultations that were done, getting more information and examining its conscience, since everybody's future is at stake.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Someone says that maybe there is a Santa Claus. This is certainly the day for such a hope, with Christmas just around the corner.
In conclusion, that is pretty much all I had to say, not necessarily on the bill but on the approach in general, that is, the way in which the bill is being handled and the way in which the government operates, thinking it is in sole possession of the truth and ignoring everyone else, and making those who should not have to shoulder the burden alone foot the bill for things like paying down the debt.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for his speech, which lasted 15 minutes. Above all, I wish to underline the issue of balance, because I am pleased to have heard his speech, one day after the one by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance, who, taking the opposite stand, sang the praises of the nuclear industry in Canada.
She even said she hoped to see the establishment of a nuclear economy in Canada. She was in favour of importing plutonium from Russia in order to create jobs. Yet we all know two or three things about nuclear energy, and plutonium in particular. The mean life of plutonium in terms of dangerousness and radioactivity is 24,000 years. It is wrong to believe that this substance can be neutralized in a few years. It has a mean life of 24,000 years.
There is one other important aspect, which we mentioned to the Alliance member. Plutonium is one of the most carcigonenic substances known to mankind. I believe it is totally ridiculous and unacceptable to favour the development and the establishment of what I call a nuclear economy.
The bottom line of the speech by my colleague from Champlain can be summarized as follows: this government, and this is what we should remember about this bill, under the provisions set out in the bill, is promoting a one track approach in terms of management of the nuclear industry through the establishment of nuclear management agencies.
Why does the bill favour a one track approach? Because those management agencies will have a single partner, the energy corporations, which have been, throughout Canadian history, the main source of nuclear waste. Therefore, how could an energy corporation, in New Brunswick, Ontario or elsewhere--and it should be remembered that Ontario produces 90% of the waste in Canada--be part of an organization responsible for the management of the waste? We should remember that the government had every opportunity to include municipalities in its agencies. Municipalities are the ones who have to live day to day with nuclear waste. Besides, the government had a unique opportunity to involve the public in management agencies.
When it comes to nuclear waste or nuclear waste imports in Canada, such as in the riding of my colleague, the public wants to be consulted. It would have been easy to include members of the public in these waste management organizations. This is the underlying message in the hon. member's speech on waste management.
Another issue relates to the Seaborn panel, which sat for 10 years in Canada.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Yes, of course, an independent panel in which taxpayers invested millions of dollars to consult the public on the processes that should be established. The panel's mandate was twofold.
First, it had to evaluate the technical processes to manage waste. The method most often proposed was to bury this waste more than 30,000 metres deep in the geological layers of the Canadian Shield.
However when we were advocating this solution, we found out that the public wanted to be consulted. However, the bill clearly shows that the government refused to include the recommendations of the Seaborn panel in it. This is even more obvious when we consider that the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House proposed amendments reflecting the recommendations of the Seaborn panel only to see the government reject them.
The hon. member knows better than anyone else what the government is doing in the area of waste management. I am of course referring to nuclear waste, but also to other waste, including residual and military waste. This brings me to the issue of shells. The way the federal government dealt with military shells shows how bad a manager it can be.
Could the hon. member tell us what is happening with Lake Saint-Pierre, which is directly connected to the St. Lawrence River and where thousands of shells litter the bottom, sometimes unexploded? Some shells are even found on the beaches by children. We are not making this up: this is the truth.
Could the hon. member tell us how this government manages waste, particularly military waste in Lake Saint-Pierre?
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention this earlier but the time allotted me had run out. I am very pleased to come back to it. I was saying earlier that I had no confidence in the government, which thinks it is in sole possession of the truth, because too many mistakes have been made.
My colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has just mentioned the shells in Lake Saint-Pierre and the way highly dangerous products are managed. Some 350,000 shells are lying at the bottom of the lake with some 8,000 to 10,000 still armed.
Every spring, because of the ice and depending on how cold it gets—this winter there has not been much of a problem because of the warm temperatures, but the ice will come back—the shells stick to the ice.
In the spring, when the river rises as the snow melts, the ice carries the shells here and there. The proof is that the army follows the shoreline of the St. Lawrence River by helicopter right up to Quebec City and even further in an effort to find the shells. Those the army does not find are sometimes found by children. I think I hear someone opposite saying that this is not so important.
It is very important because it has killed people up to now. It has broken up a Lake Saint-Pierre family that was preparing a sailboat for a trip around the world. They held a celebration around the boat after getting it ready and a shell burst in a bonfire. If this is not really important I do not know what is. Last spring children were discovered playing with shells that could have exploded.
As my time is running out, I would like to raise another point as well. We are the only ones who do not take the environment seriously. I just returned from a trip to Germany. Everyone should see what is being done there to protect the environment. Nuclear energy, among others, is being eliminated. They are turning to research on cleaner, safer energies.
Why in Canada and Quebec, does the government not clean up and take precautions for the future of our children?
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclearfuel waste.
One needs not be an expert to know that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of in just any regular dump. Today we have a better knowledge of nuclear waste than we did in the 1970s. It was already a concern and the subject of discussions at the time and it still is today.
A few weeks ago the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie reminded us of the Marrakesh summit. One key recommendation of this summit was that we should consider prohibiting the use of nuclear energy in the future. Since the 1970s, and even before that, a number of countries, including Canada, have been using nuclear power to generate electricity.
Today we can say with some pride that the Quebec government undertook a number of projects, of which Gentilly was one and LaPrade another, but it soon abandoned this approach because of deep concerns and because scientists and experts had many objections. Quebec decided to generate electricity from water power instead of nuclear power.
We can consider ourselves lucky since Quebec produces only 3% of Canadian nuclear waste. When we, as members of the Bloc, say that we want to defend Quebec's interests, I think that, in this particular case, we are pleased that it is just 3%. We have a better understanding of the attitude shown by the Liberal government, that has a great number of representatives from Ontario in the House, when we know that that province produces 90% of nuclear waste.
The member for Brome—Missisquoi cannot say it but I know he totally supports the position of the Bloc Quebecois. As a Quebecer, he is just as proud as we are that the Government of Quebec—be it under the Parti Quebecois or under the Quebec Liberal Party of which his brother is a member—made the choice not to proceed any further with nuclear energy in that province.
Now we have before us a bill on this issue. We supported the principle of the bill at second reading because we were sufficiently in favour of the bill to vote for it at that stage. Nuclear waste is a critical issue as it is hazardous in all respects, including health and safety. The Seaborn panel worked for 10 years on the subject and our critics on this issue raised some objections.
I know the member for Jonquière worked on this for a long time, even until the end, with the member for Sherbrooke. I know that the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie would have liked to have his say also as environment critic. Unfortunately, the government decided that this issue fell under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources exclusively and not under the purview of the Department of the Environment.
Therefore, the Standing Committee on the Environment could not be consulted on this. I would say that this is one of the main shortcomings of the bill. It would be the sole responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources, which would work with the waste management organizations from the various provinces, and those who have a stake in the industry would be asked to assess and criticize what is being done in this regard. Yesterday, the member for Sherbrooke said that it was like letting the fox watch the hen house, and I agree with him.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Generally, when we deal with a bill or a legislative measure, we should ensure that an audit or an evaluation is done by a third party, independent people or another department. We should ensure that people or officials do not evaluate themselves. This makes no sense.
When we talk about the nuclear issue we should avoid slipping into demagogy and frightening everyone. However, a number of incidents have occurred throughout the world. Some countries have even recognized that they are incapable of properly managing their nuclear waste. Russia, for example, and the countries of the former Soviet Union are desperately trying to get rid of their nuclear waste: first, because its disposal is very expensive; second, because it is technically difficult to manage; and third, because Russia has abundantly used this source of energy.
I remember the objection of the member for Jonquière. We know all the energy she is capable of showing when she disagrees or agrees with something. To avoid this situation, she launched an initiative in her riding regarding new nuclear waste dumps in the world. She was right.
If the same thing had occurred in my riding of Lévis, members can be sure that I would have done the same thing. I believe that any member having to deal with this kind of situation in his or her own riding would have protested and I believe that everyone would have understood. However, the member for Jonquière reacted with fierceness and no later than yesterday she talked about this issue. I congratulate her for having done so. I also congratulate the member for Sherbrooke who, as usual, dealt with the issue in a very serious manner.
I have heard the member for Rosemont-Petite-Patrie say on occasion that he wanted to talk about this. He could only talk about it in the House since the issue was not dealt with by the Standing Committee on Environment. In his speech, which I listened to yesterday, as well as in the one he made earlier today, he pointed to this issue, which, I believe, reflects another important point. It is the place, in fact, the “lack of place” provided to the public on this issue.
We should not consider this issue simply in a technical or a scientific perspective especially since it seems that the more we move forward on this issue the more we give in to uncertainty. When a scientist trying to reassure us about this issue give us the impression that he is stressed, as though he had in his hands an issue—
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
—a hot potato, as the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles just said, it means that the issue ought to be given serious consideration.
This is an issue that must be dealt with in a way that will reassure the public so that they have confidence. To get their confidence there should be an ongoing and real public consultation with the various stakeholders in the field, not only the scientists, not only the experts, but also the people in the field.
I realize that we must not always say “not in my backyard”, but the fact remains that this must be done somewhere and in appropriate areas. Why should an area accept nuclear waste coming from another area and another country?
I know there are not enough hon. members here this morning and they are not quite awake. Perhaps they are too tired to criticize me and tell me “Come on, why are you saying that? The bill does not say that we will agree to nuclear waste imports”.
Yes, but an issue such as this one is somewhat like the bills on public security that were passed or tabled here in the House, where the government was saying “Yes, but rest assured, this is not written in the bill”. The fact is we are not reassured. We would prefer it were written that there will be no such imports. Why not do so?
I did not take part in the committee's proceedings but I reviewed the amendments put forward by Bloc Quebecois members who wanted to make sure, among other things, that we had better definitions, and rightly so.
The suggestions to correct one of the flaws were aimed at making sure that the authority was not given to one minister or to the cabinet because, on such an important public issue, specific projects or the subject matter should to be reviewed by the House of Commons on a regular basis, and be audited, not just by anyone, but by someone under the Auditor General of Canada.
As the member for Jonquière mentioned earlier, every proposed amendment was turned down one after the other in committee and here at report stage. Members who used to be on the other side, but who have to tow the party line when a bill is put forward by a minister, voted down these amendments because the government bill was supposedly perfect.
I am making an aside here to remind the House that we have been here for eight years now. This is probably the last speech I will make before the end of the 2001. I said it on several occasions, but I believe it bears reminding.
We saw the way the government dealt with anti-terrorism and public security bills after September 11. We realize that the authority is concentrated in the hands of a single minister, or cabinet at times which is made up of members of parliament appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints the Governor General, the senators when the time comes to send members to the other House. He is responsible for appointing people to high offices. Some say that proportionally, Canada is not the United States, and the powers of the Prime Minister of Canada are actually greater than those of the President of the United States.
In the United States, through a veto, both Houses can prevent the president from exercising certain powers such as sending troops abroad or using supplementary funds. He needs to introduce a specific bill or program in both houses of congress. This is not the case here.
In Canada, when we want to buy time, we refer bills to the other place. However, seeing as Liberal Party members also sit in its caucus, they receive instructions from the Prime Minister—naturally, they also share with him what is going on in the other place—saying, “Take your time on that bill”, or the opposite, “Hurry up and adopt that bill”.
An example of this was the bill on organized crime, which has yet to be passed officially by the other place. But they rush through bills on public security, or Bill C-7 on young offenders. Now with Christmas around the corner, during the last sitting of the session before the holidays, we are studying Bill C-27. No doubt an important issue, but the bill is seriously flawed
The Prime Minister or the caucus will have the ability to appoint all of the members of the board for this new waste management organization that will oversee nuclear waste. Who will he appoint? People in whom he has complete trust, or to whom he feels indebted. I know that the word patronage is not necessarily parliamentary, but if the shoe fits, then I do not see how I could avoid the term. So I will use it. This opens the door to patronage.
Under these circumstances, with an issue as important as nuclear waste, how can we expect the public to believe that things will not be decided by the powers that be, the cabinet, the Prime Minister, or the minister responsible?
But it so happens that the minister could be appointed elsewhere, according to the rumour that a cabinet shuffle may take place before Christmas. Therefore, he must please the Prime Minister to make sure that he gets promoted.
The Minister of Finance used to have a degree of independence, but this year, contrary to what he did in the past, he came up with a budget to please the Prime Minister. So much so—it was funny, but it really was not—that a Canadian Alliance member said “Let the real author of that budget rise”, and both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance got up at the same time.
This shows beyond any doubt that, this time, this is not a Minister of Finance's budget, but mostly a Prime Minister's budget. After eight years in office, one would have thought that the Prime Minister would become reasonable, would be less power-hungry, but no. Now, he wants to assume powers which, under our parliamentary system, are normally held by the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am digressing a bit, but I have always recognized your spirit of tolerance and your flexibility. Knowing that this is my last speech in 2001, you are giving me a small Christmas present by allowing me to say what I think, even though this sometimes goes beyond the scope of the bill.
I know that the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik is very jealous of me. Indeed, because of the way the current Canadian parliamentary system works, he will not be able to say what he really thinks, since he has a small hope of being appointed parliamentary secretary, or perhaps minister some day. He hopes that the Prime Minister will forget that he once sat as a Conservative.
Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very happy to see that the Bloc Quebecois member has finally recognized my presence in the House just before Christmas.
Nuclear Fuel Waste ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I am sorry, but this is not a point of order; however, we are probably all very happy.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is there more than ever, probably because he has also heard about a possible cabinet shuffle. He wants to show that he is present and working hard.
Just kidding. Even if we do not always agree with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, even if we sometimes criticize his sense of humour or his attacks on members of the Bloc Quebecois, I will give him this little gift because the Liberal Party might not do so and I want him to know that, according to what I have heard, he works very hard for his constituents. That is what I am told.
Finally, I let my enthusiasm get the better of me but I would have liked a little Christmas gift for the Davie workers. The measures announced by the Minister of Industry come very late. Can you imagine a minister that establishes a program but forgets to announce it? There are two possible explanations: either the program is bad or the minister hopes that people will not take advantage of it. If the program goes unannounced, then there will be few applicants.
Unfortunately, given the long delay, I want to offer this last thought to the employees at Davie Industries who will spend the holidays under the threat of a possible shutdown, since the company is now under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act.
I know that demagogues in my region have said that this was to be expected. St. John's, which had the largest shipyard in Canada, and was a competitor of Davie, is also closed. Marystown Shipyard Limited, which is in the Minister of Industry's riding, is still closed. Workers in the other shipyard in his riding, in St. John's barely have enough work.
I will conclude by telling my constituents that I will continue to work very hard on the Davie project. Therefore, all topics are important for me. This one is particularly so because it involves the future of our young people and of many generations to come.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have been following with great interest the debate on Bill C-27, the nuclear fuel waste act. It is important legislation for the whole country, but I regret it has been drawn out to the point that we will not reach Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, before Christmas.
The hon. member and his colleagues are obviously interested in and well informed on this issue. They have been talking about nuclear power and nuclear fission. One of the solutions to the waste problem, and in the long run to the problems that face our nuclear power industry, is nuclear fusion, not fission.
Where do the hon. member and his colleagues and perhaps Quebec Hydro stand on the ITER project? It is a proposal that has been discussed for three years. It would bring scientists from Japan, the European Union, the United States and elsewhere to Canada to participate in a sophisticated international study of nuclear fusion for many years. What do the member and his colleagues think of that as a solution to the nuclear waste problem?
