Debates of Oct. 10th, 2002

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-4. This is a simple bill. Its intent is, with just a few lines, to change the responsibility of those who finance and operate nuclear plants.

Our listeners may sometimes, too often, think—because they just read newspaper headlines or watch the major news stories on television—that the government is there to defend the citizens' interests and they should therefore trust it.

What we have before us is a bill that is far from defending the interests of our listeners. In fact, it is a bill that has been presented by the Liberal government to aid the nuclear industry. This bill has the support of the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. It is not a bill to help the public and defend its interests. It is a bill specifically to help one type of industry, the nuclear industry. This is a type of energy that is criticized all over the world. In most of the industrialized nations, the situation has gone beyond that, and it has been abandoned.

Perhaps this bill seems innocuous because of its lack of bulk, but it is all the more important because of its impact on the quality of life of our listeners.

I will try to give a brief legislative summary. This bill is, obviously, not very complex and not very thick. I will try to share my experience with the House. We all bring another profession to politics. I am a notary by profession. For the benefit our listeners in English speaking Canada, I will explain that this is a lawyer specialized in drawing up contracts. I will give my legal opinion, in a mild-mannered way, on the text we have before us. In connection with those responsible for site cleanup, the wording on responsibility was as follows:

--any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

This was replaced with the following:

--any other person who has the management and control of--

Clearly, the terminology of “right to or interest in” has been replaced by the words “management and control of” in order to exempt banks, bankers and lending institutions from this responsibility. They would no longer have responsibility.

Actually, this would be the only industry where the liability of bankers would be limited. Business people who are listening know this: when they ask for money from a financial institution, they must comply with all of the environmental clauses. For the past ten years, this has been unavoidable. In larger businesses, there is the environmental stage that covers the preliminary impact study. Often, stage two is required, which is a complete impact study, and phase three, which is decontamination.

This means that bankers would no longer be responsible in the nuclear industry for requiring these three phases. This is how it can be interpreted. Given that they would no longer be liable, they do not have to worry about it. Why do people who run businesses have environmental clauses in their contracts that they have to abide by? Because the banks feel liable. Therefore, they require clauses in lending contracts that force the borrower to comply with those clauses. The banks also require stages one and two, the appropriate environmental studies, and even require the inclusion of relevant updates at predetermined deadlines in the contracts.

This simple provision is being amended. This is a simple paragraph being amended in a legal text, as the Liberal member said earlier. Some might ask why there should be a lengthy debate in the House, given that the act is only a few pages long. However, these few pages are very important, because now financiers will no longer be liable and will no longer require that borrowers meet environmental standards. This may allow the nuclear industry to survive.

I hope that all those listening to us understand, based on the comments made by my learned colleague, the member for Joliette, and by my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair, that nuclear energy is on its way out. It is losing steam and it is destined to be phased out.

Canada is alone in its decision to support nuclear energy. Why? Likely because the Prime Minister has travelled around offering Candu reactors all over the place and tried to promote the industry by selling nuclear reactors, when this is going in the opposite direction of evolution of global society. It is often the smallest bills that have the greatest impact on human health. That is what we are debating today.

There is a reason why only the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party are opposed to this bill. These are parties that are there to defend the interests of citizens and not to defend the interests of big business. This is the game that the Liberal government is playing. It is proposing an amendment that would help the nuclear industry. It is supported by the official opposition, represented by the Canadian Alliance, and by the Progressive Conservative Party, which hopes to get back in power.

Finally, all these people have decided to get together and to help the nuclear industry, which goes against the whole evolution of energy throughout the world.

I will repeat this argument, because a Liberal member rose in the House this afternoon to tell us, “We do not have to have a debate on Kyoto with Bill C-4”.

On the contrary, everything is connected. If we allow the nuclear industry to develop even more in Canada, while this goes against everything that is being discussed throughout the world, we will once again delay reaching our objectives and signing the Kyoto protocol.

It is inconceivable that we should be discussing Bill C-4, as the Prime Minister told us that we would have a vote in the House, before Christmas, on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Once again, this bill is rammed through the House to help the nuclear industry before a real debate can be held in Canada. This bill is not in the best interests of our listeners, but rather in the best interests of the nuclear industry, which is slowly dying, as it should be. It is only appropriate for this kind of energy, which is outdated and a health hazard, to disappear. We should not let Bill C-4 be passed. It only has a few lines and a few pages. The Liberals, the Alliance and the Conservatives have decided not to debate this legislation, because it is a short bill. In fact, it helps their friends in the nuclear industry.

Why has the Bloc Quebecois decided today to fight Bill C-4? Because we have the best interests of all Quebeckers and of all Canadians at heart. We are glad to stand up for their interests, since their members of Parliament will not do it.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois have taken a stand on energy development. Our position is clear: wind energy is the way to go. The Bloc proposed to the House the creation of a federal program to invest $700 million in the wind industry. The program could have helped the Gaspé area, a region of Quebec that is going through some very tough times. It could have recovered much of the money invested in wind energy, which is a renewable energy source, the energy of the future. Some people found our proposal very funny. However, the figures mentioned today by my hon. colleague from Joliette and many others spoke for themselves.

The wind power capacity in Germany is of 8,753 megawatts, which accounts for 35.8% of all the energy the Germans use. Those are the facts. In the United States, 4,235 megawatts were wind-generated, which represents 17.3% of all their energy production, compared to 0.08% in Canada. Those are the facts.

Canada generates only 207 megawatts from wind energy. This debate today does not deal with renewable energies that are in tune with the Kyoto protocol. Those listening should know that we are talking now about nuclear energy. The government wants to relieve investors and bankers of their responsibilities for investments in nuclear energy. This is the Liberal government's proposal, and it is supported by the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, and by the Progressive Conservative Party. This is typical of Canada.

It is not true that the Canadian government defends the public's interest. It defends the industry's interest. I could list many examples that show it does not look after our interests, but those of its friends. The two are not the same for the Liberal government. I am somewhat surprised that the Canadian Alliance is jumping on this bandwagon. If it were in power, it would probably do the same as the Liberal government. It is the only conclusion to be drawn here.

This is the tough reality, but the whole debate on Kyoto should not end. Despite what a Liberal member said this afternoon during the debate on this nuclear energy bill, we should not avoid discussing Kyoto.

This is what I will explain during my time remaining. In Canada, we should promote wind energy. The present government should take seriously the plan put forward by the Bloc Quebecois for an investment of $700 million over the next five years. The federal government does invest in the energy industry. Since 1970, it has invested more than $66 billion in oil energy, more than $6 billion in nuclear energy, and just $327 million in renewable energies, including wind energy. This is the tough reality of lobbies controlling this Parliament.

The oil and nuclear lobbies are controlling this Parliament. They control the governing Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Progressive Conservative Party. None of these parties take the interest of ordinary citizens to heart. They care more for their own power than for those they represent, even though they were elected to defend the interests of their fellow citizens.

I hope that the citizens who are listening will have a chance in the weeks to come to ask their MPs why they did not stand up in the House to say how much more important it was to discuss the Kyoto protocol rather than reducing the liability of those who operate the nuclear energy industry. This is an industry which is losing steam and which in any event is doomed to disappear—or so I hope—for the simple reason that the health of the men and women we represent is at stake.

It was a pleasure to debate Bill C-4 and to reiterate that the proposed legislation is a real legal setback. I will, if I may, read it again so that those who are watching understand clearly. Under the existing legislation, the Commission may order that, and I quote:

—any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

Therefore, under the existing legislation, all other persons with a right to or interest in had to participate in the decontamination of the land or place or to resolve any nuclear energy problem.

The government is replacing this simple phrase with this:

—any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures—

Only the administrators and those who have a management responsibility, that is those who have something to do with the operation of the plant, will be responsible for the decontamination of the site. The financial sector is completely excluded.

I have heard colleagues tell us that there were problems with this nuclear energy industry and that there were lending difficulties. My colleague from Windsor—St. Clair is right. This will speed up the privatization process. The nuclear plants are often owned by public corporations because the private sector has no financial interest in them and because these plants would be too risky for them. This will help the privatization process. However, when we talk about privatization, we are not necessarily talking about corporations rich enough to decontaminate a site. Once again, things are not getting any better. They are even getting worse when we think that this regulatory change could allow the privatization of those nuclear plants by taking all responsibilities away from the bankers. We are certainly going backward rather than forward.

It is completely unthinkable that we could go in that direction. We are taking all responsibilities away not only from those who will grant new loans, but also from those who have already granted them or provided financial support. This bill will take all responsibility away from those who have financed nuclear energy in Canada.

It is not enough to say that it could encourage investments in the nuclear industry. On the contrary. This will once again help the friends of the Liberal Party, including the bank lobby, which has financed a part of the nuclear energy industry. These people are no doubt anxiously looking forward to the passing of Bill C-4 that will rid them of the risk that they are now facing.

I hope that my brief submission will have helped to convince the people who are listening, and you, Madam Speaker, that Bill C-4 should never, never be passed in the House. The Liberal Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party would do well to protect the interests of the men and women who elected them rather than the interests of the multinationals or other companies controlling their party coffers.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his indisputable and lucid verdict. A number of facts lead us to believe that the Liberal Party is following a lobbyist approach in this matter.

However, my questions for my colleague are not mainly on this issue. In his introduction, he told us how proud he was when he became a notary a few years ago. It is easy to understand that, when one works in a Parliament, any legal training is very useful. Madam Speaker, you also began a bachelor's degree at McGill University, if I am not mistaken. Life prevented you from getting your degree, but your erudition is obvious.

Could our colleague tell us why it is so important that we discuss Kyoto very soon? Our colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, did applaud the idea of holding a debate in the House on that issue. He did so from Johannesburg, where he was before the beginning of the session.

I would like the member to explain why it is so important for future developments that we meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. Could he tell us in what ways Quebec is different, as far as meeting those objectives is concerned?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question.

It is clear that we must discuss Kyoto as soon as possible. I hope that, at least, we will do so before adopting Bill C-4. Let us never forget that the nuclear industry is an industry that pollutes and that increases greenhouse gas emissions. Our objective with the Kyoto protocol is to reduce such emissions.

Today, we are discussing a problem that will increase pollution, and the purpose of the debates on Kyoto is precisely to ensure that, together, we reduce the pollution we create, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, I hope that we will have this debate on Kyoto as soon as possible, and I also hope that it will be before Bill C-4 is passed. If we ever manage to convince the Liberal government, the official opposition and the Progressive Conservative Party that Kyoto must be urgently ratified, as we hope to do, then Bill C-4 will surely have to be reviewed.

Also, instead of helping lobbyists from the nuclear industry, the government should perhaps tell them that they should invest in another type of energy, such as wind energy. This would surely be a possibility and it could, among other things, benefit from a transfer of funds.

As I explained earlier, the federal government is investing a lot of money in the development of oil and nuclear energy. But now it is time to invest in wind energy. So, my advice to bankers and friends of the Liberal Party is to invest in renewable energy. It is not fully developed, there is still potential, and there is money to be made.

To answer the hon. member's question, it is very important that we soon discuss Kyoto.

As for Quebec, it made a brilliant choice by opting for hydroelectricity even though, as the hon. member for Joliette explained, it was a very difficult choice to make. Electricity was nationalized and that was not an easy decision to make. There were dozens of companies in Quebec. We decided to turn this into a major operation and it was a true success.

Of course, Quebec made societal choices, and Quebeckers decided to get results and, among others, to ensure that our province is the closest to achieving the Kyoto goals. This is why the Quebec government was quick to announce that it was prepared to ratify Kyoto at the earliest opportunity. If Quebec were not part of Canada, it would have ratified the accord a long time ago.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question but I will make a comment first.

The natural resources committee spent a great of time dealing with the issue of nuclear waste over the last year or 15 months. We heard a lot of witnesses and evidence. We considered the Seaborn Commission report, the report that came from the federal government and more specifically from the nuclear industry, about likely places where the waste would be deposited in underground storage. That is one of the most likely alternatives that would be followed under that legislation. I should point out that both my party and the Bloc Québécois actively opposed.

One reason I believe his party was particularly concerned about the disposal was that it may occur on the Canadian Shield and may occur on the Quebec side of the border. Is he aware of that and what is his sense of the reaction in Quebec if that were ultimately the decision as to the disposal of nuclear waste in the country?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. One of the conclusions of the report was that the best place to store nuclear waste was in the Canadian Shield. The reaction in Quebec was strong. It is not an industry that we favour. We chose hydroelectricity instead. Imagine if, to add insult to injury, we were forced to bury nuclear waste in Quebec's portion of the Canadian Shield. The reaction is already bad, and it is easy to foresee the battle that would ensue if such a decision were made.

We deal with our problems. Of course, it must be understood that, in some respects, we will never accept being the victims of everyone else's problems.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his contribution. I find that it is extremely important, given the diversity of backgrounds of the members of the House, for each and every one of us, with his or her professional and life experiences, to contribute to the debate in order to inform the people of Canada and Quebec as well as all members of the House.

The hon. member raised a point that I would like him to explain once more because it is fundamental. Legally, how would it be in our interest, as law makers considering this bill, to ask society to cover a risk that is too high for the financial backers?

Could the hon. member explain it again, because I believe it is extremely important in this debate?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette. This bill is aimed at reducing the responsibility of bankers and industry administrators.

That is what I have tried to explain to those who are watching us. It is the only industry in all of Canada where bankers or those who have an interest in the industry would be free from any responsibility. This is the choice that members of this House are making on behalf of the public, of their listeners, of those who elected them.

From a legal standpoint, it is a terrible choice. This kind of arrangement does not exist in any other industry in Canada. The government tried to explain to us that there is danger associated with the nuclear industry, but in the legal world, an exclusion of responsibility is also synonymous with danger. All those who have signed contracts in their lives know it. When the seller wants to be free of any responsibility, it is dangerous. What we are doing right now in this House is taking the place of those who already have a responsibility and freeing them from that responsibility, in the name of the public good. And we would become responsible for any problem.

In that respect, the worst legal decision that this Parliament can make is the one that the Liberal government is making right now, with the support of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, but first allow me to make three brief announcements before coming back to the main issue.

I was earlier in the lobby and I learned that today is the birthday of Theresa, from the NDP, who offered us a piece of cake. I wish her the very best.

Madame Speaker, I also wish to offer my best wishes of success to you and to the new pages, at the beginning of the session.

This bill is very important but it is also very disappointing. It is disappointing because all members of the Bloc Quebecois, and I believe NDP members as well, would have been very happy to discuss matters much more important than the strengthening of the nuclear industry.

I turned 40 in May. You will probably say that I hardly look that old, but it nevertheless is a fact. When I was 17 or 18, I was a very active militant for peace and I participated in several peace marches. For at least 20 years, we have been waiting with all our hearts for some action that would exclude from public life any reason to promote the nuclear industry.

The Liberal government likes to portray itself as a left of centre and progressive government. How many times have we not heard in this House the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Justice say that they are true liberals, in the philosophical meaning of the word. When we proceed to questions and comments, I would like to have someone explain how a true liberal can promote the strengthening of the nuclear industry with public funds.

How can that be part of a philosophy we could be proud of as members of Parliament? I hope they will take part to this debate and remind us why, as Liberals, they made this choice as a government.

Let us start at the beginning. Historically, Quebec was extremely disadvantaged in terms of energy options. As has been said on several occasions, Quebec made choices based on its natural resources. Quebec is now known throughout the world for the abundance of its water resources. We chose hydroelectricity because of the abundance of water in Quebec.

We made this choice at a time where this was unpopular. For those who would be tempted to think that this began shortly after the quiet revolution, we should point out that it began in the early 1940s. At that time, Quebec chose hydroelectricity, which is a non-polluting source of energy, at least much less polluting than the traditional fossil fuels. We made this choice in the early 1940s, and it was consolidated by the René Lévesque government.

This choice was not an easy one, because there was arbitration, there were interpretations and assessments of the situation that were divergent. Quebec made a choice that turned out to be extremely positive today.

Yet, Quebeckers are taxpayers; they send taxes to the federal government. Did they receive any help in choosing hydroelectricity? Certainly not. And yet $66 billion—that is a lot of zeros—was distributed to help the oil industry.

Quebec had to pay for all the expenses it had to incur to put in place the infrastructure needed for hydroelectricity. As the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I remember that, in the early 1980s, there were six large refineries in the east end of Montreal. Then, there was a deindustrialization that was encouraged to a large extent by the policies of the Canadian government. Thus, Quebeckers were never able to rely on policy and public financial support in the energy choices that they made.

We must remember these events, because they are certainly not extraneous to the pussyfooting of the government concerning the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We know that, but for the pressure of the Bloc Quebecois, which, during the two last sessions, in an extremely enlightened manner and with much perseverance, through the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie—whom my colleagues will want to applaud for his perseverance on this issue—the government would have given up and decided not to ratify it.

It is in moments such as this that we realize the Bloc Quebecois is the only political party which unconditionally defends Quebec's interests, and whose sole concern is the wellbeing of Quebeckers. Again, were it not for my political party, the Kyoto debate would have gone almost unnoticed.

We must give credit to the Bloc Quebecois for what it did. Were it not for this party, the government would never have made the commitments it did.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Certainly not with the Canadian Alliance.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I have to admit, as the hon. member for Jonquière is hinting, that the position of the Canadian Alliance is rather disappointing. We must remember that the Canadian Alliance and the oil industry sleep in the same bed and dream the same dream, the dream of a status quo where polluting industries keep using traditional fossil fuels. I am disappointed that the Canadian Alliance members are slow to consider alternatives like wind energy, and to tell us what they think of less polluting technologies. But let us not stray from the essential point.

In 1997, the then Minister of the Environment—I think I can name her because she is not a sitting member any more, and the hon. member for Jonquière will correct me if I am wrong—was Mrs. Stewart, a nurse by profession. So, Mrs. Stewart, who was the Minister of the Environment at the time and has now retired from public life, went to sign the Kyoto protocol. This was an extremely firm commitment. There was no room for equivocation.

According to that commitment Canada is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. Not 6% below current levels, but it was expected that as early as the beginning of the decade measures would be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A 2008-2012 time line is being considered for reaching this goal, which was set at a multilateral conference attended by more than 100 countries. Of course we understand the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It happens in this Parliament that we do not always understand in practical terms the significance of our actions. When we talk about the issues of pollution and sustainable development and the reduction of greenhouse gas, nothing is more concrete, more current and nothing is closer to the ground we stand on than the fight we are engaging in.

What would it mean if the government, or if Quebeckers and Canadians did not respect their commitment. As an aside I will remind the House that if we were to exclude Quebec, Canada would be the slowest in reducing greenhouse gases. If we look at Canada's performance, excluding Quebec, it is one of the industrialized countries that contribute the most to pollution. Fortunately, Quebeckers are here with their values and the legislation they passed to reduce greenhouse gases.

I do not want to give the impression that people in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and the maritime provinces do not share the same concerns for the environment as our fellow citizens in Quebec, but I must say that Quebec is among the governments that have been the most progressive, the most active in reducing greenhouse gases.

Why should we all, and that includes the member for Granby, be that concerned about environmental issues? Because the issue of greenhouse gas emissions has to do with climate changes, which of course are linked to the preservation of our natural resources.

Can we believe that the level of the St. Lawrence River could be significantly lowered due a compensation phenomenon, and that other waterways could experience overflowing and floods, with all the consequences that this could have for the neighbouring populations. This is what happens when we do not pay attention to our environment, when we have climate changes and other situations where confrontations cause the natural elements to unleash their forces.

I know that the Quebeckers will never forget the ice storm that cost them so much. We will have to face more and more events like these if we do not take our responsibilities as parliamentarians and if we do not modify some of our patterns of consumption.

According to the International Panel on Climate Change, if we do not pay attention and if we do not ratify the Kyoto protocol, we will see more and more floods and droughts and natural spaces will be irreversibly damaged. Of course, when we talk about damage to natural spaces, we refer to damage involving habitats and ecosystems and to an increasing incidence of many infectious diseases. This is not the least of our concerns. I represent a waterside riding. Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is connected to the St. Lawrence River. It also contains a part of the port of Montreal, one of the largest ports in Canada.

Once again, we have to be extremely vigilant on the issue of ratifying the Kyoto protocol because we are looking at the danger of a drop in the level of the St. Lawrence River. The flow of the St. Lawrence will decrease while the ocean level will get higher, causing major floods.

By then, it will be too late for the Alliance members from Manitoba and British Columbia who are dragging their feet on the issue of ratifying Kyoto. When mother nature unleashes her fury, they will have to take part of the blame while we in the Bloc Quebecois, and the Liberal members who support Kyoto, will have done our job warning them and advising them to the best of our knowledge.

Another very important aspect relating to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol is the fact that an entire environment support industry will spring into action. It is referred to as a green industry. It is estimated that close to $1 billion in new industries could emerge to support the conversion of certain industries and new approaches to intervention by the various economic sectors. Of course, this will be extremely beneficial to all Quebeckers and Canadians.

Let there be no mistake. While the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol, it believes that territorial objectives should be included. Naturally, Quebec took its responsibilities in this respect long ago. It converted to hydroelectric power at the time when Pierre Elliott Trudeau's National Energy Program was reaching out to the oil and gas industries. We cannot allow Quebec not to be compensated, when it delivered the goods and took its responsibilities, and accept that its policies be ignored in dividing responsibilities, particularly fiscal responsibilities.

This is why we believe that if Kyoto is ratified, territorial objectives should be divided in such a way as to recognize what Quebec has already accomplished.

Again, this is not easy. I hope that I will get questions and that the Liberals will take part in the debate. How can the Prime Minister travel to Johannesburg and participate in various international forums to address the need to developing non-polluting energy sources, and then come up with a bill like this one? In a way, this bill not only restores, consolidates and supports the nuclear energy approach, but it puts all forms of energy on an equal footing. And that is dangerous.

In fact, my colleagues mentioned it a number of times and I would be remiss not to do so also. The Bloc Quebecois came up with a program to promote the development of wind energy. It is the way of the future. It would have cost a few million dollars.

The purpose of the Bloc Quebecois' proposal was to develop a wind power capacity of at least 1,000 megawatts in Quebec, mainly in the Gaspé region which has been sorely tested, as we all know, in the last few years. Seven hundred million dollars would have been invested over a period of five years. It would have been feasible, especially since $66 billion was handed out to the oil industry in the last few decades. Again, I think the Bloc Quebecois was well-advised to bring forward such a proposal. By the way, if it were to be implemented—a $700 million investment over a period of five years is entirely feasible—it would create over 15,000 jobs in the Gaspé and Lower St. Lawrence area.

So, I do not know how we can dig ourselves out of this hole and put an end to this ridiculous debate on Bill C-4. I think the Liberals, the Alliance members and everyone in this House should agree to withdraw this bill so that we can move on and, as quickly as possible, start debating what should be the real issue here, our main concern, which is the imminent and immediate ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his excellent speech. The Bloc Quebecois member mentioned several reasons why this bill should be scrapped.

Will our colleague tell us why the Liberal, Alliance and Tory members are so bent on this bill, when we know, as the member indicated at the end of his comments, that the most important issue right now, beyond all political considerations, is the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, while we know that this bill is aimed at increasing greenhouse gas emissions?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good question, even if it is ad hoc. It is a very good question. Incidentally, I remind the House that last year, as I recall, the hon. member for Jonquière tabled a bill promoting the use of public transit.

Promoting the use of public transit through a tax deduction—I believe that was the substance of her bill, which I had the pleasure of supporting—is very supportive of the philosophy that underlies the Kyoto protocol.

Because it goes without saying that cars are a major source of pollution. Therefore, it is to our benefit, as a society, to promote the use of public transit. I myself am in my early forties and I have never owned a car. I live between the Pie IX and Viau metro stations, and I rely on public transportation whenever I can. Of course, I use other means of transportation when that is not possible.

So, I thank the hon. member for Jonquière for the initiative that she took in 2000. I sensed a great deal of sadness and concern on her part because the Canadian Alliance stubbornly opposes the Kyoto protocol, and it is indeed very sad. However, we should not lose hope of convincing that party to ratify the protocol.

Of course, there is a lot of money at stake, as the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel reminded us earlier. Tell me who is funding you and I will tell you who you are. If I had to summarize in one sentence the speech made by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, that would be it.

Unfortunately, we are only too aware of the incestuous relationship that exists between certain political parties and the oil industry.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been the suggestion a couple of times this afternoon from the Alliance Party, I think it was, that in order to achieve the Kyoto targets which Canada will be required to achieve under that protocol we will need to have the nuclear industry provide the mechanisms to do that, that it is the only way to achieve those targets. I wonder if he could comment. Does he share that thinking? Or does he see alternatives to the nuclear industry with us still being able to achieve our targets under Kyoto?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the alternative solutions that my party presented refer obviously to our plan for promoting and developing wind energy. As part of our plan, we asked Canada Economic Development to set aside $700 million, over five years, to create 15,000 jobs.

We reiterate that we do not believe—and we have felt this way for a long time—that public funds should be used to encourage the development of the nuclear industry. We do not believe that this is the way of the future. We hope that the government will listen to reason.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on his speech. As I mentioned earlier, having had him as a student, I hope that I contributed, even if only in a small way, to his eloquence and erudition. It is always heart-warming to have the opportunity to see one of one's former students do such an impressive job in this House.

I would like to ask him a question pertaining to a small excerpt from a press release issued by the Minister of Natural Resources, which I would like to read to the House. It is only two short paragraphs.

These companies—companies that own and operate nuclear facilities—must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise.

This amendment--the one proposed in Bill C-4--will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The Act's current wording has been interpreted to extend site remediation liabilities beyond the owners and managers to also include lenders, creating for them unknown financial obligations that may far exceed their commercial interest. The result has been to discourage private sector interest in lending to the nuclear industry.

The Minister of Natural Resources tells us that the proposed amendment is purely administrative in nature. Given the wording of the press release, does the member share the minister's opinion?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will no doubt want to tell us how great a teacher the member for Joliette was.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

You are so right, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you that the time I spent at the Cégep Maisonneuve in the early 1980s, where the member for Joliette was my teacher, was a great period in my life. I would never have imagined that we would both be sitting on the same side in the House of Commons one day.

At that time, the member for Joliette was working on a book on the history of the CSN. I invite members to read that book. He was indeed a good teacher, and he gave me a taste for a kind of social democracy in which I still believe.

That being said, I think that we can agree that the Minister of Natural Resources is out of his mind when he says that this amendment is purely of an administrative nature. We are freeing the banks from their responsibilities. I totally agree with what my colleague, the member for Argenteuil, said in this House regarding the responsibilities of the financial sector in this matter.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very special comment to make. I have been a teacher much longer than the member for Joliette, because I am older.

I appeal to the women I have taught: get involved in politics. I believe they would bring something to the kind of debate we are having today. The Liberal government and the Alliance oppose an open and dynamic vision in terms of quality of the environment and good health for the public. The least we can say is that their opposition is based on questionable motives. If there were more women in politics, this would somewhat change the dynamics of this House. I hope my message has been heard.

We support Kyoto; we are for virtue and for happiness, but it nevertheless remains important to have a job.

I would like the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to tell us briefly what the impact on Quebec would be if, for example, an investment of a few hundred million dollars was made to promote wind energy. I believe that talking about figures is a language that the public usually understands well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has only one minute left.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it makes me sad.

We have indications that an investment in this type of energy is much more cost effective per capita than an investment in traditional energy.

I remind this House of our proposal that Canada Economic Development invest $700 million over five years. It is very little, compared to the $66 billion, but it would be much more worthwhile in terms of the environment, job creation and, of course, conservation.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here I am again, the luck of the draw. So now I have the opportunity of pointing out that you are in the chair as I prepare for my first speech of the new session. This is a speech that is very particular in that it was prepared by a young man from Alberta. His name is Lee Wheeler and he is a parliamentary intern. So yesterday I announced to him “Dear, you are going to write me a speech“ and he paled. He did not get a wink of sleep but he turned up with a speech and I would ask you to listen because it really is the product of his reflection.

My first speech of this new session will address nuclear safety. It is a very clear illustration of my concerns, as well as one of the major concerns of the Bloc Quebecois, and of Quebec society, and I am pleased to think of Canadian society as well: environmental quality and its preservation.

If energy has revolutionized the industrialized world, but with disastrous consequences, alas, for the environment , needless to say this debate cannot ignore the very real dangers of nuclear energy. This debate ought instead to give us an opportunity to look at all of its aspects.

Who among us does not recall Chernobyl or, closer to home, Three Mile Island. As we know, energy is fundamental to the development of modern society. The world's energy comes in large part from fossil fuels, coal and other petroleum products. Although new industries have developed in recent decades, nuclear energy in particular—which had much promise but has turned out very different from expectations—the environmentally friendly alternatives such as wind and solar power, continue to be ignored, neglected by the federal government.

Despite the dangers and risks clearly associated with nuclear energy, the federal government has chosen to amend the Nuclear Safety Act in order to—imagine—make it less strict, and consequently less effective, as well as consequently more sympathetic to the major financiers. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 are unacceptable on a number of grounds, and should not be adopted by this chamber.

The government claims it is presenting a simple and minor change. This is true, two and a half lines could not be simpler. However, this bill will most certainly have serious repercussions not only in Quebec, but also throughout the rest of Canada. The Nuclear Safety Act is supposed to protect Canadians from the environmental and financial risks involved in a potential nuclear disaster. Currently, the wording of the bill gives the Atomic Energy Control Board the power to order site owners or occupants or “any other person who has the management and control of , the affected land or place [to] take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

This wording covers a wide range of parties who are considered liable, since it ensures that all those who are involved in the industry are responsible for the burden of decontamination, in the event that an accident were to occur.

Through Bill C-4, the government is attempting to eliminate the decontamination obligation for a whole group of individuals involved. Instead of including “any other person with a right to, or interest in”, the Liberals are proposing that only those who have “the management and control of” the land must “take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

This is a major change; it is a change that is completely unacceptable for the Bloc Quebecois, for Quebec and for Canada.

I have a few questions. What on earth could have pushed the Minister of Natural Resources to propose such changes? Why is he being a party to the federal government's scheme in proposing such a change? Why is he choosing to threaten the health, even the lives of our fellow citizens? The answer is quite simple, even “elementary my dear Watson,” as some would say.

According to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I quote him, “The Act's current wording has been interpreted to extend site remediation liabilities beyond the owners and managers to also include lenders”. This is terrible. This cannot be the minister speaking.

He continued by saying that lenders would therefore be confronted with “financial obligations that may exceed by far their commercial interest”. Who is ignoring the fact that the potential dangers of the nuclear industry are immense? What lender would commit to such projects without assessing the risks involved? That is why the Nuclear Safety and Control Act was adopted in the first place.

A simple cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that the investment is not worth the risk. Why then should we, as a society, take on these risks and these responsibilities and pay the price if there is contamination? There is only one answer to that question: we should put on our biggest smile and take on those risks for the benefit of those who invest in polluting industries.

We do not and will never agree with the government. Nevertheless, the status quo is not the solution here. In the wake of Kyoto, we need to promote and support alternative energy sources. This will not only create thousands of new jobs, but it will also prove that our societal choices are based on developing environmentally friendly industries.

What the Bloc Quebecois is proposing is a federal investment program to support the efforts of a strong alternative energy industry in Quebec, something that would benefit Quebec and the rest of Canada.

We are talking about a $700 million investment--not a lot of money compared to what is spent on health, the economy and the environment--over a five-year period to encourage the development of the wind industry in Quebec, especially in the Gaspé area. This would reflect Canada's commitment to the protection of the environment.

We have heard several times the federal minister responsible for regional development regret the hardship facing outlying areas, and not only in Quebec. The way to help outlying areas is to have the fortitude to bring forward measures to foster the development of these areas, like promoting the wind industry.

Quebec has always been a leader in the production of green energy in Canada. While several other provinces continue to depend on coal and other oil products to heat their homes and light their buildings, and are not unhappy about it, Quebec relies mainly on hydroelectricity for its energy needs. For Quebec and Quebeckers, this is a legitimate source of pride. Incidentally, Quebec produces more that half of all wind-generated electricity produced in Canada, and this production is well short of its real capacity.

The development of alternative energies is a priority not only in Quebec, but also in all developed societies. The ratification of the Kyoto accord has long been advocated by the Bloc Quebecois. In April 2001, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous motion in favour of this position. For many years now, Quebec has been working on the international stage to promote the fight against climate change with tools like the U.N. framework convention on climate change.

Two action plans have been implemented in Quebec since 1996 to ensure Quebec's formal adherence to the convention's goals. Presently, in Quebec, electricity is 95% green. Unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to favour polluting industries, to use fossil fuels and to ignore the need to look for green alternatives. Even if natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government, with its encroachments, its hemming and hawing and its lack of vision, is not only impeding the national success of these businesses, but also undermining Quebec's environmental leadership on the international stage.

But members will admit that this is not the first time this government has tried to undermine Quebec. The most recent statements concerning Quebec's delegations abroad are perfect examples of what I just said; I must however congratulate the Liberal members who dared challenge those statements.

It would appear that how to finance these new energies is also a problem. If we look carefully at the government's decisions over the 1990s—it was almost yesterday—we see that over $450 million went directly to the oil industry and the nuclear industry, whereas a paltry $8 million went to the renewable energy industries. One dollar to green energies, and fifty to the nuclear and oil industries. Honestly, the difference is striking and everyone would have to agree that the government's priority is certainly not the quality of the environment, regardless of its announced intention of ratifying the Kyoto protocol in the coming weeks. Or the inconsistency is systematic.

This disparity is unacceptable. Rather than committing to the promotion of green energy, the federal government shamelessly continues to subsidize the polluting industries. With Bill C-4, its choice seems clear: pollution at all costs.

In Newfoundland the Hibernia project alone—which was good for Newfoundland, I agree—received over $3.8 billion in subsidies, loans guarantees and interest advances. This amounts 65% of the total cost of the project. This is not bad.

The benefit for Newfoundland was obvious since it resulted in an economic growth of over 6.5% a year—which Newfoundland really needed—and as a result of this economic growth the province is posting the lowest unemployment rate in 12 years.

The economic benefits of a wind energy project in Quebec will not be any less positive; they will be even better since they will not be polluting.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy—they know how to count, they are big guys--wind energy creates more jobs than any kind of thermal energy, over five times more than thermal energies and nuclear energy.

For its part, the European Association of Wind Energy believes that for each megawatt of wind energy produced, around 60 year-round jobs are created. The association is forecasting that by the year 2020—neither you nor I will be here by then, Mr. Speaker—over 2.4 million people will be employed by this industry in the European Union. This should be food for thought for the opponents of Kyoto.

The positive impacts of the development of a wind energy industry in Quebec and in Canada are obvious. I would even add that this is an inevitable change. The only problem is the lack of will on the part of the federal government. Although they claim to be ready to ratify Kyoto, the Liberals are obviously hesitant to push for the development of renewable energy industries, as you will see in the following example.

The December 2001 budget—it was a Christmas present—introduced an extraordinary indicator to show its interest in wind energy projects: 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of production for projects commissioned in 2002; 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2003, and so on, down to 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2007. Had it been 2008, it would have rhymed.

The federal government is far from the 2.7 cents per kilowatt-hour subsidies provided in the U.S. It is even a bit ridiculous. It is obvious that ridicule has never killed anyone yet, but it could happen one day.

The Bloc Quebecois is proposing a program that could set an example for all of Canada. Quebec is responsible for the majority of the green production in Canada. It is very well positioned to promote and develop these industries. The impact of such a development will contribute to the creation of more than 15,000 jobs. The growth of these industries will facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, not to mention the fact that the wind energy industry in Quebec will prove to be a financial success.

By maintaining the fiscal imbalance between Canada and the provinces, the federal government will once again miss a golden opportunity to develop a strong clean energy industry in Quebec and in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if I still have time because I have to decide on what is important here. I hope that questions will be asked to—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she can always hope for a question that will allow her to finish her remarks. At this time, however, I have to recognize the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if she is aware that the union movement, the labour movement, in this country has spent a great deal of time on dealing with issues of what it calls “just transition”, which means that in a situation like the phasing out of the nuclear industry provisions would be made to deal with the disruption in the labour market caused by people being moved out of that industry, provisions to prepare them to gain employment in other areas of the economy.

In that context, the labour movement in the country has been quite forward thinking, especially in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, where it has actually begun work on plans as to how that would be done. The labour movement is supportive, generally speaking, of phasing out the nuclear industry and working to phase out the use of fossil fuels and replace them with alternative sources of energy.

My question is quite straightforward. Is she aware of that work and does she have any comments on it?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, all these changes in the industrial organization can arouse fear and raise the spectre of unemployment. It is quite normal.

But we should be able to consider what will happen in the long term to our beautiful planet, a planet that appears to be blue from outer space, if we do not change our ways radically.

I think the reflections of the labour movement will not be a hindrance, but will bring new solutions. I am sure my colleague will agree that, if we invested in renewable energies and if we had started doing so years ago, the problem would be far less serious today.

The danger with Bill C-4 is that, by protecting big investors in the nuclear industry, we are inviting big donations for political parties. This is what we are doing, instead of clearly considering the development of a society with a sound environment, or promoting better health for us, our children and future generations, or promoting good vegetable gardening that will keep us in good health.

I sincerely hope that groups in our society, unions included, will be able to come up and provide us with concepts that will help us, as parliamentarians, but also for the whole population, meet the challenge of dangerous and polluting industries while providing a good quality of life and the means to face our financial obligations. These concepts should make Canada, of which we are still a part, and Quebec a place that is dynamic and prosperous, where people feel good.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has told us that she has other very interesting information. What is it?