The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

October 22nd, 2002 / 3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-2.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with the Liberals voting yes, with the exception of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who had to leave the chamber and with the addition of the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the member for Calgary West to our ranks in this motion.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Voting nay? The hon. member said nay.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote yes on this motion.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote yes to this motion. We would like the vote of the member for Winnipeg Centre to be added.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Independent

Ghislain Lebel Independent Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes to this motion.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Guy Carignan Liberal Québec East, QC

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes to this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

(Bill, read the second time and referred to a committee)

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

Before we proceed to orders of the day, the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast is rising on a point of order.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to the attempt by the government House leader to adopt the report of the striking committee with Standing Order 56.1 this morning during routine proceedings.

My point of order will address three issues: first, the minister moved the motion during the tabling of documents and I would argue that he should only be able to move a motion under Standing Order 56.1 at the rubric “Motions”; second, unanimous consent was not requested on the day he moved his motion, and I would like you to rule on the admissibility of proceeding this way; and third, I will be arguing that Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used to adopt a committee report.

Standing Order 56.1 reads:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.

Section (b) states:

For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

All of those items, while open to interpretation and, as we have witnessed in the past, open to abuse, all of those items, I would argue, would have to be moved under motions. Routine proceedings, as Marleau and Montpetit describe at page 365:

...is a time in the daily schedule when business of a basic nature is considered...This segment of the daily program consists of separate headings or rubrics called by the Speaker each day and considered in succession.

The footnote on page 366 states:

...the Minister or Member may seek unanimous consent to revert to a specific rubric under Routine Proceedings to table a document or present a committee report, make a statement, present a petition or move a motion.

In other words, routine proceedings is not a free-for-all. There is an order established and the rubrics are clearly labelled: during the tabling of documents, one tables a document; at statements by ministers, statements are made; and we present reports during presentation of reports, petitions at petitions, and we move motions at motions.

My second point involves the moving of a motion under Standing Order 56.1 without giving the traditional heads-up of seeking unanimous consent first. Unanimous consent was sought yesterday but I do not think the House has ever entertained a motion under Standing Order 56.1 without the consent being sought on the day the motion is moved. Therefore, a precedent has been established that consent would have to be sought on the day the government intends on moving the motion.

My third point challenges the admissibility of the motion being moved under Standing Order 56.1. I would like to point out that Standing Order 56.1 has its limits. These limits are described in section (b) of that standing order. Marleau and Montpetit give examples of some motions that have been moved under Standing Order 56.1. We find them at page 571. Page 571 suggests that while the rule appears at first glance to have limits, its usage tells us a different story. I think what the authors are trying to say, in a very delicate and diplomatic way, is that the use of Standing Order 56.1 has gone way beyond what it was intended to be used for.

You confirmed this in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of June 12, 2001. You addressed the matter of the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and you suggested that it should be restricted to the arrangement of the business of the House. You stated in your ruling that the standing order should never be used as a substitute for a decision which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters.

Members of Parliament work very long and hard at committee and would be highly insulted if we regarded their reports as routine and not substantive.

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and your ruling will be very significant. Members have been struggling to have their work taken seriously in the House. While we understand that the government does not respect their work, a ruling establishing their reports as routine and not worthy of debate would be disastrous procedurally; it would enhance the powers of the executive and diminish the importance of private members.

This motion is a motion to concur in a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which strikes all of the committees. First, there is a normal mechanism to deal with this report. After the report is tabled, a concurrence motion should be placed on the order paper.

After the proper notice period, the motion can be moved. There is nothing preventing the government from proceeding this way. In fact the chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee has a concurrence motion on the Order Paper and it is eligible to be moved tomorrow.

There are no extraordinary circumstances impeding the business of the House. The opposition is merely insisting that the rules of the House are obeyed and that it should not have to go to battle to ensure that the rules are upheld. The reason we have a notice period is to allow the House to be aware of the matter for which its consent is being sought.

This report contains 16 to 18 appointments per committee and there are 19 committees. There are numerous associate members assigned per committee. As a result, this report contains over 1,200 separate decisions. I would argue that this is a substantive matter.

I do not think that Standing Order 56.1 can be used to adopt the report of the procedure and House affairs committee for two reasons: one, we are following the normal practice and there is no need to circumvent the process; and two, Mr. Speaker, this is a substantive matter and as you said in your ruling of June 12, 2001, Standing Order 56.1 should not be used as a substitute for a decision which the House itself ought to make.

The normal course of events should be followed because the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is considering an Alliance motion to conduct the elections of committee chairmen and vice-chairmen by secret ballot. If we adopt the striking committee report today, the committees will begin to organize before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has decided on the process to be used to elect the chairmen and vice-chairmen.

It makes no sense to rush and adopt this report today. The House would be better served if its rules were followed to the letter. This is not one of those times when we should be circumventing the process.

In conclusion, the motion under Standing Order 56.1 should not be moved during the tabling of documents and should only be tabled under the rubric “Motions”. Such unanimous consent was not requested on the day the motion was moved. The motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 should not be valid.

Finally, Standing Order 56.1 cannot be used to adopt the committee report since such reports are substantive. As I said earlier, the work of committee members is important and vital to this institution and we should grant members the respect they deserve. Their work is not routine. The government House leader thinks their work is routine and devoid of substance but we do not agree.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to argue that first, the point is moot because of course the motion was not carried and second, no one rose to challenge it immediately afterward, as we all know. In any case, let us get to a few of the points that were raised by the hon. member.

I am very familiar with Standing Order 56.1. It says in paragraph (b):

For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings,--

--and get a load of this--

--the establishing of the powers of its committees--

It is specifically mentioned that this is an appropriate use of the standing order.

Second is the whole issue that it cannot be moved at that particular time. Let me deal with that. It only says:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings--

It does not say under motions; it says during routine proceedings. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the motion was out of order at the time, no doubt the Chair would have told me at that point to put it under motions. Of course the Chair, which never makes a mistake about these matters, did not make such a ruling at the time, as we will note. That takes care of those two points.

There is another issue, a more substantive one, that was raised by the hon. member. He invokes that we should observe the rules. At the same time he is saying that a rule that does not yet exist and which he is proposing to a committee should be the reason we do not concur in the report in order to enable him and others, at least so he hopes, to change the rule or to make one exist that does not exist now and that therefore we should wait for it before moving on with the business of the House. That is a pretty confusing thought process on the part of hon. members and we do not agree with it.

We were told there is no pressing matter. There is a bill that was passed by the House unanimously yesterday and I thank all hon. members. It is on the Kimberley process.

There is a very short timeline to have legislation passed by the committee and subsequently at third reading, and then by the Senate, about a process that will end the diamond contraband in the world, or at least curb it so that people are not massacred in the way that they are now. It is something in which the House participated. That bill is stalled right now because the committees cannot start doing their work. That is just one example.

We passed another bill today, the Yukon bill. It was sent to committee. That committee cannot exist and so on.

I think all of us recognize there is an urgent need for the House to do its work. There is an urgent need for members to sit on their committees to represent their constituents. I do not think any of us should apologize for that. Furthermore, there is an almost unanimous determination; four out of five parties in the House want the committees to start and one party does not want the committees to start.

I do believe it was an appropriate use of the rule. Regrettably for this institution, regrettably for the committees and the legislation, the motion did not pass this morning but it does not mean that the process was wrong. It merely means that those who opposed it this morning were wrong, and that is not the same.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, the minister states that the House has held up committees. We actually agreed to start two committees of the House because there were very important reasons that they be started. On the others, they can take their normal place of events in the House. We have not held up the committees of the House.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair wants to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the House leader for the official opposition, and of course the government House leader for their interventions on this matter.

I will take the issue under advisement. As the government House leader said, this matter was not raised yesterday when the motion was put to the House but I think it is a leap of faith on his part to conclude that the Chair never makes mistakes. It does happen from time to time and I am the first to admit it.

We will have to see what we can do. I will look at all the facts and get back to the House in due course on the matter.

The House resumed from October 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity on two occasions to speak to the bill formerly known as Bill C-57, which is now Bill C-4. This means that I was able to speak to this bill for more than 80 minutes. Now we must discuss the amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière to hoist this bill.

The last time I spoke to Bill C-4, I could not even finish because there were too many arguments in favour of its withdrawal and particularly in favour of a broad debate on the nuclear industry.

Today we have only ten minutes to speak to the amendment, and I must tell the House that this whole debate about the privatization of the nuclear industry could be postponed to a certain extent. We know that the purpose of this amendment proposed by the government is essentially to eliminate barriers to the privatization of the nuclear industry.

We have never had real debates on whether we should continue to invest in the nuclear industry and continue to try to fix, at an extravagant cost, nuclear generating stations that are in bad shape.

Privatization makes it easier to re-open nuclear plants that were quite rightly shut down. It also opens the door to the costly development of nuclear energy in Canada. I will digress for a minute. Atomic Energy Canada is for all intents and purposes a government entity. We can already see the emerging conflict of interest.

Obviously, we must look at reducing nuclear waste. Last year, we debated Bill C-27, regarding the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. We have compelling evidence that this waste may last for years, even thousands of years, and we do not know how to dispose of it properly. We do not know how to lessen the potential impact on the environment and human health.

Continued reliance on nuclear energy increases even further the risks of environmental accidents, not only those linked to nuclear waste, but also all sorts of other accidents that might occur. Cases in point are Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and others. We also have national and international security concerns due to potential terrorist acts as well as the use of nuclear reactors to make nuclear bombs.

Since 1997, when the Nuclear Safety and Control Act was drafted, section 46.3 of the act in some ways limited the possibility for businesses or financiers to invest in nuclear energy. People say it was a drafting mistake. However, neither during the debate nor in committee was that ever mentioned. It can be easily said—not claimed, but said—that at the time the government was trying to prevent the private sector from investing in a major way, to promote nuclear energy. At that time, there was no debate either on whether or not we should continue to invest in nuclear energy, much less about private investment.

In the world we live in in 2002, we realize that an increasing number of countries are getting out of nuclear energy. The majority of countries in western Europe that use nuclear energy, except for France, have decided to stop doing so mainly because of the lack of solutions for disposing of spent fuel containing 1% of plutonium; this is true too of states relying heavily on nuclear energy such as Belgium where the percentage is 50% and Germany where it is 30%.

Promoters of nuclear energy often say that this form of energy is the solution to the greenhouse gas issue. We know that 30 per cent of Germany's energy used to come from the nuclear industry. Today, by terminating its nuclear program and its investments in the nuclear sector, Germany will have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. This is a high figure, considering that Germany will have been able to do this even without 30 per cent of the energy it used to get from the nuclear sector.

It is totally false to say that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is closely linked to the use of nuclear energy. As I have already said, nuclear energy brings its own long-term and very long-term problems. I will give a few examples.

Carbon 14 is a radioelement which can remain radioactive for as long as 5,500 years. Mr. Speaker, you will no longer be there to verify that carbon 14 is no longer radioactive. I can even tell you that you will no longer be there to see those thorium 232 elements which can remain radioactive for 14 billion years.

In 1997, no attention was given to whether or not to continue with nuclear energy. Now there is, but obviously they had refused to allow the private sector to invest in nuclear energy. Today, people are increasingly withdrawing from this sector. There were some pressures at that time, mainly from members of the public who refused to allow the transportation of plutonium, of MOX, through their communities. In addition, in Canada, the Seaborn report also pointed out the vigorous opposition of the general population to the burial of radioactive waste. If the population is opposed to the burial of nuclear waste, we should not support the passage of legislation promoting the financing and development of nuclear plants in Canada. These plants would produce even more nuclear waste, which could be expected to generate even more opposition among the public.

In light of what is happening today in all European countries, Canada should finally take a stand, once and for all, on the development of nuclear energy. We have learned recently that even the Swiss, much of whose electricity needs are met by nuclear plants, are going to make a decision on their nuclear program. Right now, Switzerland is the third most nuclear energy dependent country in the world, after Lithuania and France, with 40% of its electricity coming from nuclear plants. The Swiss will soon have a referendum to decide whether to maintain the existing moratorium or phase out nuclear energy by gradually closing down their five nuclear plants by 2014.

Today, we have before us a motion that this bill be postponed indefinitely, and that emphasis be placed on priority action. We should hold a comprehensive debate and consult the general public and organizations promoting renewable energies.

We realize more and more that renewable energies are here to stay. This industry creates thousands of jobs. For the same amount of energy production, it creates many more jobs than the nuclear industry. Wind energy can create many more jobs.

Renewable energies tap resources that are almost indefinitely renewable, like the sun, wind, water and the biomass, as well as energy sources from the depths of the earth.

To conclude, I urge the government to withdraw this bill and to hold a comprehensive debate on the future of nuclear energy in Canada and on the investment we must make in renewable energies.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party we would like to raise our concerns when it comes to the debate on nuclear power in this country and for that matter around the world.

We support any amendment that delays this procedure. The hoist amendment is something we would most definitely support in this particular case.

When we discuss the concerns of nuclear power it is ironic that today the environment commissioner sent out a report, indicating that there are probably over 3,600 toxic sites throughout the entire country and probably many more that we are unaware of.

The answer we get from the federal government is that it costs money. Many of these sites were identified 13 years ago and the government said it was money. It has delayed and delayed and now these sites are worse than they ever were before. Now it will cost even more money than it ever has before. The legacy of the government will be the toxins left behind for our children.

In question period today the Minister of the Environment said very clearly it appears it will be up to our children and their children's children to clean up the mess. That is a disaster.

When we correlate that to the nuclear power industry, we must look at the situation in Point Lepreau, New Brunswick. It recently did a study there and it said it will be close to $900 million just to get that plant back up to speed. I say to my colleagues on my left here, it said that was a very conservative amount of money in that regard. The fact is it will cost much more.

The Alliance member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who represents the Chalk River area says that nuclear power is safe and cheap. She is dead wrong on both counts. Nuclear power is not safe and it is not cheap.

The fact is that one little nuclear mishap can ruin this country's whole day, and for that matter and entire lifespan. We look at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and other disasters around the world. Nuclear power has not been well taken care of.

I am not saying that the nuclear power industry is not a good corporate citizen in this country. It does follow regulations and everything else, but it is highly expensive when we take in all the parameters of nuclear power.

The government should be cleaning up nuclear power sites. If we look at what was on the news last night regarding Uranium City, that place is a radioactive, toxic dump waiting to create even more damage in the long term.

The uranium from there was used in nuclear power plants and nuclear weaponry. It was not even mentioned last night about all the people who worked at Uranium City and have died prematurely because of the various forms of cancer. That was ignored in last night's report. If anyone wished to delve more into the situation they would understand that nuclear energy and the digging of uranium is a dangerous and hazardous profession and one that leads to dire consequences down the road.

It was the Liberal government, when Sergio Marchi was the environment minister back in 1995, that changed the laws literally overnight. It had the candles burning all night in order to sell China two Candu reactors and offer them a $1.5 billion Canadian loan to purchase those two nuclear reactors.

We were surprised when we sold other reactors to India and Pakistan and other areas of the world and then years later these countries developed the technology to develop nuclear weapons. We should not be surprised because we aided and abetted in that technology, whether we like to admit it or not. That is a shame on Canada's export record.

What we should be doing is whenever it is feasible and as quickly as possible to start to decommission these nuclear power plants and start reverting to more sustainable forms of energy, that is, solar or wind. We have the ability to do that now. It will cost money in the initial stages, but in the long run it will not only meet our Kyoto commitments, but it will save a tremendous amount of money for our grandchildren and their children after that.

That is important as we move, hopefully, in a cooperative manner toward a more sustainable future for our country and for that matter our planet.

One nuclear weapon going off in the wrong place can have disastrous consequences and now everyone is concerned about the so-called secretive North Korea developing nuclear weapon technology. That is not a secret. That has been rumoured for many years.

One has to ask the question: Where did North Korea get the plutonium, the uranium and everything else to develop that technology? Did it get it from China? Did it get it from other countries of the world? We are not quite sure. If we continue that trace we will probably correlate a lot of that uranium or plutonium back to Canada.

We have exported a lot of that technology for many years, so we should not be too surprised when we find out that so-called nations that are not of the greatest human rights variety would develop that type of technology and who knows what they have planned for that type of weaponry down the road.

All we know is that it is not a good thing to have nuclear weapons on our land or any other soil for that matter. What the government should be doing is reaching agreements around the world as quickly as possible to stand down these nuclear weapons and eventually decommission them so we could be rid of all nuclear weapons in this world once and for all. Anything that delays this type of procedure is good.

We must have further discussion and more clarification. We must have good consultation with Canadians across the country, with industry and with other power generating industries to allow them the opportunity to offer alternatives to nuclear power or nuclear energy. Those alternatives are in sustainable energy such as, wind, solar and many others.

We in Canada are still what is known as energy pigs. We still use far too much energy per capita than most other nations around the world. We as Canadians collectively have to turn off our lights, reduce the temperatures in our homes, reduce the use of our automobiles, et cetera. If we do not do that then we are continuously delaying the long-term environmental problems for our children. That is a legacy we do not want to leave our kids and we should not be doing that.

On behalf of our party we support the amendment to this particular bill and we hope it goes through. We would like the government to be a lot more responsible when it comes to the use of nuclear power in this country and also to the export of Candu reactors around the world.