Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides for asking me this question, because I did not elaborate enough indeed. I would have liked to elaborate further because, as I was telling her, I come from a region where we are quite far ahead in the wind energy sector.
I come from a region where a university took its responsibilities and went ahead and developed new energies, particularly wind energy.
I mentioned earlier that the federal government is investing hardly anything in new energies. In the last budget, an announcement was made concerning a possible reduction in electricity fees, thanks to a grant for electricity produced from wind energy and from new energy.
However, this is very minor. This is not an investment program, as we all wish for, that is an investment program of at least $700 million. This amount seems huge, but, as I remind the House, the government has invested $6 billion in nuclear energy since 1970.
It has invested $66 billion of the taxpayers' money in the gas industry. These are not investments by private companies; these are investments by this government using your tax dollars. Since 1970, the government has invested $66 billion on research to produce oil, to extract oil.
Furthermore, there is a member who sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with me and who comes from Newfoundland. He knows that the federal government has invested billions of dollars in Hibernia. At the time, that was fine.
But now, more is required. Renewable energies must be produced. Research must be done into such things as electrically powered cars, because this is the way of the future. And finally, if we want to be able to comply with the Kyoto protocol one day, we will have to invest in renewable energies. We know that the primary reason for the increase in greenhouse gases is the use of oil.
So let us stop investing in oil and temporarily invest in the new energies. Let us at least make the effort. Let us do research. Right now, it is non-existent; there is no investment in research.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—I would like to get back to my colleague—, I gave as an example what is known as the precautionary principle in such areas as the fishery, when it is a question of saving the resource. The amendment now before us ignores the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle is a basic principle of government. The idea is for a government to ensure that companies assume their responsibilities from beginning to end, for a body like the Nuclear Energy Agency, which produces nuclear energy, to shoulder its responsibilities from beginning to end.
What would happen if, tomorrow morning, a nuclear plant were privatized, handed over to the private sector, with primarily foreign capital at stake, and these people pulled out after a catastrophe or the company went bankrupt? Once again, the government would be left holding the bag. The government would have to shell out.
But this is not how the precautionary principle works. With the precautionary principle, backers of these companies also have a responsibility. And this is the exact opposite of what is being proposed today. I cannot agree with this amendment.