House of Commons Hansard #198 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chairman.

Topics

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, when the House is in committee of the whole this day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), time shall be allotted to the recognized parties in the House in periods of twenty minutes as follows:

  1. The first such periods shall be allocated to the Liberal Party, the second, to the Canadian Alliance, the third, to the Bloc Quebecois, the fourth, to the New Democratic Party and the fifth, to the Progressive Conservative Party and subsequent periods shall be allocated to the parties in proportion to their representation in the House;

Within each twenty minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its Members, for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the Minister's answer shall not exceed the time taken by the questions, and provided that, in the case of speeches, Members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will try another one and see how it goes. I believe you would find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates be designated to review the Seized Property Management Act, pursuant to clause 20 of the said act.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. The member is the industry critic for our party.

I know he has very strong feelings about this issue. He was really affected by the closure of the Tokamak reactor, which was in his riding. He has fought tooth and nail for this issue. I would like him to brief us a bit on what has happened.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

Nuclear Safety and Control ActThe Royal Assent

4:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts--Chapter No. 13.

Bill S-40, an act to amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act--Chapter No. 14.

Bill S-34, an act respecting royal assent to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament--Chapter No. 15.

Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act--Chapter No. 16.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding; the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, National Wildlife Areas; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Softwood Lumber.

Business of the HouseThe Royal Assent

4:25 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I sought unanimous consent for a motion and there was a misunderstanding. I believe there is now an understanding, not only among party leaders but also among some members. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, when the House is in committee of the whole this day pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), time shall be allotted to the recognized parties in the House in periods of twenty minutes as follows:

  1. The first such periods shall be allocated to the Liberal Party, the second, to the Canadian Alliance, the third, to the Bloc Quebecois, the fourth, to the New Democratic Party and the fifth, to the Progressive Conservative Party and subsequent periods shall be allocated to the parties in proportion to their representation in the House;

  2. Within each twenty minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its Members, for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the Minister's answer shall not exceed the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, Members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

Business of the HouseThe Royal Assent

4:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseThe Royal Assent

June 4th, 2002 / 4:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resume consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of asking a question when I was interrupted because of these events.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

An hon. member

It was a royal interruption.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Indeed, it was a royal interruption. I only wanted my colleague to complete his speech by giving us an overview of what happened in the Tokamak file, a file he relentlessly defended.

I would like him to give us a summary. The bill before us today is very important. The member worked very hard on the Tokamak file, but to no avail. I will now ask him to give us a detailed account.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I cannot start without warmly thanking my colleague from Laurentides for her question, which gives me the opportunity to give an update to my colleagues in the House.

I mentioned the issue of Tokamak, in Varennes, without any context. Obviously, it is important to understand what really happened.

The Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, which ran Tokamak, in Varennes, was a joint partnership between Quebec and the federal government. God knows that there are not that many partnerships between Quebec and the federal government, and those that exist the federal government tries very hard to destroy.

In any case, the project was funded equally by the federal government, on the one hand, and Hydro-Québec and INRS, on the other hand, to the tune of $7.2 million each. A centre of excellence in nuclear fusion had successfully been established, a centre which, as I said earlier, was responsible for 1% of the world research on nuclear fusion, but which enjoyed 100% of the technological spinoffs, since there was an international partnership in which the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion was a partner.

Over the years, we managed to build one of the best nuclear fusion reactors, the only one in Canada at the time, in fact. Currently, there are no nuclear fusion reactors, now that Canada has abandoned nuclear fusion, at least officially.

We also invested several tens of millions of dollars into the Tokamak and succeeded in forming a team of approximately 100 high level technicians and researchers with special expertise in the areas of plasma and microwaves.

Around 1994-95, the federal government suddenly and unilaterally decided to end its $7.2 million contribution, which led to Tokamak's closing in Varennes, and the waste of tens of millions of public dollars that we had invested to create Tokamak, money taken from taxpayers' pockets.

We also dismantled a team of high level researchers who, as I mentioned before, had no other choice but to leave the country to use their knowledge. These researchers, who developed their talents and knowledge in nuclear fusion in Quebec and Canada working on Tokamak in Varennes, now work on the development of nuclear fusion in Japan, Europe and the United States.

I cannot believe that for $7.2 million, when the federal government was getting back much more than its annual investment in Tokamak, this was a wise decision in terms of the management of public funds. No, this was not a wise decision.

At a time when we were fighting a deficit, it was not a wise decision in terms of public finance. Nor is it today, given that the government has some ten billion dollars, which it is using generously for its sponsorship programs, as we have seen.

This was not a wise decision because we destroyed equipment paid for by taxpayers. This was not a wise decision because it dismantled a team put together in large part thanks to the actions of Quebec government. This was in no way a wise use of public funds.

This was a purely political decision, as has now been demonstrated by the attitude of this government, which, through the back door, is supporting implementation of the ITER project in Ontario, a $12 billion nuclear fusion megareactor. We are not talking about a few tens of millions of dollars; we are talking about $12 billion for a project that would be located in Ontario. The federal government, which said that nuclear fusion was not among its priorities, is making annual investments in the Canadian consortium that wants to have the ITER project in Ontario.

We see that this was a political decision, as the Department of National Defence wants to emulate American experiments in nuclear fusion.

This was hogwash. This was smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, a centre for research excellence—the most important energy research and development project in Quebec—was killed, was closed by the federal government.

The government hoodwinked people, saying that this was done because of its financial problems. In fact, it was a political decision.

As I was saying earlier, one will not be surprised that, with decisions such as these, many Quebecers have chosen to ensure that Quebec will become a sovereign state to take its future into its own hands.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous speaker. He has a good grasp of a broad topic, probably much better than my own.

The bill before the House is a very brief amendment. I am not sure we are here today to discuss the entire nuclear energy program or what might be a nuclear energy program across the country. However I am concerned that the bill before the House is being introduced at a late time in terms of our summer recess.

Bill C-57 should be studied by committee of the House, especially the environment committee. I am greatly concerned that the liability for an industry with sites in only three provinces across the country would be taken away, whether in Quebec with Hydro Quebec, in Ontario with Ontario Hydro, or in my own province of New Brunswick with the New Brunswick Power Corporation. New Brunswick also has Point Lepreau which is considering renovations, improvements and a revisiting of the strength of the facility.

I urge members of the House not to pass the bill through the House too quickly. It should be well studied. We have had problems before in terms of who is liable. The entire situation concerning the tar ponds in my neighbouring province of Nova Scotia seems to fall on the provincial government which argues that the major liability rests with our federal institutions.

I commend the hon. member for his knowledge of the industry. In considering the importance of the decision to the people of Canada and the future liabilities of the federal government, it is my strong recommendation that Bill C-57 go to the environment committee for study and come back to the House at a later time.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with a recommendation like the one made by our colleague from Miramichi.

However, in terms of his comments regarding the relevancy of my speech, I will simply tell the member for Miramichi—I do not know if he was with us at the beginning of my speech—that I did in fact establish a link regarding the content of this proposed amendment, which is designed to exempt a group from being held responsible for site decontamination. This is an issue we are most concerned about.

However, we must therefore realize that the amendment before us is a result of the decisions that the government has been taking on energy for a number of years.

As I said in my speech, those decisions are questionable at the very least. If at least it had been acknowledged that very questionable decisions had been made in the energy sector and if it had been decided to change direction for the future, we could feel reassured. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is to a certain extent the thrust of my speech today.

As regards the proposal made by my colleague from Miramichi, I obviously support it entirely. I believe that we cannot study this fundamental issue in a hasty way. We must give it all the time and attention needed. Who is in a better position than the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment to study in detail the implications of this amendment?

I obviously support this proposal and I hope that the members of his party will back him up and support the proposal.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before resuming debate I will pass on some information which may be useful for members interested in Bill C-53 which could be before the House tomorrow.

In the event that members may be preparing report stage amendments I wish to draw the House's attention to a clerical error found in the report stage reprint of Bill C-53, the pest control products act. In subclause 2(2) on page 7 the words “a preponderance of evidence” are replaced by the words “reasonable certainty”.

Clerks at the table are available should members wish to obtain more information.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-57. In my view, the amendment in this bill is designed to exempt backers from liability vis-à-vis nuclear energy.

Paragraph 46(3) of the act says:

--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 will be replaced by:

—any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

What this amendment would do is exempt backers from liability in the nuclear sector. This assumes that companies which make loans to those who manage nuclear facilities will no longer be liable. They will be able to make loans without subsequently assuming liability for any contamination. When these sites are abandoned, they will have to be decontaminated in any event. We know that this will have to be done at most sites.

We are saying that backers will not be held liable. A company could declare bankruptcy tomorrow morning, disappear, and responsibility would revert to the government. The government would have to assume responsibility for decontaminating the sites in question. There have already been many problems in the past, including with sites which had gas facilities. The companies disappeared, and today the government has to take over responsibility.

In my riding, we had a recent, very obvious example. It involved copper dust contamination. A company in Murdochville, in my riding, has just closed down. This company had used the Mont-Louis and Gaspé ports. Right now, these two ports are owned by Transport Canada; they were extensively contaminated by copper dust. Today, people are calling on the government to decontaminate these facilities.

This amendment is proposing that we tell backers “Go ahead. Make a loan to the company. No matter its responsibility, no matter what it will do. In the end, if it goes out of business, the government will take on the responsibility”. I cannot agree with this proposal; I find it very dangerous and very risky.

Quebec, however, has been asking companies for years now to assume their responsibilities vis-à-vis the environment. The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified; we even think that this protocol does not go far enough. We must get it into our heads that the environment is very important; the future of the planet depends on it. It is as simple as that.

I will tell you what has been said by the present natural resources minister, who has also been the fisheries minister. Concerning this bill, he said the exact same thing I just said, except that he is the one introducing and supporting this amendment. It explains very clearly what the bill is all about, and it shows that the liabilities of investors in the nuclear industry will be removed. The minister said, and I will quote his press release:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise, said Minister Dhaliwal. This amendment 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 minister said “At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner“. For a minister to say such things, it means he is wondering. Is this the way it will happen in the future?

Really, we can say this today, but what will really happen five, ten, or twenty years from now? In 20 or 30 years, when nuclear plants are decommissioned, who will be held responsible? The investors? The amendment says they will not. Will it be corporations that will probably have disappeared in the meantime?

Ontario Hydro and the New Brunswick utility are government corporations, but, if they are privatized, as could happen in Ontario, they will become private corporations.

We are very well aware that a private business can disappear from one day to the next and can therefore deny its responsibilities, totally abandon its responsibilities, particularly if it is a foreign company, that is one whose financing is mainly from out of the country. These people can just take off and forget all the problems they may have created and left behind them.

We are experiencing a similar situation in the riding of Matapédia—Matane, and just next to it, in Gaspé, with the events in Murdochville.

I personally am a member of the fisheries committee. What I would like to say concerning this amendment is that we should apply the same principle to it that we apply to fisheries. In fact, where nuclear energy is concerned, we should apply what is termed the precautionary principle, that is the principle applied to endangered species in the fisheries field.

If the government really wanted to apply what is called the precautionary principle, the amendment we have before us would never have been introduced. Hon. members will of course have understood that I am totally opposed to the amendment we have before us.

I would go beyond that, however, because this is an amendment that opens a very significant door to the creation of companies producing new types of energy. As for the investments that have been made in recent years into nuclear energy, I would point out that this is not a type of energy that can be considered clean. It produces such a lot of waste, and that waste cannot be processed at the present time. It must be stored and stockpiled.

At this time, there is even a proposal to import and try to process waste from other countries. We know that development of a real technology for handing nuclear waste will take years. We know that attempts have been made in the past. The Americans dumped drums of heavy water into the Pacific, and into the Atlantic as well. This constitutes a very considerable environmental risk.

I come from a region that is a little bit different. It was in the forefront when hydroelectric power was being produced 50 years ago. It is a region that is in the forefront today as far as new types of energy are concerned, because we have wind generators in two locations. We produce wind energy at Saint-Ulric and Cap-Chat, where the facilities have been operating very well for some years.

The first wind generator was set up in the Magdalen Islands 25 years ago. People may not remember this. Hydro-Québec had done some experiments. Another one was set up in Cap-Chat. One cannot say that they were a success, because the technology was not developed at the time.

However, since then, the technology has developed. It has evolved to the point where there are two wind energy production plants today in my riding, and there will soon be another one in the neighbouring riding.

We, in the region, were aware at the time—and we still are—since, as far as possible and with the means available to us, we developed clean energy.

Even today, with the Université du Québec à Rimouski, we are quite far ahead in the development of new energies, such as wind energy, among others.

The federal government recently announced a totally minor investment in the wind energy sector, compared to what it is investing and has invested in fossil energies, as well as in nuclear energy.

This is a minor investment, because it will obviously not promote the development of new technology. It will allow for one thing: to get technology somewhere else and implement it here.

However, this does not really create jobs. It does not really create a synergy to support the development of new energies.

I would simply like to remind the House some numbers. My colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes gave them earlier, but it is very important to take note.

Since 1970, direct federal grants to the oil industry—which is one of the most polluting industries and which produces the most greenhouse gas, given the automobiles and the oil that is used—totalled $66.272 billion.

Let us imagine that the federal government had invested $66 billion in the production of new energies and the development of technologies allowing us to have new energies. Where would we be at? We would probably be the most advanced country in the world in terms of new energies.

Today, it might be easier to adopt the Kyoto protocol if, in the past, we had invested as much in new energies as we did in oil. This is very obvious. It is very difficult for people to understand. I do not know anyone in this House who has ever had a billion dollars in his pockets. I do not think anyone has, except perhaps a few people, but they are keeping quiet about it.

I find it very hard to imagine an amount of $66.272 billion. It is a lot of money. This means that huge amounts of money were invested in oil, for the benefit of two provinces: in western Canada, Alberta with the tar sands, and in the east, Newfoundland, with the Hibernia project. It is simple. It is essentially these two provinces that benefited from these $66.272 billion.

Let us also not forget the infamous energy policy proposed by the Trudeau government for oil. Remember its impact in Quebec. We must not forget the Borden Line, which almost killed all businesses in the Montreal region when the issue of oil and the development of the Arthabaska tar sands came up.

I also want to point out that, as regards nuclear energy, we are talking about $6 billion. Again, it is very difficult to imagine such an amount. What does $6 billion mean in concrete terms to people? It is very hard to imagine, but it is a lot of money. These are the amounts that have been invested since 1970.

If we had invested only $6 billion in new energies since 1970, instead of the $66 billion to which I was referring earlier and which were invested in the oil industry, we would be much further ahead in the production of new energies.

I am always going back to the amendment before us. This provision removes the responsibility of businesses, of major banks in the area of nuclear energy. Today, we would not have this problem. Perhaps it would not be necessary to have the amendment now before us if we had invested enough in the production of new energies.

As regards this issue, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a plan. I just toured the region I come from with the Bloc Quebecois leader. We made a very concrete proposal. This concerns only what I just said about new energies, the public's responsibility and the responsibilities of lending institutions and businesses when it comes to using any source of energy, including metals, mines and the environment.

I remind members that we have a similar problem with the closing of the Murdochville mine, where one company has developed copper for 50 years and polluted the area and the environment for the same amount of time. I can assure the House that it will be extremely difficult today to force this company to decontaminate the environment and the river that it contributed significantly to pollute as well as the Bay of Gaspe.

I therefore cannot support such an amendment, which tsays that we are taking the responsibilities away from the lending companies. I certainly hope that those companies lending money in the nuclear energy area will have a certain responsibility. They should be held accountable if there were disaster or a leak in a nuclear plant.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. If the federal government, which as we know is investing almost $12 billion in Hibernia, were now to invest $700 million for the development of new energy sources, like wind energy for example, what immediate consequences would that have? It would create 15,000 jobs in an area like mine. We already have an expertise in this field. Moreover, this is an area where the unemployment rate is close to 27 or 28%, and that has been the case for years because our area has been abandoned by the government, as we know, as all the so-called remote areas have been in the country.

With a small investment of $700 million, we could create 15,000 jobs in the new energy sector. We are talking about wind energy. It is not enough to go get the technology somewhere else. It is not enough to install two or three wind turbines on a hill. This is not what we are suggesting.

We are proposing developing our own technology, which will continue to evolve and grow. We could create 15,000 jobs as early as tomorrow simply by investing $700 million. Imagine, we have invested $60 billion for oil and gas in this country. We are only asking for a $700 million investment, which would allow us to improve our environmental record. This would improve our record when it comes to greenhouse gases.

What are we being told? “We will invest a small amount over a much longer period, over five or ten years”. However, this is almost nothing. What does $25 or 30 million over five years represent in this field? It is a pittance compared to the $60 billion that I referred to earlier. It is a very small amount compared to the $6 billion invested in nuclear energy since 1970.

Who benefited from nuclear energy? A few provinces. My colleague talked about this earlier, there are three provinces that really benefited from nuclear energy.

In Quebec, we developed hydroelectricity. This is a clean, renewable source of energy. We developed hydroelectricity solely with funds from Quebec and from Quebecers. There were no federal subsidies to develop hydroelectricity, yet in Ontario and elsewhere in the country, the government spent a fortune. Six billion dollars to develop nuclear energy. Six billion dollars, which benefited the other provinces. Why were Ontarians not asked to pay for the development of their nuclear energy, the way we did in Quebec, instead of subsidizing them? In my opinion, it is because the federal government has always been biased.

The federal government has always made sure that Quebec makes do without any help. We continue to pay for the other provinces. When it comes to the Kyoto protocol, it is the same thing.

What is being proposed today, is that after having contributed $60 billion to develop the oil and gas energy, and $6 billion to develop nuclear energy, there are problems with signing the Kyoto protocol. The government is realizing that it will not be able to meet the objectives. Why will we not be able to meet the objectives? Because we have spent a fortune developing oil instead of investing sufficient money to develop new energy sources.

Let us take a practical example like developing an electric vehicle. How much money has the government put into developing a new battery for a vehicle that would run on electricity?

Right now, Quebec is losing its only vehicle assembly plant, the GM plant in Boisbriand. Were the federal government a little more conscious of its responsibilities, it could invest in the technology for building an electric vehicle. It would be important, since it is a promising technology. We know that all manufacturers are working on that. We—and I am referring to the federal government here—are doing nothing in that area.

We are having problems with ratifying Kyoto because we did not make any investments in the past. Let us look to the future, take our responsibilities and make massive investments in new energies. Let us at least try to correct the mistakes made in the past. We must ensure a better future for our children. The government created this situation; it should fix it.

Knowing that the government has invested $6 billion of public funds in nuclear energy, I think that it has largely contributed in creating the problem. The same goes for petroleum energy.

When one invests $60 billion in an energy that one knows is not clean and not renewable, one has to take responsibility, and this responsibility belongs to the government.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his comments. I think they were most relevant.

He spoke at length about wind energy. Statistics on this type of energy tell us that there is a real wind energy boom in the world. They also show that, over the last six years, it has expanded by 30% annually on average and that Germany is the country where wind energy is the most popular.

We are not talking through our hats here. We are talking about a pollution-free energy, an energy for the future. Statistics show that, right now, Germany produces 8,753 megawatts annually and that Canada merely produces 207 megawatts.

This is outrageous. We are so far behind. Why do we fail to invest in wind energy? It is because, like my colleague just said, we have decided to invest in oil.

But now we have to modernize. We are in 2002 and we should prepare for the future. As far as the environmental issue is concerned, in Canada, we have clearly taken no significant steps for the ongoing improvement of the environment, and I can talk about this matter because I have been here for nine years, since 1993, and I was a member of the environment committee for three years.

It is not because we cannot afford to look after the environment. We have surpluses of about $40 billion a year. The funds are there. My colleague asked for only $700 million for work and research on wind energy; this is a paltry amount compared to $40 billion a year.

Could my colleague tell us more about wind energy? He said that they produce wind energy in his region. However, in order to raise the awareness of our colleagues on the other side, it would be interesting to hear more of what he has to say on that industry.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

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.