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

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with my party on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms 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 to apply the vote on the previous motion in reverse to the motion now before the House.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it agreed?

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, on this motion, I would like the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands to be recorded as a yea.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West—Mississauga, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I was absent for the first vote I would like to be counted as having voted with my government on the motion.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, will we not also give those Liberals who were very vocal in their opposition to this an opportunity to stand?

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

People seem to be taking all kinds of opportunities but at the moment I think we will conclude the matter.

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

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActRoyal Assent

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House

Ottawa

June 4, 2002

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jack Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of June, 2002, at 4.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

Points of OrderRoyal Assent

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. He has argued that the notice of meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport is not valid since it is in violation of the order adopted by the House on May 27.

That order creates a new Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and lays out the mandate of the new committee. However by modifying the mandate of the former Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations the House has also in effect created another new committee, the Standing Committee on Transport. This view is supported by the wording of the House order which instructs the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to prepare and report to the House lists of members to compose the new standing committees.

This, as I understand it, is precisely the point being made by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, and I agree that he is quite correct.

I have therefore given instructions that the appropriate corrective measures be taken and that the usual practices regarding the organization of newly constituted committees be followed in the case of the new Standing Committee on Transport.

I thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for his customary diligence in bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

I also wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 14 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that BillC-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

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Before the beginning of oral question period, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel had five minutes left to receive questions and comments about his speech.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point this out to my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. The amendment to subsection 46(3) obviously specifies that the financial institution will no longer be responsible if a place is contaminated.

When financial institutions lend money to someone who represents a certain risk, they often ask for extra guarantees and even endorsers, sometimes one, sometimes two.

In contrast, and we know very well that the nuclear industry is particularly dangerous, the section of the act that existed before allowed them to be held responsible.

So, indirectly, and I said this throughout the day and will repeat it once again, the section that existed before ensured that the private sector would not be favoured as a manager of nuclear plants.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, for his question.

It is important that Quebecers and Canadians who are listening understand the meaning of these changes. The old section 46(3) in the legislation explained who was responsible, 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.

It referred to all persons, in the natural and legal senses, who had “a right to or interest in”, which clearly includes bankers. I also believe this includes the federal or provincial governments, which provide subsidies or direct assistance to these companies. When there is a guarantee regarding the work done in a nuclear establishment, there is automatically a right or an interest. The old legislation held accountable bankers and governments that gave money to these organizations, or invested in them.

The new paragraph establishes who will be responsible:

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

It is no longer persons with an interest; now it is the management. Bankers and governments, those who could have invested in these companies, are no longer included.

This is happening at a critical time. A great deal of investment is required to renovate all of the nuclear infrastructure. We know that it is very dangerous. Why is this happening now? This is what I would like to point out to my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke.

This is happening now because there is a great deal of work to be done. Heavy decontamination burdens have been uncovered and this will continue in the next few years. The Liberal Party wants its banker friends to be free of any responsibilities. This is not only for those who will invest in the future; it is for those who have made loans to these companies, and for governments, including the federal government, which may have provided loans or subsidies to these companies.

As soon as Bill C-57, which we are discussing today, enters into effect, bankers and governments that had a right to, or interest in these facilities will no longer be responsible for the decontamination. The government is washing its hands of the whole thing; its banker friends are also off the hook. The Liberal government has no social conscience.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. We have many concerns about the bill. Some of them have been enunciated by our environment critic, the member for Windsor--St. Clair. I would like to elaborate on those comments and indicate to members present our grave concerns about the bill.

First, let us be clear about what this bill would do. Although it may be short in length, the bill very clearly would limit the current liability provisions related to the cost of a cleanup stemming from an incident impacting the environment. It is very much a serious issue in terms of the environment, nuclear energy and the whole area of privatization.

I forgot to mention, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore.

As currently defined in subsection 46(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, any person with an interest in the affected land or facility is potentially liable for the cost of cleaning up any contamination resulting from an incident. This point is relevant to the debate at hand because the provision includes not only the owners and operators but also a mortgage lender or holder of a security interest in the land. That is the way the act now reads.

The amendment before us today, through Bill C-57, would actually narrow the scope of potential liability to include only the owners and operators. It seems to me that we are dealing with a fairly significant issue, something that is worthy of considerable debate in the House. Yet the Liberal government would actually have us believe that this is simply a housekeeping bill to correct a flaw in existing legislation and would like it fast tracked with little debate and no study by committee.

It seems to me that this is becoming the preferred modus operandi of the Liberal government of the day: fast track legislation, keep the public out of the process, limit debate and keep study of important issues to a bare minimum. It is certainly a pattern we have seen repeated over and over again in the House and one which we hope will come to an end. Perhaps with this bill the government may see the wisdom of allowing for some debate and thorough consideration.

I will focus on part of the concerns we have with this bill. As I mentioned, my colleague from Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore will pursue our further concerns.

Is it not interesting that just days before we know the parliamentary session will end, the government brings forward a bill, last Friday to be exact, asking the House to give support for its swift passage because suddenly time is of the essence. We do not believe this matter can be treated lightly.

We have some serious concerns and it will be very difficult for us to accommodate the government agenda and to accommodate a request caused of its own doing by waiting until the last minute to bring this forward and ask for our consent. It is not possible for us to facilitate this unilateral, arbitrary attempt by the government to bypass the committee process and to silence debate.

We are dealing with a rather significant issue. We are talking about the loosening of regulations in the nuclear industry and lending our support to a bill that facilitates the privatization process. These issues are far too important to be dealt with in such a cavalier fashion and we will certainly try to send a clear message to the government in this debate.

I would like to focus on the privatization issue because it is clear that the bill is intended to facilitate that process. We are talking about privatization in Canada's nuclear industry. That fact is absolutely clear. The matter is plain and simple.

Let me go through some of the points that embellish this fact.

In the short term the bill is targeted to assist Bruce A and B nuclear generating plants in Ontario. We all know that Bruce Power is Ontario's largest independent generator of electricity. It is in effect foreign owned, with the predominant manager being British Energy, the United Kingdom's largest electricity generator. As was pointed out earlier, as a private operator, Bruce Power must raise capital by borrowing from the banks. However because of the current wording in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, banks are unwilling to lend to Bruce Power because of potential liability.

We also know that Bruce Power has been investing in its operations. It has opened up four of the nuclear reactors and wants to open up the remaining four. It is projecting its investment to reach close to $2 billion over the next four years. Through the government, it is seeking a way to facilitate its accomplishment of the project. It is seeking, through Bill C-57, to allow Bruce Power to maintain its investment and provide capital for expansion.

It is very unlikely that banks would lend money even with the proposed changes, as the property would not likely be seen as viable collateral in any event. We must also consider that this sector is unlikely to ever turn a profit in any case. However we have to be very vigilant on this issue and very concerned about the ramifications of an amendment that would actually narrow the scope of liability for those involved in the nuclear power industry.

As it now stands, liability is already limited to only $75 million under the Nuclear Liability Act. Many would certainly argue that the industry is already unduly protected by legislation and needs tougher liability laws not weaker ones.

The federal government clearly seems intent on supporting the privatization of the nuclear industry. In fact the Minister of Environment has already stated publicly that he is not concerned about the privatization of Ontario Hydro. Clearly Bill C-57 would facilitate the expansion or greater participation of private utilities, particularly with regard to nuclear power generators.

In conclusion, and before I turn it over to my colleague, on behalf of members of our caucus we are very concerned about the bill. We will be monitoring the process very carefully because we absolutely oppose any attempt to deregulate and privatize our public power utilities and any measures that contribute to that.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I just want to ask her how the bill before us, which changes nuclear waste management and which maintains this government's fundamental policy in favour of traditional nuclear energy from nuclear fission, fits in with the international trend emerging from the Kyoto agreements, which, by the way, were signed yesterday by European Union countries and by Japan.

This means that there is a growing international movement in favour of the ratification of the Kyoto agreements to limit greenhouse gases and to use cleaner and more environmentally friendly methods to produce energy.

Again, my question is very simple: how does the bill before us fit in with this trend in favour of greener energy production methods?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member of the Bloc for his question. It is a very important question that deals with the environment and alternative energy sources.

The question of the member is very much at the heart of the concerns we have with respect to the bill. It is great to see that there has been some movement internationally with respect to the Kyoto accord. I understand that Japan just officially indicated its support for Kyoto. We hope the present government of the day takes notice and is prepared to muster the political courage to do the right thing with respect to the Kyoto accord.

We are very concerned about this bill in that context. In fact any bill that encourages privatization and deregulation in the area of nuclear energy, encourages expansion of the use of nuclear energy as an energy source. Obviously members of the New Democratic Party, as I am sure is the case for those in the Bloc, are constantly searching for ways to convince the government to pursue alternative energy sources.

We desperately see the need for a reduction in the use of nuclear power. We urge the government to find ways to make the transition from reliance upon the nuclear energy industry to alternative energy sources. We believe, with the will from the government, that there are ways to deal with workers in transition, to deal with the questions about jobs in the sector and to ensure that we build a sustainable economy for the future.

That is certainly one of the key concerns we have with the bill. We hope this is understood not to be simply a housekeeping bill, or a minor technicality, or in fact part of a broader agenda to pursue privatization in the field of our renewable resources and nuclear energy and to encourage broader use of energy sources which are not in keeping with our notions about sustainability and protection for all of our citizens.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party to tell the government in no uncertain terms that we oppose Bill C-57.

I will tell the House exactly what the bill means. It amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to limit the current liability provisions related to the cost of a cleanup stemming from an incident impacting the environment. I just want to point out that a nuclear mishap is not an incident. It is a major catastrophe. To put the word incident in there is simply very misleading to the Canadian people. One only has to be reminded of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to understand that when we screw around and make a mistake with anything nuclear we are affecting not only the lives of potentially millions of people but we are affecting the environment as well.

As currently defined in subsection 46(3), any person with an interest in the affected land or facility is potentially liable for the cost of cleaning up any contamination resulting from an incident, and there is that word again. This includes not only the owner and operators but also a mortgage lender or a holder of a security interest in the land. The proposed amendment would narrow the scope of the potential liability to include only “the owner or occupant...or any other person who has the management and control”.

This means that if the province privatized it and sold it off to someone, the new owners potentially may be responsible for everything surrounding those particular power plants and the province more or less would get off the hook. It is inconceivable that the government would attempt to do anything in this regard. I want to give credit where credit is due to Howard Hampton and the provincial Ontario NDP for the strong work they are doing throughout the entire province to tell the people of Ontario exactly what privatization of the hydro would do.

Let alone the concerns already expressed by the previous speaker about the environmental issues, let us see what happened when we privatized hydro facilities. In Nova Scotia we were told that when Nova Scotia Power was privatized we were going to have lower rates and cleaner efficiency rates. We were going to have everything better. The sun would shine even brighter. What happened? More and more people are falling by the wayside because they can no longer afford to pay their electrical bills.

What does Nova Scotia Power want to do now that it is privatized? It wants to introduce a 9% increase to power rates to appease the shareholders. It has completely abandoned its responsibility to businesses and citizens within the province of Nova Scotia.

I can assure the House that the mistruth, the stretching of the argument, more or less, because I cannot say that three letter word in the House and I will not, will be that if the nuclear plants of Ontario Hydro are privatized things will be much better for the Ontario consumer. Life will be better and the sun will shine brighter. We have heard this over and over again. It is simply not true. What will happen is that rates will increase, businesses will suffer, and individuals, especially those on fixed incomes who cannot defer those higher costs in electrical rates, will go elsewhere. We will not see anything from that government to help retrofit homes or make buildings more efficient. No, it will say that the government is not in the game any more, that it is up to the private sector market to solve all those problems. It is simply unacceptable that the government of Ontario and, for that matter, the federal Liberal government can treat the people of Ontario in that manner.

On the environmental side, I want to speak on a personal note, not on behalf of the party. I have opposed the use of nuclear power ever since I was a wee kid because of the potential changes and the risk that it poses. I cannot help but think about what we heard after September 11. What did we hear that was one of the things we would have to protect with CF-18s? Nuclear power plants. There was even talk of putting these planes right next to these power plants to ensure that no terrorist would attack them or blow them up.

Everybody knows exactly what would happen if Point Lepreau in New Brunswick or the Pickering plant had meltdowns. That would be absolute catastrophe for the country and for the world. It would be unbelievable. Chernobyl was bad, but we can imagine how much worse it could get.

I would like to say to the workers and families of the power unions and the people who work in those plants that the NDP is not saying we would cut them off tomorrow and throw them out on the streets. It is a long term vision to reduce our use of nuclear power throughout the country. We should start looking seriously at what countries like Denmark have done and what Germany is doing. We should start looking at alternative forms of energy. Denmark now gets 16% of its energy from wind. There is no reason that we could not do the same in this country.

What we are saying to the workers and their families in those communities is that it would be a gradual phase-out and that we would look after them when the changes come. The changes have to come because there is not one person in the House, in the country or on the planet who can tell anybody what to do with nuclear waste. We are talking about burying it in the Canadian shield. What solution is that? We have absolutely no way to handle or contain nuclear waste in a safe way, and forever too.

We have no idea what to do with it, but I can say what we do with something called depleted uranium. We coat weapons with it and fire it into the oceans and onto the land. There is a woman named Susan Riordon, from Yarmouth, whose husband, it is suspected, died from depleted uranium. All the medical authorities in North America are saying that depleted uranium is not a hazard but medical authorities in Europe are saying it is. We have conflicting evidence about depleted uranium and what I have talked about is just a small amount of it.

I cannot leave the House without saying how duplicitous it is about the tragedy that may befall India and Pakistan. The fact is, it is no coincidence that we rushed the sales of Candu reactors to those countries many years ago. It is no coincidence that they used the expertise around those Candu reactors to help build up their nuclear arsenal.

What was done a few years ago when Sergio Marchi was the environment minister? He changed the law literally overnight in order to give China an over $1 billion loan to purchase two more Candu reactors. What do we think China is going do with those Candu reactors? It as well will build up its own nuclear arsenal down the road.

Canada cannot wash its hands clean on this one. We have to stop selling Candu reactors around the world, stop this reliance and stop the subsidization of Canadian tax dollars in promotion of this industry. What we should be doing is promoting much more environmentally sound industries, industries that we can all look to for a very bright future, especially for our children. All we are doing right now is making it easier for the private marketplace to take control, but in the end these corporations will have no responsibility.

If something happened to one of those plants under private control, I can guarantee that the owners of the plant would walk away. Who would be left cleaning it up? It would be the taxpayers again, the Canadian people. It would be just like Enron all over again. The shareholders would disappear and say that it is up to the government. Where would the people turn? They would not turn to the private corporation, which is generally foreign controlled and owned. They would go back to their elected representatives.

Therefore I would like to tell those elected representatives to throw away Bill C-57 and start looking at alternative forms of energy so that we can look forward to a future for our children.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was environment critic for a very long time. I am very familiar with the issue of nuclear waste.

This debate has been ongoing in the House for a number of years. I see here some colleagues who sat with me on the Standing Committee on the Environment in those days.

One cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth when talking about nuclear waste. However, this is what is happening in the House of Commons.

I remember travelling with the Standing Committee on the Environment to Washington and New York, among others. We met with parliamentarians there and we told them, “We have to talk about nuclear weapons, because we are headed that way”. I remember we were soundly rebuffed. We were told to mind our own business and that this was none of our business.

However, we are selling Candu reactors and we are taking dangerous political steps with regard to the nuclear industry. There is now talk of storing nuclear waste here in Canada.

I will put a question to my colleague, who might have more information than I do since I stopped being environment critic a while ago. Needless to say, I am still very interested in the issue.

A few years ago, there was no study to indicate that storing nuclear waste had no harmful mid or long term effect on the environment.

I would like my colleague to give me further details in this regard. Have there been recent studies? At athe time, the Standing Committee on the Environment had asked whether there was really no danger in storing nuclear waste here.

Can Canada really afford to take in nuclear waste from other countries and bury it in the Canadian Shield? Perhaps there has been studies on this recently. I am putting this question to my colleague.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question but I regret to inform her that I have not read any of those studies. My environment critic has done some research in this regard. My previous environment critic did so as well.

I do know about the concerns of Canadians when, for example, moving nuclear waste from the United States into Chalk River was being talked about. I realized the grave concerns of all the Canadians and in fact all the Americans along the route where the nuclear waste was to be transported.

I do not believe there is a report anywhere out there that can definitively tell Canadians, and Americans for that matter, that nuclear waste can be stored or placed in a situation where it will never ever be dangerous to humans. I do not believe a report like that has ever been written.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. In the legislature of Ontario yesterday it came out that there were political donations made by the hydro company in Ontario, both to the provincial Conservatives and the provincial Liberals. I do not know if any investigation was done to see if there were similar federal contributions. With that bit of backdrop, I just wondered if my friend could comment about whether he thinks there is any consideration there in regard to the bill being put before us and us being asked to get it rammed through very quickly.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the question, but of course when it comes to privatization the first thing we have to ask ourselves is, who will benefit? What about the dollars? If we follow the money, we will find the answer.

Time and time again we have heard concerns about privatization. We are working on one example right now, the alternative service delivery of the supply chain, which is going to Tibbett's of England. There are many other examples of that, such as the CCRA thinking of sole sourcing its entire documentation process to foreign nationals.

This is unacceptable, but it only leads us to believe that something is not right in the state of the Liberal Party or in the state of Denmark when it comes to nuclear power and rushing the bill through.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

June 4th, 2002 / 3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the amendment proposed in Bill C-57. I already had the opportunity to deal with this issue a number of weeks ago.

First, I want to discuss the very substance of the amendment before getting back to the more general context of the bill that includes this proposed change. The amendment seeks to change a provision on the responsibility relating to the decontamination of sites and the storage of waste. It seeks to amend a part of section 46(3) of the act, which reads 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 provision would be replaced by the following:

—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.

This amendment essentially provides that a group, primarily the financiers, who used to be included in the provision on the decontamination of storage sites, would suddenly be excluded. Under this amendment, financiers are no longer covered.

It appears that the investment related risks would be much too high for financiers to be interested in such a venture. If the risks of investing in traditional nuclear energy are much too great for financiers, should we not ask ourselves whether these risks are also too high for a society such as ours?

I am now getting to the core of this issue. The very essence of this bill raises a number of philosophical questions. I mentioned this during my previous remarks on this legislation: in the past, the federal government made a choice regarding the energy sector. It is now up to the government to change that choice, but it seems reluctant to do so.

So, the government made a choice that it wants to maintain against all odds, and I will get back to this in a moment. But the government did make a choice to invest massively in traditional nuclear energy, in nuclear fission. This choice is definitely not a safe choice. It is definitely not an environmentally friendly choice, since it results in the production of a large quantity of hazardous waste. It is difficult to isolate this waste properly.

We must now pick up the pieces. We must adopt effective legislation that will allow us to deal with the waste that is the result of the choices made in the past.

I know some people on the other side, and maybe even on this side of the House, will call us paranoid, but we have to acknowledge that, in the past, the government has generously financed some energy groups that favoured other provinces and some regions in the country, especially western Canada in the case of oil. The federal government has invested more than $66 billion since the 1970s. In 1998-1999, the federal government gave $78 billion in direct subsidies.

When I hear our friends from western Canada criticize the federal government's energy policy, I recognize that there might be some legitimate dissatisfaction in their arguments. However, when we look at the more than $66 billion in investments by the federal government in the oil industry since the 1970s, I do not think that western Canada can complain about the federal contribution to its economic development, particularly in Alberta.

As for the traditional nuclear process, that is nuclear fission, the federal government has invested some $6 billion in that area since the 1970s.

It is therefore $6 billion for the nuclear industry, which, for 1998-1999, represents an investment of some $126 million, or more than $100 million a year invested by the federal government to promote the development of the traditional nuclear industry, that is nuclear fission, which is located mainly in Ontario.

When we look at these figures and compare them to the money invested by the federal government in the so-called green energies, that is renewable energies, it is $329 million since the 1970s. So, $329 million compared to $66 billion for the oil industry, which produces very high levels of greenhouse gases. For the nuclear industry, which produces great quantities of dangerous radioactive waste, it is $6 billion since the 1970s. For the so-called green energies, it is a meagre $329 million.

One could say that since the 1970s, the federal government has lacked a vision in terms of energy development. If this were the only problem, we could be saddened but tell ourselves that it is never too late to do the right thing. However, this government will not budge. Not only has it not learned from the past but it continues to invest massively in fossil energies like oil and in nuclear energy, while investments in so-called green energies remain almost nonexistent. I think we should also be concerned about that.

Most recently, investments in the oil industry development in Newfoundland have reached $3.8 billion. These investments were not made in the early 1970s but fairly recently. The development of energy sources in western Canada, in Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland in particular, were generously financed. While investments in renewable energies remain almost nonexistent, this government acts as the champion of the environment. It should put action to its words.

For instance, what energy choice did Quebec make? It decided to invest in a renewable, green, and environmentally-friendly energy: hydroelectricity. How much did the federal government invest to support Quebec's efforts in the development of hydroelectric energy? Almost nothing, if anything at all. Quebec supported alone the development of its hydroelectricity.

Now, if the Kyoto protocol is ever ratified, they will want all Canadians and Quebecers to bear the cost of a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, when for years Quebec has been making tremendous efforts on its own to develop an environment friendly energy supply and to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, while other provinces like Alberta show a net increase in the production of greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade. The government would like the cost of the 6% reduction to be shared by Canadians across the board, regardless of the efforts made in the past without any support from Ottawa.

However, if this was only a record of what had been done in the past, once again, we could be saddened, but we could say that there is hope. On the contrary, the situation is only getting worse. Of the meagre $329 million invested in the renewable energies sector since the 1970s, the federal government had invested a few tens of millions of dollars in nuclear fusion, which is the energy of the future. I will come back to this in a few moments.

Governments of industrialized countries are investing massive amounts in nuclear fusion. Canada once invested about 1% of the amount spent on nuclear fusion research worldwide. However, through its partnership with the other countries taking part in this research, it benefited fully from the technological spinoffs of nuclear fusion.

In the early 1990s, after this government came into office, in 1994-95, using the fight against the deficit as an excuse, if I can put it that way, it decided to cut its annual contribution of about $7.2 million to the nuclear fusion program. We are talking about a federal government investment of more than $100 million in the traditional, highly dangerous and not environmentally sustainable nuclear fission industry, and a meagre $7.2 million in the Tokamak activities, in Varennes, in my riding, which was the only nuclear fusion reactor in Canada.

As I said, under the pretext of budgetary restraint, the decision was made to cut the $7.2 million allocated annually to the operations of Tokamak at Varennes.

The result is that the Varennes Tokamak operation very shortly closed down, since the government of Quebec could not support it on its own. To all intents and purposes, the Canadian government has definitively abandoned nuclear fusion as an approach and has in a way just stood back and watched the rest of the world get ahead of us.

The day nuclear fusion becomes feasible as a source of energy, Canada will, to all intents and purposes, become a net importer of a technology which it has helped develop at the cost of several dozens of millions of dollars.

Such an unwise use of public funds, given that it is generally acknowledged that the federal government would recover in tax revenue far in excess of its annual investment in nuclear fusion, given the technological spinoffs of the development of nuclear fusion.

What shortsightedness, saving $7.2 million that would have been spent on a form of energy for the future, simply because, or so it appears, they want to favour energy from nuclear fission in Ontario, and Ontario is a better place to invest.

It is politically more advantageous for the Liberal Party. Moreover, the results are visible: 99 MPs out of 103 is not to be sniffed at. In other words, in Ontario it is very cost-effective to invest in Ontario in this type of energy that is extremely harmful to the environment and highly dangerous: nuclear fission.

When the government made the decision to pull out of nuclear fusion, we asked it why it was so intent on reducing, eliminating, rejecting the nuclear fusion approach?

The answer was that there were some hard budgetary choices to be made”. Obviously,we did not expect there would be some $10 billion in annual surplus accumulating just a few years later. So this was really a shortsighted decision.

Anyway, what we were told was “We had some hard budgetary decisions to make as a government, so we decided to cut nuclear fusion. Hey, that's life”.

The minister of natural resources of the day, now Minister of health, told us loud and clear that fusion was not a government priority as an energy project. How can one reconcile that statement with the statements made by the government as it signs the praises of renewable energy and of the Kyoto protocol and so on?

What is really a source of concern though is that after having been told repeatedly—indeed, we were told by her successor at the Department of Natural Resources, the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and by the current Minister of Natural Resources—that nuclear fusion was not a government priority, there seems to have been an attitudinal shift. I was stunned to find out, after the Tokamak project folded up, that the experts that we had developed with our taxes—I am referring to the brains that we had developed in our universities with the taxpayers' money—had to leave the country to use their knowledge.

There was no room left in Canada for these people to use their knowledge. So, we forced them to leave the country. The Varennes Tokamak project was completely dismantled. Once that was done and the Quebec government had barely managed to maintain a very small program to continue minimal research on nuclear fusion, with the available means, so as to preserve the technological expertise that had been developed in the area of plasma and microwaves, I was stunned to learn that the federal government was injecting $1 billion annually in a project that is not supposed to be part of its priorities, this to promote the ITER project in Ontario.

What is the ITER project? It is a project to build a nuclear fusion megareactor, and it is sponsored by an international consortium. All of a sudden, the federal government is interested in seeing this nuclear fusion megareactor on its territory. I would remind members that, according to the former minister of natural resources and her successors, nuclear fusion is not a priority of the government.

The federal government shows an interest in nuclear fusion and is prepared to welcome the $12 billion ITER project on its territory. It is a major project. Where will the site be? In Ontario. It is becoming more and more interesting. The government is starting to see it as a priority. It is willing to invest some money.

As if that were not enough, it was reported in the National Post on May 23 that the defence research and development agency is trying to reproduce an American experiment that would allow for the efficient production of clean low cost energy through nuclear fusion.

Those who are watching will agree with me that the government is starting to show its true colours. This was not a priority of the government at the time when the centre of excellence in nuclear fusion was located in Quebec, but now, after having caused the closure of the centre for magnetic fusion in Quebec, the government shows a sudden interest in the ITER project in Ontario. All of a sudden, national defence is starting to want to reproduce American experiments for the production of energy through nuclear fusion.

I would like to ask this question to our friends in the government. Is fusion a priority of this government, yes or no? Has the government changed its policy with regard to nuclear fusion because Quebec no longer has a centre of expertise in that area? Has fusion suddenly become an interesting form of energy again because it can now be developed in Ontario?

This is simply despicable. This is simply outrageous. Is it any wonder that some people in Quebec say that the best way to ensure our development and our future is to take our destiny into our own hands and achieve sovereignty for Quebec?