Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was friend.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as NDP MP for Kamloops (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions February 15th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of residents of communities in western Canada.

The petitioners point out that the Canadian Mineral Industry Federation has proposed a 10-point plan of action to be addressed by both the mineral industry and the Government of Canada to keep mining in Canada.

They call on Parliament to take immediate action which would increase employment in this crucial sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's mineral reserves and sustain mining communities in order to keep mining in Canada.

Taxation February 15th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, in the theme of fairness that the minister has commented on so much recently, would he ensure in whatever provisions he brings down in his budget that urban Canadians and rural and small town Canadians take an equal hit?

There is a lot of concern out there right now, particularly around the whole matter of transportation policy and so on, that rural and small town Canadians will be adversely affected by the budget much more than urban Canadians.

Taxation February 15th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has obviously been hearing like the rest of us about a lot of taxpayers who are fed up with hitting the wall. Some taxpayers have not hit the wall. Some taxpayers have never even seen the wall and others have jumped over the wall.

Over the last few days the minister has talked about tax loopholes. I am pleased to hear him actually using that term as part of his vocabulary these days.

Will the minister as part of this theme seriously address the fact that capital gains in Canada are not taxed as other income as we find in the United States? People who inherit vast amounts of money do not pay tax. Would he consider the mother or father of all tax loopholes, the family trust, and remove that tax option in his budget?

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

She did not say she would. I say mumble because she made no commitment.

I would hope that after hearing the diverse views here she would say that legitimate views exist in the country and that she would agree to hold public hearings in all parts of the country to allow the public an opportunity to present its views.

Just on the long shot that people are generous here tonight, would there be any inclination on the part of my hon. friends to provide unanimous consent to send this to committee for further consideration?

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, there has obviously been a difference of views presented here this afternoon. I respect the views of my colleagues, although they are perhaps not exactly the same as my own. Others are similar and supportive.

I make two requests. The other day the minister announced that the government was to examine the whole nuclear industry and the support of that. The question was put to her at that time whether she would allow public input. At that point I think she mumbled a bit.

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, before I wrap up my comments, my hon. friend was obviously waiting for an opportunity to get in on the debate and I think has a speech with him. Would it be appropriate for the House to seek unanimous consent to have him table his speech as part of Hansard ?

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

Thanks but no thanks.

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to hear the hon. member's speech however, he mentioned the NDP party. Think about it. That would be the New Democratic Party party. If he is going to refer to us, at least say the New Democratic Party.

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

My friend says it is a little town in China. That sounds better.

Despite 50 years of massive government subsidies, being on the dole, asking for handouts, the nuclear industry still cannot stand on its own two feet. Should that not get all of our attention in this House? After 50 years of handouts, after 50 years of coming in here and begging for support, it still cannot stand on its own two feet. Should we not say it is time it reassess how viable it is in terms of the future of Canada?

This gets almost obscene. The federal government wrote off a $70 million loan to AECL for the Douglas Point reactor at Bruce site. Quebec's number one reactor never operated properly and had to be shut down. A $90 million loan to AECL was written off by the federal government.

Despite the failure of that reactor Ottawa has now financed a second one to the tune of $151 million. It gets worse. It is very embarrassing.

It is the standing policy of this government, the Tories before and the Liberals now, to finance one-half of the estimated cost of any province's first nuclear plant. That is policy. The Government of Canada has written off about $800 million in unpaid loans to Nova Scotia and Quebec heavy water plants. In 1977-78 the federal government wrote off about $190 million in loans to AECL.

Canada's Nuclear Liability Act limits the liability of nuclear operators to $75 million in the event of a nuclear accident. It has been estimated that a severe accident at the Darlington nuclear

station would cost at least a trillion dollars and could lead to over 200,000 fatalities.

I could go on and on. That brings me to an important point, whether the nuclear energy sector is safe? I think this is fundamental in people's minds. It is certainly not economical. It is certainly environmentally unsound and I think that is a given. Is it safe?

Mr. Speaker, I think you will be shocked. During 1993 the Atomic Energy Control Board recorded 700 "unusual incidents" at Canada's 22 operating nuclear reactors. That is almost two a day. You are astonished. I am too. These incidents range from spills of radioactive heavy water to unexplained power surges. Of these, 270 were serious enough to warrant a full report to AECB and a follow up investigation. That is incredible, two incidents a day that warranted full scale investigations.

The annual reports of the Atomic Energy Control Board provide ample evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear technology. The following really got me riled up in terms of having to do something to prevent this catastrophe that is about to happen. It is reported that in August 1992 radioactive heavy water from the Pickering A nuclear reactor leaked into Lake Ontario downstream from the water supply plants for the communities of Ajax and Whitby, forcing a shutdown of the plants. This incident resulted in the highest single emission of radioactive tritium into the lake since the reactor began operating in 1971.

This goes on and on. No wonder those whales are whipping up on the beaches in Quebec all scarred up, sick and blue. We have nuclear waste draining into the Great Lakes.

The 1992 annual report, the one that really got my attention, states that in March 1993 Ontario Hydro discovered a serious deficiency in the analysis of an accident involving a large loss of reactor coolant. The analysis showed that the consequence of such an accident, if it were to occur while operating at full power, would be unacceptable. The term unacceptable is a euphemism for a disaster, probably.

They are not safe. They are not economical. They are environmentally unsound. They are a threat to our health and they are breaking the treasury. Why on earth would we continue on this sort of treadmill to nowhere, forking out that kind of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Speaker, my time is quickly coming to an end. So I will sit down now while I wait for my friends across the way to explain to the taxpayers of Canada how this incredible subsidy ought to continue.

Hopefully, a little lightening bolt will come out of the sky and give them a little snap so they will say: "Yes, tomorrow morning I am going to walk over to the Minister of Finance's desk, sit down beside him and say: "Mr. Minister of Finance, it is time to end this madness. Save the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. Bring them a safer environment, a healthier environment and something that is economically and environmentally sound now". The only way we can do that is to stop funding Canada's nuclear sector.

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act February 14th, 1995

Yin-yang is a town in Saskatchewan, I think. I am not certain of that.