Herb Dhaliwal

[Kyoto Protocol, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we have been consulting with the provinces is to ensure that we build a plan that is fair and puts no unreasonable burden on any part of the country or any sector.

We have been meeting with large emitters to ensure that their concerns are taken into consideration. It is in the interests of everyone to work together because Canadians across this country want to ensure that we play our role in dealing with climate change.

[Softwood Lumber, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have already made commitments to the industry on two occasions. We invested in terms of looking for new markets. We looked at investing in research and development and investing to make sure we have a strong advocacy program. We also announced $240 million recently. This is more than $340 million to help the forest industry.

I want to tell the hon. member that we will stand behind our industry and our workers in the forest industry. We will make sure that the Americans do not bankrupt them and we will be there again if they need more support.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts correct.

What I have said is that in the long term, in order to deal with climate change, we need to deal with all forms of energy. In the long term, in terms of nuclear, we should keep the door open on that option. Whenever we can create energy without creating greenhouse gas emissions we need to look at all our options as we move into the future.

[Energy Conservation, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, through Natural Resources Canada, is helping Canadians make smart decisions about home energy use. For example, through EnerGuide for Houses we help subsidize professional home energy evaluations that show homeowners how they can seriously save money on home heating and cooling.

We support the R-2000 standard for construction of highly energy efficient homes which would save 30%. We are promoting the internationally recognized Energy Star which helps save energy for appliances. In partnership with industry we are also helping Canadians do a better job in energy efficiency and reduce their costs.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting with industry. We know that it has some legitimate concerns. We want to make sure that we deal with those concerns in the final plan in terms of dealing with that uncertainty, in dealing with making sure that we deal with the early action that some companies have taken so that they are not disadvantaged in any way.

That consultation is continuing because they have some real, legitimate concerns we need to deal with, and because we want to make sure that investment stays in Canada and that we continue to be competitive with our partners.

[Softwood Lumber, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote for the hon. member. This is a quote from Trevor Wakelin, chairman of the Alberta Forest Products Association's Lumber Trade Council. He said:

We welcome the news. We're very pleased that the federal government has come forward to take care of our workers.

Let me give the member a quote from British Columbia. This is from John Allen, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Association. He says:

By and large, I think it's a good start.

We agree with him. People should listen to the people who represent the lumber--

[Softwood Lumber, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when we made this announcement, we also said this file is a work in progress. We have, in May, announced $75 for research and development and developing new markets. Then we announced another $20 million for an advocacy program. Now we have announced $250 million.

We will monitor what is happening. This is a file that is ongoing. Meanwhile we are working to make sure we do everything we can to get an agreement with the Americans, a long term, doable agreement that will benefit both the U.S. and Canada. That is what we are working toward.

Meanwhile we have to monitor the situation--

[Softwood Lumber, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should stand up and congratulate the government for a $250 million package to respond to workers, to respond to communities, to make sure we have a competitive industry that can compete anywhere in the world. This is a program which ensures that for those workers who are affected and communities that are affected and provides for research and development. In Quebec $23 million will go toward making sure that the pulp and paper industry can be competitive. This should be applauded, not criticized, by the opposition.

[Natural Resources, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with the minister of energy from Quebec. She has written to me. We are reviewing that and hopefully will have a response for her in the near future.

Of course we want to take advantage of every opportunity for economic development throughout the country, including this region, but we have to make sure that we have the regulatory framework in place. We have to deal with the jurisdictional problems at the same time.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at second reading of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. It gives me great pleasure to stand before the House today in support of this bill. It is a one clause bill with the same provision as that contained in Bill C-57 introduced in the House in May 2002.

The amendment clarifies the wording in subsection 46(3) of the act which has had the consequence of extending the obligation for site remediation beyond the owners and managers to private sector lending institutions. This is an anomaly that must be corrected.

Under the current wording of subsection 46(3), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the authority to order the owner or occupant or any other person with a right to or an interest in to take prescribed measures to reduce the level of radioactive contamination. This proposed amendment clarifies the subsection by deleting the words “person with a right or interest in” and replacing them with the words “person who has the management and control”.

This subsection has discouraged the private sector from lending to the nuclear industry. The industry is a vital component of the Canadian economy. It includes electric power plants, uranium mines and refineries. Nuclear energy supplies 13% of Canada's electricity. It thus contributes to the diversity which helps to ensure the security of our energy supply.

The nuclear industry is more than electricity, however. Nuclear technology has daily applications in industry, material science and in sterilizing medical items. Medical isotopes produced in reactors are used to diagnose and treat disease. In fact, Canada is a world leader in producing medical isotopes which are used around the globe.

The amendment serves to clarify the risk for institutions lending to companies in the nuclear industry. A lender who goes into management and control of a nuclear facility would be within the reach of this subsection.

No other industrial sector or power generation sector is encumbered by a federal provision of this nature that discourages their access to bank lending. For example, the chemical and natural gas industries do not have the problem we are trying to fix.

The nuclear industry must have access to commercial credit to finance its needs, just like any other sector. This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. It is not, and should not be misconstrued as, a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. All the stringent mechanisms embodied in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and regulations, which are designed to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner, are still in place and unaffected by this provision.

For example, in the class 1 nuclear facilities regulations, which deal with the large power reactors, the commission requires industry to provide detailed information about their environmental protection policies and procedures, effluent and environmental monitoring programs and environmental baseline studies. The commission continues to have the authority to act to suspend the licence for any activity when it concludes that the activity carried on poses an unreasonable risk to the environment, health and safety or security. These examples show that the commission's mandate to prevent unreasonable risk to the environment will continue to be fulfilled.

Nuclear power is a proven technology for generating electricity. It has been in commercial operation in Canada for more than 30 years. There are currently 438 nuclear power plants around the world, producing 16% of the world's electricity. The only non-greenhouse gas emitting source which produces a larger share of the world's electricity is hydro power, which produces 19%.

Governments are encouraging more private sector participation in the ownership and management of facilities in all energy sectors. Companies with nuclear operations need access to the same financial instruments available to other companies. This means that companies need the participation of banks and other financial organizations to attract market capital and equity to finance ongoing and future operations.

We must be fair and consistent. We must ensure that all companies have an equal opportunity to conduct their business and to better position themselves in the marketplace. At the same time we must ensure that these companies are fully responsible for environmental stewardship. This approach maintains the authority of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to take the necessary measures for site remediation against those who have management and control.

The bill will put us in a win-win situation. It will not in any way weaken Canada's stringent licensing and regulatory regime, which is designed to protect human health, safety and security and the environment. At the same time it will put the nuclear industry on an equal footing with other industrial and power generation sectors and clarify that owners or those who manage and control have liability for site remediation.

I reiterate that the bill is not a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. It does not contain any hidden agenda. It demonstrates the government's commitment to implement its policy strategy to achieve smart regulation, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. The bill will help “achieve the public good” and at the same time enhance “the climate for investment and trust in markets”. I would ask the hon. members to join me in voting to send this bill to committee.