Charles Caccia

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's comments. It may not be the first time in my life that I have been misguided, so a reminder like that is always very healthy.

I would, however, indicate to him that meteorologists have told us that in the last 10 years we have had weather performances of a nature whereby we have had less precipitation and higher than average temperatures than ever before.

Second, I must draw to the member's attention that I draw my guidance from a Swedish scientist, Mr. Arrhenius, who 100 years ago had already detected the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere. Therefore, this phenomenon is not something that can be attributed to a just few years ago.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a debate on costs would be meaningless unless accompanied by a debate on benefits or unless accompanied by a debate on the cost of inaction.

I can fully understand the concerns of the member from Nanaimo. Nevertheless, I would urge him also to look at both sides of the ledger. We cannot continue to express just one side of that ledger, hoping that we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, unless we also examine very carefully the benefits to be derived by any action on Kyoto.

We have seen already the damage that has been caused to the agricultural industry, for instance, as a result of climate change. Nobody knows exactly what amount is to be attached to that. We are told by those in the fisheries that the patterns of movement of salmon and cod have changed because of the changes in temperature of the water.

We have signals from the insurance industry, which is very much under pressure because of rising insurance rates caused by weather extremes. We also have signals from the shipping industry about lower water levels that preclude heavier liners from entering the Great Lakes, and so on. We can see that this debate is a complex one.

The hon. member made a reference to job losses. There may be, but there also may be job increases in the renewable sector. Of course we will have to manage properly the transition from the fossil fuel era to another era, and of course the workers engaged in the fossil fuel industry will require assistance from society in that transition, as we have done for the fishermen who have been cut off from cod on the east coast and who have received assistance in order to remain in their villages.

These are very complex and difficult issues. I welcome the member's question.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in this prebudget debate one cannot help mentioning the massive yes vote in the House the other day on the Kyoto protocol and the decision, therefore, of Parliament to support that initiative. With that vote, parliamentarians have indicated that the vast majority in the House understands an issue of global governance, supports an issue of global security and sees, through energy efficiency and conservation, an important solution in order to achieve that goal.

There are two ministers who will have to play a key role in the implementation of Kyoto. One is the Minister of Industry and the other is the Minister of Finance. I will briefly outline in my intervention what they could do.

First, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has an important role to play in determining the Kyoto orientation of the next budget. One could even call it the Kyoto budget because of the vote we just had and because of the long term commitments Canada is making in order to achieve specific greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The first step that the Minister of Finance could examine is that of the elimination of counterproductive subsidies, which one could even call perverse, which actually increase Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. It requires the gradual elimination of the preferential tax treatment given to the fossil fuel industry and in particular the oil sands industry, specifically the elimination of the current exploration, development and operating write-off provisions of the Income Tax Act accorded to the fossil fuel sector.

Second, the Income Tax Act provisions for the mining write-off assets used for in situ projects for oil sands development need to be dealt with.

Third, the tax expenditures resulting from these subsidies, I would like to bring to the House's attention, could amount to anywhere from $75 million to $600 million, as estimated by Don Drummond, the then senior assistant deputy minister of the finance department , when he testified before the environment committee on November 27, 1997. That estimate by now may be larger.

I will indicate that I am sharing my time with the member for London West.

The second area for the Minister of Finance to examine is the establishment an investment environment and preferential tax treatment to strongly encourage the renewable energy sector. It is still handicapped because it does not have the general exploration, development and operating write-offs currently available to the non-renewable energy sector.

With the removal of the perverse subsidies I mentioned earlier and of the preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel industry currently available, it is necessary to take a concurrent step to establish a preferential tax treatment for the renewable energy sector, which would include the an increase in the 1.2¢ per kilowatt hour current incentive for wind power production. This increase has been recommended by Benign Energy Canada, a member of the CARE Coalition and the e-mission 55 group.

A major shift in government support, an estimated $2.9 billion to $3 billion over five years, from the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries to the renewable energy sector is desirable, so as to provide a foundation for a strong Canadian renewable energy industry.

Furthermore, an accelerated tax write-off regime is desirable for investments in the renewable energy sector, coupled with a preferential tax treatment for renewables other than wind, such as landfill gas, solar, biogas, et cetera.

Finally, a program to encourage and increase the use of ethanol and other less polluting fuels is desirable, as outlined in the report of the member for Halton, which is entitled, “Unlimited Potential: Capitalizing on Canada's Untapped Renewable Energy Resources”, a fine report with which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are very familiar.

Next, we recommend to the Minister of Finance to launch a strong public education program to promote energy conservation, energy efficiency and careful consumption.

The next area is a measure that would also highlight a paragraph in the Canadian plan on Kyoto, which does call on individual citizens, consumers, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Time does not allow me to go into greater detail on this, but one should mention the desirability of a considerably improved fleet performance in the automotive industry and a taxation of gas guzzlers.

This brings me now to the other minister I mentioned earlier in my preface, namely, the important role to be played by the Minister of Industry since it is desirable that the next budget ensure the investment in innovation to meet the Kyoto target.

I submit that innovation is one of the most fundamental determinants of economic growth and competitiveness, and energy innovation will play a central role. The Technology Partnerships Canada annual report that was tabled in the House last month, entitled “Investing in Innovation”, recommends advancing environmental solutions, which I would love to outline for members were it not for the time limitation.

Second, there is the $3 billion invested by the government, and quite rightly so, in the Foundation for Innovation, which is a tremendous source of funds to implement environmental initiatives that will help to meet the Kyoto target.

In conclusion, I would say that the Prime Minister, in Chicoutimi, made a very strong commitment to the Kyoto accord. His statement was followed by his announcement in Johannesburg on the ratification of the Kyoto accord, as ratified by a vote the other day. One can only express the following thought: that the Minister of Finance is likely to be swamped with demands and requests for funds from a number of very legitimate demanders, so to say. They could be in development aid, in human resources, in social programs, in agriculture, in immigration services and so on. Thus, the task of rearranging priorities may be a very difficult one for the Minister of Finance so as to produce the funds requested from him.

I submit that there is a solution to this problem and that would be to rescind the tax cut announced in the last budget. Canadians, I submit, are likely to accept such a decision as a necessary one in order to meet far-reaching obligations, to improve the quality of life and to strengthen government services at home and abroad.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the fourth part of the 2002 ordinary session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, France, from September 23 to 27, 2002.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 9th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-220, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-220 is to require mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

Mandatory labelling would ensure that the genetic history of a food or food ingredient is recorded and traced through all stages of distribution, manufacture, packaging and, finally, sale. These steps would then ensure the integrity of the documentation trail, accurate labelling and would also prevent incorrectly labelled material from reaching the consumer. The Minister of Health would thus be able to monitor the presence of genetically modified foods in the food chain and conduct intensive research into the potential long term effects of genetically modified foods on human health.

Public concern with regard to genetically modified organisms, commonly referred to GMOs, is reflected in the result of public opinion polls. Canadians overwhelmingly support mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. The most recent poll commissioned by the Government of Canada reveals that 84% of Canadians support labelling genetically modified foods.

As members may recall, Bill C-220 was introduced during the last session of Parliament as Bill C-287, which the procedure committee saw fit to deem votable. Bill C-287 received 91 votes in this Chamber and prompted the government to request a study by the Standing Committee on Health.

The study so far is not completed and is in limbo because last September Parliament was prorogued. In the meantime, the government relies on appointed bodies to study the question of mandatory labelling. One so-called consultative body the government turned to is the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, to which I will refer to from now on as CBAC.

CBAC was charged with initiating a national dialogue on issues relating to biotechnology, including labelling. Its discussion paper and workshops produced very little response. Last August CBAC recommended against mandatory labelling. It said that it was too expensive, that it would lead to trade wars, that industry was not ready for it and that it would be better to go for voluntary labelling and check back in five years perhaps to see whether mandatory labelling might be advisable then.

While industry and lobbyists argue that mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods will result in consumers having fewer choices in future, their claim is also to the effect that labelling GM foods will result in mass consumer rejection of these products. However research exists to disprove this claim that, quite the contrary, labelling will not only recognize consumers' rights to know, but also, when given an informed choice, suspicion and reticence by consumers would be dispelled and they might even accept GM products.

Had the government decided to label GM foods as of the day they were introduced on the market, we would not have the problem of consumer acceptance. Consumers' reluctance, as we find it today, can be linked to the government's preference to deny consumers information about the food they eat.

In addition to this problem there is another one. Industry seems unwilling to recognize the fact that Canada is increasingly losing agricultural export markets because of our unwillingness to label genetically modified foods.

Moreover, other countries are developing the agricultural capability to capture these markets where they want the labelling of genetically modified food. Canadian canola farmers, for example, would benefit from mandatory labelling because presently they are unable to sell their product to the European Union. At present it is difficult to know precisely the economic losses being incurred as a result of the loss of export markets, but they are probably considerable given the fact that 37 countries, including the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, China, Mexico and Japan, now have in place or are developing the necessary legislation requiring mandatory labelling of genetically modified food.

Furthermore, we have the paradoxical situation whereby we label products for export so as to conform to foreign mandatory labelling regimes, and yet continue to tell Canadians here at home that it cannot be done for domestic purposes. Of course this inconsistency erodes public confidence.

The lack of consumer acceptance of genetically modified food has led a number of companies not to buy genetically modified ingredients. Canadian companies are not able to supply such companies because they cannot obtain from the Canadian regulatory authorities a certification that would say that their product is genetically modified organism free even when it is.

The case of Unibroue, a Quebec based brewery, illustrates the damage of the absence of a mandatory labelling system. It was notified by the government of France that it could export its beer to France only if it provided a certification that it did not contain genetically modified ingredients. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency certified Unibroue's beer as free of genetically modified ingredients. However the very same agency unexpectedly went to court to prevent Unibroue from using this certification and as a result Unibroue had to seek a European genetically modified organism free certification. The lack of mandatory labelling almost cost Unibroue its entry into the entire European Union markets.

While the Europeans now benefit from knowing that Unibroue's beer is genetically modified organism free, Canadian consumers are denied this information. In addition, concerned about the unclear genetic integrity of Canadian corn, Unibroue had to import from France corn certified as non-genetically modified. Thus we are importing corn of which we produce plenty.

The conclusion for the rationale behind Bill C-220 is simply that Canadians do want to know what they eat and Bill C-220 addresses this right. Hopefully the health committee will conduct its study and provide recommendations for the government on the desirability of having mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

The fact is clear, whether the committee conducts its study or not, that five years, as recommended by CBAC, the committee I referred to earlier, is too long for Canadians to wait just for the possibility of introducing mandatory labelling by the year 2008.

The government, I submit, should act now in the public interest, and also in the interest, and this is never sufficiently and strongly enough underlined, of Canadian exporters, as the example I gave of Unibroue earlier indicates, by introducing mandatory labelling next year so that it can apply to the products we export and so that the consumer in Canada is also made aware of what we are facing domestically on the shelves.

To conclude, it seems to me that we are badly behind other nations on the labelling of genetically modified organisms, and procrastinating the appropriate action is definitely not in the public interest.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am in full agreement with my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it would be impossible for me to improve on the subtlety and the observations made by my colleague.

Therefore, I will only comment in addition to what he said by saying that this measure, this particular bill, is supported by the official opposition, which is opposing Kyoto. It is the same official opposition that now finds it desirable to support investments in nuclear by absolving the investor from any responsibility.

Whenever the official opposition supports the government I feel very uneasy, and I know we are on the right track in saying that this measure is not one that we ought to support, but the matter is much more serious than political considerations of this nature. The point that should be guiding us is what is in the public interest. Absolving the investor from responsibility in liability terms in the case of an accident at a nuclear plant is wrong. That is the main point, regardless of party affiliation.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. He seems to have somehow not caught the rationale I gave earlier in my intervention, which was simply along these lines: that the investment in nuclear cannot be compared to the investment in an industrial plant or a chain of food retailers or, as he put forward in his intervention, investments in the farming economy.

Nuclear is a field that is a very delicate area. Also, it is possibly prone to accidents. It is highly regulated. It is constantly subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. Over the last 45 or 50 years, over $5 billion has been made available to the industry in order for it to survive. If it were not to be subsidized by the government on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, it would simply not be able to function.

Now we come to the second part of his analysis, that is to say, as the bill does, why should the liability not be shouldered only by the operator? The reason is very simple. The operator would not have the funds available, in the case of a grave accident, to cover the liability. If anybody has those funds it would be the investor.

My objection is not whether it is a matter of public versus private. No, the objection that needs to be made in the interest of the public is that the investor is being absolved by the bill from his or her responsibility in the case of an accident. This is the investor that is being absolved. Until now, in the last 30 or 40 years the law as it stands has served us well and it should not be changed, because the shoulders of the operators are much weaker and smaller than the shoulders of the investor. That is the answer.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in the beginning of the third reading debate a couple of hours ago, the Minister of Natural Resources made a statement which was intended to give reassurance about the purpose and the intent of this bill. It seems to me that the statement has raised more questions than answers.

Take for instance the reference by the minister to the fact that this bill would amend subsection 46(3), removing what is being called by the minister an anomaly which is keeping banks away from lending to the nuclear sector to avoid assuming potentially unlimited liability, which is the essence of this bill.

However what the minister calls an anomaly, is actually a practice which has proved to be a good one over the past few decades. Here we are instead told that what this bill intends to do is to remove the responsibility of the investor who decides to make funds available to a nuclear facility. I submit that this is not an anomaly. Actually what this bill intends to remove is a highly desirable measure that should be kept and not removed.

The minister has said, “Limiting liability to the owner, occupant or those who have management and control is normal practice in the federal government environmental law. Canadian law generally limits lender liability to those with management or control of secured assets”. The statement would be quite right if the investment were to be in a water bottling company or in a chain of food retailers, but not when it comes to the nuclear energy industry. We are in a completely differently field which requires a lot of careful thinking and certainly not a measure of this kind.

Then the minister went on to say that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would retain sufficient authority to protect health, safety, security and the environment. This statement would be reassuring, if there were a parallel or an insertion in the bill before us to that effect. Unfortunately though, Bill C-4 does not contain this kind of reinforcement of sufficient authority. One wonders on the strength of what knowledge the minister can make a statement of that nature.

Finally, the minister concluded by saying that the issue before us was not the safety of Canadian nuclear plants. I find a statement like that intellectually offensive because that is exactly what is before us. If we remove the liability of the investor in a nuclear plant, we certainly are toying with and raising some very serious questions about the safety of the nuclear plant itself.

Up until now, we have had legislation which says that the investor and the operator have a liability responsibility in the nuclear industry. This bill instead would remove that liability responsibility from the investor. It could be a bank or it could be anything. The question therefore is whether we are acting in the interests of the public by moving ahead with a bill of this nature.

One wonders whether the minister realizes that this bill is about liability. It is about public safety. It is about the inability of operators to become fully liable in case of an accident. What we should be discussing is not the removal of a liability responsibility from the investor. We should be discussing increasing the amount of liability. Our present legislation provides only $75 million. This is a very modest amount compared to the liability levels that are imposed by governments in Europe and in other jurisdictions, which are sometimes 10 times higher than ours.

For years parliamentarians have raised this issue in Parliament, drawing the attention of the minister to the fact that this level of liability ought to be increased. Instead we are moving in the opposite direction. We are doing that because we are under pressure from the Ontario government and investors, probably British Energy although I cannot prove it, and by investors in general who see probably an opportunity for investment in the nuclear industry and want to be absolved of their responsibility in case of an accident. I submit this is wrong. It is counter to the public interest and we should not proceed with the bill.

One wonders whether the minister himself realizes with this one page bill that he is absolving, with this measure before Parliament, investors from liability. One wonders whether the minister realizes that it is urgent that the matter of liability levels, the amount namely to which I referred before of $75 million, ought not to be addressed as a matter of urgency and within an approach to the entire management and legislation covering the nuclear industry.

Members are also aware of the fact that over the last three or four decades the nuclear industry has received yearly subsidies which now amount to over $5 billion. It is an industry that is constantly in need of public funds. Again, why should an industry which is chronically in need of public support now receive relief from a responsibility on liability for investors in this instance? We are obviously moving in the wrong direction.

I suppose Bill C-4 is before us because someone has concluded that the Bruce and the Pickering plants, which are being plagued by problems, need a considerable injection of capital. That is quite possible. I refer to plants A and B in Bruce, Ontario.

In addition to that, the investing company that has purchased this facility from the Ontario government and privatized it, namely British Energy to which other members have already made reference, is in trouble and has asked the Ontario government for some assistance. Since provincial governments do not have jurisdiction over nuclear matters, for which we must be profoundly grateful, then the Ontario government has to turn to the federal government for assistance.

According to a clipping, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen , British Energy is:

--is in imminent danger of bankruptcy and is seeking to borrow $3.9 billion, in addition to a $1.5-billion loan from the British government, to stay in business.

In addition it says that Bruce Power must put up something like $220 million in financial guarantees to renew its licence to operate with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

This tells us that there is a problem that ought to be examined in the broadest possible context and not by a six line amendment, which looks so innocent and harmless, in a one page bill. There is deep trouble and it needs to be addressed.

One day in the hearings before the standing committee on natural resources, the member from Windsor made a memorable intervention on this subject. We heard an NGO, called Energy Probe, say that in its estimates at least no private company could make a profit in nuclear energy, “without massive public subsidies and protection from environmental liability”. Bill C-4 asks us to go in the opposite direction. It does not make sense.

Then we have the report of the former auditor general of a couple of years ago warning Parliament that the costs of commissioning are not reflected or incorporated in electricity rates. This is a warning and an interesting message to all those who think that electricity generated by nuclear power is the cheapest on the market.

In addition to the issue of the commissioning raised by the auditor general, the fairly old and unresolved issue of storage. It is an item that has been the subject of panels established under the Environmental Assessment Act, if I remember correctly, and a study conducted by a former deputy minister, Mr. Seaborn, which made a specific recommendation. Yet 10 years later, the issue of storage has not been resolved.

I do not think I have much more to say on this except to express a certain degree of indignation, which I am not usually inclined to express. However, I find this measure very disturbing.

Therefore I concur with those who have said before me that this bill should be suspended. It should instead be replaced by an overall type of legislation that deals with the governance of the entire nuclear industry so as to bring the legislation up to date. Then we can examine also the facets and difficulties, including the ones brought forward and pointed to by the auditor general, and bring order to a rather messy situation rather than proceed with a measure that does not stand up to close scrutiny. This measure should be suspended.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is becoming more and more obvious that the hon. member is smuggling into the debate observations and items that have nothing to do with the bill before us, which as the House knows is on liability in the nuclear industry. It would be highly welcome by I think everybody in the House if finally, after 20 minutes, the member would focus on the bill before us, namely Bill C-4, rather than using the time to engage in political shots that have nothing to do with the bill before us.