Charles Caccia

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, this was a very interesting hour. If Bill C-319 achieved anything it did indeed at least bring out a number of interesting perspectives on and outside the subject matter of the bill. We have now, at least on the record, a number of viewpoints.

It can be said that the essence of democracy is to provide options and choices. If the approach contained in the bill before discussion tonight is not the one that the majority of members concur with, let us then find the appropriate solution so as to increase the participation rate and reduce the number of people who reject ballots in elections.

The number of rejected ballots is not negligible and therefore it is necessary to address the issue and find ways of interpreting the meaning of rejected ballots. Obviously the majority consensus tonight is not to follow the route proposed in the bill. Therefore, what remains ahead of us is the necessity of making another effort to find the appropriate answers that would receive the support of all parties.

Having said that, I will conclude by thanking the members for Yukon, Témiscamingue, Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, Regina--Qu'Appelle, Calgary West and, of course, the parliamentary secretary for his fine, thoughtful and very professional intervention which set the stage for the debate.

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw attention to the fact that the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle already spoke at considerable length on a matter that is not before us at the moment.

I therefore invoke the rule of relevance since the present speaker, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, is following the bad example already set by the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle.

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (declined vote ballots), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the explanation of this bill is very short and simple.The purpose is to provide Canadian voters when they cast their votes the opportunity to express on the ballot not by way of spoiling it or handling it in a manner that would lead to rejection of the ballot but by way of placing the appropriate sign on the ballot itself that they decline to vote for any of the candidates named on the ballot. The ballot should be redesigned. In addition to indicating the duly registered candidates, it should have a line where the voter could indicate that he or she declines to vote for any of the candidates named on the ballot.

In French, “Je refuse de voter pour l'un ou l'autre des candidats nommés ci-dessus”.

One may wonder, why is that. Current trends show that rejected ballots comprise about 1% of the total number of ballots. It is not a large number of ballots that are rejected because of mistreatment or dissatisfaction on the part of the voter who would somehow express, as is often the case, dissatisfaction by way of rejection. An increased tendency was noticed in the last election. This matter was brought to my attention at that time by some voters in the riding of Davenport who were dissatisfied with the candidates in the race, so to speak. The bill is intended to provide a way of expressing this type of dissatisfaction.

Some people claim that we should not proceed with this type of measure because it would encourage even further disinterest on the part of Canadian voters in the democratic process. That is an opinion one should respect of course. I am inclined to think there is room in our democratic system, which is one of the best in the world, for a measure that would allow a voter, having already thought about how to vote before entering the polling station, to come to the conclusion that none of the named candidates or parties, as most of the time it is a matter of party choice, meets the requirements, expectations or political inclinations of that voter.

That is the essence of the bill. I bring it to the attention of the House as a measure that would perhaps provide some degree of satisfaction for voters who disagree with the system. If this measure is eventually adopted, I hope it will not attract a large number of voters. In a democratic system I think we ought to make room for every perspective and point of view. On election day we should provide for any type of expression, even if it sounds like one that is out of the main stream of thought and of democratic forces that are at play on election day.

Having said that, because of the late hour I will sit down and look forward to the comments of my colleagues on this measure.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, March 20, I am reporting today that your committee on the environment and sustainable development has considered Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk, and agreed on Tuesday, November 27, to report it with 121 amendments.

You will be pleased to learn that the committee has worked hard and long hours to produce this first report to the House and I submit it for your consideration.

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was a fair comment on the part of my colleague. What I am doing is addressing the amendments which are missing at the report stage and which, in my view, ought to be included. Therefore I am speaking within the relevance of the debate.

We must also keep in mind the fact that over the decades the Government of Canada has provided subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that reach close to $6 billion. The last subsidy, which was last year, amounted to $110 million, bringing the total of subsidies given to AECL over the years close to $6 billion. Despite this dependence on government grants and repeated urging, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited does not seem to be able to come to grips with the necessity of including in its accounting the cost of decommissioning plants in Canada nor the cost of radioactive waste disposal. In other words, what we are facing is a certain degree of indifference to public opinion and to the reports published by AECL's own auditors.

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member reminding me of the rule. The explanation I would offer is that I was only notified a few moments ago that this debate was on and I rushed to the House without going to my office. I can assure the House that I will do better the next time.

The discussion on the bill must include two considerations which are, at least in my opinion, of some importance. I would have liked to have put them on the record at second reading but hearings of the standing committee on Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, prevented me from doing so.

One consideration is the fact that nuclear energy corporations, wherever they may be, have followed practices which, from an accounting procedure, leave much to be desired. They do not calculate in their balance sheet and appropriately report the cost of decommissioning a plant. As is the case with a number of nuclear plants in Canada, which are now reaching a certain age, it becomes evident that the cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant, which is very high, ought to be included in the calculation of the operation of that particular corporation and also included in the cost of the electricity generated and used by the consumer. It is a hidden cost that ought to be brought to the surface and included in the charge for that particular service.

As the auditor general has repeatedly insisted in a number of reports, the most recent one, if I remember correctly, in 1997, if they were to be included the price of electricity, of course, would be more realistically close to what it should be, namely, it would be higher. There is nothing wrong with that. The cost of energy is an important factor and ought to be one that could and should lead us to more careful consumption and to higher and better levels of conservation, particularly in relation to what we are attempting to do at the present time, namely, to meet our commitments through the Kyoto agreement in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously if the cost of electricity is a realistic one, we would be more careful in the consumption of it and therefore the emissions would accordingly be reduced by a certain percentage.

That is the first point that needs to be stressed and I am addressing Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power Corporation. All these have been identified by the auditor general in his report. Over the last 50 years they have ignored the cost of nuclear waste disposal, as well as the decommissioning of the plants.

This brings me to my second point which is of interest to our electors and to many members of the House who come from a region where nuclear waste is being disposed or stored. The cost of this storage also needs to be accounted for. Here again we see a pattern identified by the auditor general of not taking into account the cost of this particular disposition of nuclear waste discharge or the nuclear waste that the particular plant is producing.

We must find ways of disciplining these corporations in a way that they will set aside for the decommissioning of nuclear plants the amount that is required, which means anticipating the cost and including it in the calculation of the product, namely the electricity that they make available to the consumer. If this is not done we would in a way disguise the true cost of nuclear power generation to the consumer. The cost of nuclear energy production should be paid through the electricity rates charged to the consumers from the building of the plant to its operation, its maintenance, the disposal of the nuclear waste and finally, as the fifth step in the evolution, the decommissioning of the nuclear plant. If every nuclear energy corporation were to internalize these costs, the price per kilowatt hour of nuclear power would be higher than it is currently. This would yield significantly different public policy choices with regard to the generation of electricity. Now it is kept artificially low because these costs are hidden from the consumer.

As a society, we continue to think that nuclear power generation is cheap but this is only because the true costs are not reflected in the electricity rates. As legislators and policy advisers, we continue--

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to add a couple of items to the discussion on this very important bill which deals with the long term management of nuclear fuel waste. It seems to me that it would be desirable in the discussion, if it cannot be done within the framework of the bill because it is already at report stage and I missed intervening--

[Health, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last month the New England Journal of Medicine published a study. It concludes that the widespread practice of feeding animals with antibiotics to accelerate growth for profit poses a major health risk to humans.

According to the journal, retail meat is frequently infected with drug resistant bacteria resulting from the overuse of antibiotics for the purpose of stimulating growth. In response to the study the Canadian Food Inspection Agency suggests simply that Canadians thoroughly wash and cook meat. That is hardly an adequate response.

The health threat posed by the overuse of antibiotics would be reduced by limiting the use of antibiotics in animal feed only to cases when there is a need to fight a disease. I therefore urge the ministers of health and agriculture to deal with the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed and issue regulations which would protect public health.

[Aecl, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is budget time, an opportunity for the government to focus on significant cost saving items such as the annual subsidy to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Since its inception, AECL has received over $16 billion in subsidies. Last year's subsidy was $156 million.

The original plan of AECL was to sell 10 new nuclear reactors in 10 years. However, there is currently no prospects for nuclear reactor sales.

The auditor general has repeatedly criticized this crown corporation for poor accounting practices because it does not include in its balance sheet the cost of nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

The government could save a large sum of money by cancelling this subsidy, intended to promote elusive nuclear reactor sales, and invest this sum instead in social, health and environmental programs.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek concurrence in the House to substitute Bill C-319 standing in my name on the order of precedence for Bill C-407 standing in the name of the member for Ottawa--Vanier on the list of items outside the order of precedence.