Dan McTeague

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, given the atmosphere this afternoon, I must say that I find it a bit unfortunate that, as soon as the Bloc Quebecois members, the member for Berthier-Montcalm and the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, raised their point of order, they left the House.

I find it a bit unfortunate that these members did not stay for a speech that is very important, on a topic that is also very important, not just for Quebecers but for all Canadians.

I am well aware of this bill. I think it is an important bill and it certainly affects me as a member of Parliament whose riding has one of the largest nuclear facilities in the country.

I want to commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on the excellent job done in committee and getting the bill to third reading. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for Dauphin-Swan River, and the minister on their excellent effort on a bill that I think modernizes our need for legislation and gets a brings a piece of legislation that has been around for a long time up to speed.

As hon. members are aware, the purpose of Bill C-23 is to establish a more effective and efficient regulatory framework for Canada's nuclear industry. The nuclear industry provides many benefits to Canadians but if Canadians are to realize those benefits the risk associated with nuclear energy must be minimized.

In addition, Canadians must be confident that a nuclear regulator is fully able to ensure those risks are controlled. Their legislation will establish a modern regulatory regime for Canada's nuclear industry so that Canadians can have that confidence.

There are costs to regulation, both in financial terms and in terms of constraints placed upon industry and individuals who work or deal with the industry. But there are benefits as well. To put this legislation into perspective I would like to remind hon. members of

this House of the nuclear sector's contribution to economic growth, job creation and a healthy environment for all Canadians.

Canada is a fortunate nation in the sense that it has a variety of electricity sources. Hydroelectric power is the major source, producing 60 per cent of our supply. Thermal electricity, generated mostly by burning natural gas and coal, produces about 20 per cent of the supply. Nearly 20 per cent is provided by nuclear power.

Nuclear power is certainly important in Ontario not only for the sake of my riding, but for the entire province where it produces more than 60 per cent of the electrical supply. It is probably not news to this House but nuclear power produced in Canada uses Candu nuclear reactors. In Canada we have 22 reactors of which eight are in my riding; one finds itself in the province of Quebec, and there is one in New Brunswick. They are all licensed and regulated by the AECB, the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada.

The Candu reactor is a Canadian high technology success story. In 1987 the Engineering Centennial Council listed the Candu as one of the ten most outstanding engineering achievements of the preceding century.

One of the most attractive features of the Candu reactor is that it uses natural uranium as fuel. Other types of reactors use enriched uranium. Producing enriched uranium is an expensive process and the technology is a secret very closely guarded by a handful of countries. Therefore the Candu design allows us to capitalize on our abundant uranium resources.

Yet another attractive feature of the Candu reactor is that it can be refuelled on line. This has helped to make Candu reactors among the most reliable in the world. Canadians can take great pride in the fact that in terms of lifetime capacity utilization, three of the world's top ten reactors and seven of the world's top twenty-five reactors are Candu.

It is equally important to Canadian industry that the Candu design does not require large high pressure reactor vessels. This gives Canadian firms a great share in the manufacturing and construction of these reactors.

The technical excellence of the Candu has made it a desirable product for export. Four have been sold to South Korea, one to Argentina and one to Romania. On November 26 Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. signed a contract to sell two Candu reactors to China. The nuclear industry is one of the few high tech industries that are actually net exporters of goods and services.

Nuclear energy and nuclear power are economical. The economies of scale associated with using nuclear power to generate electricity make it one of the lowest cost alternatives for meeting large base load demands.

During the 1970s and 1980s the cost of electricity from nuclear power plants in Ontario was on average about 30 per cent less than the cost of electricity from the more traditional conventional coal fired power plants. Electricity provided by natural gas and coal fired generating plants has become more economically attractive in the past 10 years but the cost of nuclear power remains competitive for large scale base load generation under a number of scenarios. Canada's nuclear power plants will continue to provide clean economical power for the foreseeable future, and we hope that will be a long one.

Canada is a pioneer in the use of nuclear technology to support material science. Nuclear technologies also have applications in the oil and gas, metals inspection and agricultural industries, to name a few. Canada is the world's leading producer and exporter of uranium, but for peaceful purposes.

Canada's nuclear technology is literally saving lives here and around the world. This may come as a surprise to those who are usually quick to discredit it. For the past 50 years, Canada has been an international leader in medical applications of nuclear technology. In particular, our nation has become the world's leading producer of radioisotopes, which my hon. colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka spoke so eloquently on.

In particular Canada has become the world's leading producer of such isotopes as cobalt 60 which is used to treat cancer and technetium 99 which is essential to many diagnostic procedures. Many people are amazed to learn that about 25 per cent of patients admitted to hospital in Canada today undergo a diagnostic process that involves nuclear technology.

In considering Bill C-23, hon. members must not overlook the fact that the Canadian nuclear industry is also a major employer. In 1993, the last year for which figures are available, the industry directly employed about 26,000 people. At least 10,000 jobs in other sectors depended indirectly on the nuclear industry. Many of these highly skilled scientific, engineering and manufacturing jobs can be seen right across this country, including the benefits which arise in my own riding.

Nuclear power represents more than just jobs, industrial growth and export potential. It is also one of the most important means by which Canada can achieve its sustainable development goals. Quite simply, the sustainable development of Canada's resources is essential to our international competitiveness and the long term health of our economy and of course the maintenance of our higher standard of living.

A key element of the sustainable development challenge is Canada's commitment to control its emissions of greenhouse and acid gases. Along with hydro power, nuclear energy is essential to this effort. Neither of these electricity sources produces greenhouse or acid gases. As a result of Canada's strong reliance on hydro and nuclear power, which by the way is uncommon among OECD countries, our electricity sector produces a smaller proportion of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions compared with other countries that depend on traditional fossil fuels. In fact if we decide

not to have nuclear reactors, our electricity sector would emit about twice as much as it does now.

I would like to emphasize that all the activities I have described today are regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure that workers, the public and the environment are not exposed to unnecessary risks. The AECB has ensured that these risks are very low indeed. The benefits associated with nuclear technology far outweigh its risks.

The bill before us today addresses several concerns relating to the regulation of the industry. I draw the attention of hon. members to two key points. First, the industry has standards of regulation which it must meet. It needs to know what powers the regulator's inspectors have and it needs to have access to a legal appeal mechanism. Second, the Canadian public has a legitimate interest in nuclear safety. Bill C-23 gives Canadians an opportunity to express concerns whenever major facilities are being licensed.

It is for those reasons that Bill C-23 in my view is a bill well worth supporting. It is a bill whose time has come. For the residents of Pickering I think this makes absolute sense. I commend the government and the minister of energy in pursuing this.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the position taken by the Bloc members in calling a third time for a quorum count.

[Eid-Ul-Fitr, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for Muslims in Canada and throughout the world, last weekend marked the end of the holy month of Ramadan, a month of fasting in order to gain self-restraint and foster inner strength and fulfilment with God.

The end of Ramadan is celebrated with Eid-Ul-Fitr, one of the most joyous occasions in the Muslim calendar. Over one billion Muslims worldwide, including nearly 500,000 here in Canada, use Eid-Ul-Fitr to give prayers of thanks, celebrate with friends and family, and rejoice in the love of God and of course Islam.

On behalf of this House, I extend our warmest best wishes to the Canadians of Islamic faith on the conclusion of Ramadan and on the occasion of Eid-Ul-Fitr.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind members here in this House and in the other place that they are warmly invited to join members of the diplomatic corps and Muslims who are gathering here on Parliament Hill this evening for an Eid-Ul-Fitr celebration.

As-salaam alaikum.

[Excise Tax Act, February 10th, 1997]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was referring the premier of the province of Ontario.

[Excise Tax Act, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the context that my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre has just alluded to.

I do not know if he is an expert on the GST or matters of taxation. I certainly did not believe that the hon. member was one who felt it was important to recognize that there is one taxpayer and at the same time not move toward something that is both symbolically and realistically an attempt at addressing the fact that the one taxpayer deserves a one tax system in this country.

It compels me to wonder and worry aloud about the hon. member and the other member from the third party, the hon. member for Simcoe Centre who spoke very passionately, although not necessarily always accurately on this very important debate of C-70 with respect to the harmonization of the GST. If the hon. member and his colleague who spoke earlier believe in this issue so strongly, it is unfortunate that they may not be able to join us here in the next Parliament. I know there are problems in that party and they are not just the problems evidenced by some of their policy issues they have had in the past. I think it is abundantly evident with this issue of the GST.

The name of my riding, Ontario, is fitting certainly in the context of the debate. I believe the hon. colleague who spoke before me was completely wrong when he said that this is about politics.

The record will show that the current premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, was very emphatic the day before he was elected in June 1995, that he would work with the federal government to harmonize and to make a better sales tax regime in this country. I know that may be hard for my friends in the third party to recognize. I see them shaking their heads, probably because they are not sure whether the Harris government is a Conservative government or a Reform government. Either way, we know it is a hopeless government.

When discussing the issue of taxation there are very few opportunities to discuss it in the context of virtue. Everybody has their own idea on taxation. All of us in this country would not want to pay taxes or would want to minimize them.

The experience in Ontario is a telling one that I want to relate to my friends in the third party. Budget cuts based on the presumption of reducing taxes are being made to the direct detriment of the poor, the people who are the most defenceless in our society and people who do not have an agenda to hurt other people.

There are politics and policies and there are dangerous politics and dangerous policies. I suggest any party that wants to undertake an ideological view of their politics with respect to taxation must first take into account that one of the most symbolic, rallying points of our nationhood is our ability to look out for the weak, the defenceless and those in our society who through no fault of their own find themselves at the low end of the scale. This consumption tax, the tax to be blended in the maritime provinces, is a positive step forward. It takes into account the recognition that there is indeed one taxpayer.

A very important point is that it takes into account from an international perspective examples of consumption taxes in those countries with one single sales tax regime, one retail sales tax regime. We have spoken to the chambers of commerce and the boards of trade in my riding and across the country. We must make sure that we do not have 13 or 14 different sales tax regimes such as we currently have.

If members are truly interested in representing the interests of their constituents they would be working beyond and above to transcend the politics on which this debate seems to founder to one of trying to find a co-operative, harmonious approach. I believe the best way for us to do that is to follow through on taxation, but taxation that permits individuals at the end of the day to have a system that is far more efficient and that makes more sense for business and consumer alike.

I have had over 46 public forums in my riding since I was elected. That is virtually one for every month that I was elected. It seems to me that while there are those who would like to make the GST a big issue and certainly there is plenty of cannon fodder on both sides for that, I do not think there is anyone in this House who has not given that subject some consideration or who has not been outspoken on that issue.

The far greater and more important problem is the one of getting our financial house in order and at the same time making sure that we can provide an environment that helps people get back to work. Anything else in my view, and I think in the view of those in my riding, is simply nonsense.

While it is important for a government to proceed with the question of harmonizing these taxes, I think credit must be given where credit is due. The Minister of Finance, in concert with the people who worked on the committee on both sides, have tried to hammer out the best of all worlds in a situation where we understand that the current sales tax regime is not one that is acceptable to people.

The hon. member just yelled something. I am not exactly sure what it is he said but that is very consonant with the views of his party.

The arguments in favour of a sales tax are one, we certainly appreciate-

We could perhaps for the first time discuss getting rid of taxes in this country. In a perfect world, people can always make that kind of promise. In my opinion, however, a responsible government, a government that wants to show leadership, has to manage its affairs so that, at the end of the day, it can honour its commitments and be accountable to the consumers we represent. It must do everything in its power to build a tax system that protects the interests of both consumers and entrepreneurs.

In the case of the Atlantic provinces, we are looking at both sides of the question: will harmonization mean that a range of goods will be taxed that would not be taxed without harmonization? I think we have the ability to make arrangements to ensure that these people will be protected.

We also have the ability to find a balance. This balance exists in paying a tax which is not 7 per cent plus 8 per cent, that is 15 per cent, but is somewhere around 12 or 13 per cent, as in the maritimes.

This Parliament has undertaken many contentious issues. There will be many more in the days to come. The GST, the harmonization of the tax with provincial taxes is an excellent first step, but I hope that the House and those who are seeking to make political points and profiting from the rhetoric understand fully that they are profiting at the direct expense of individuals, of people in our constituencies across the country who expect leadership and expect

us at the end of the day to do what is right. Doing what is right is trying to do what people expect you to do.

Harmonization is an excellent first step but it requires the provinces to get on line. Let us not break down on the question and the subject of partisanship. Mr. Harris, I am calling on you this evening, as they have done in the province of Ontario to do the same.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not very often that I am found without words. There is one person who should be smiling here apart from every member of Parliament and to whom I have to give so much thanks.

-especially members opposite and members on this side of the House.

If Stu Buddy is somewhere in the sky, he has a big smile on his face and he would want us to have champagne, so let's enjoy this. Congratulations everybody. Congratulations, Linda and congratulations, Tim.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, December 12th, 1996]

moved that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, December 12th, 1996]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[National Organ Donor Day Act, December 12th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on this bill today, at the report stage.

This bill has a story. It started about two years ago.

It is a bill which unites the House of Commons in a common front that puts aside politics and the ideological differences which we have. It is an issue which allows us to consider that perhaps the greatest gift we can give to other people in passing away is the gift of life.

The genesis, the origin of this bill was made possible by the sacrifice which was made by one young individual, a very young Canadian, a former constituent of mine, Stuart Herriot, better known among those who knew him as Stu Buddy.

This bill has received the accolade of the Stu Buddy bill. That is for good reason. Today in the gallery we welcome Tim Herriot, the father of Stuart Herriot, and his aunt, Linda Rumble, who spearheaded this bill. On behalf of the House I congratulate them on their efforts.

As the hon. member for Laval Centre indicated, in Canada we need to address the fact that nearly 1,100 people die every year waiting for the gift of life. Fortunately, in 1994-95 four people, who are alive and very healthy today, received the gift of life compliments of the sacrifice that Stuart made when he was tragically killed on April 21.

I do not know if it is divine intervention or just fate, but whatever the case may be, it turns out that the week which has customarily been named to honour organ donation has been the third week of April. It is ironic and perhaps tragic, but also, in a very strange sense, positive that April 21, the day on which Stuart died, is also the week that would allow the House of Commons to consider not only a national organ day, but perhaps, as the hon. member from the Bloc has said, a national organ donor month.

I do not want to play politics with this bill. The intent is to make sure that the bill, which received unanimous consent at second reading and went through committee without amendment-certainly there were no objections from the government, the Bloc or Reform-perhaps by way of compromise, provide a national organ donor week.

I want to speak on that for just a brief moment because we are now dealing with lives and lives no know boundaries. They do not know a jurisdiction between Canada and the United States or between various regions or various cities of the country. It just so happens that the U.S. congress has already recognized the third week of April as being its national organ donor week. In a mood of harmonization I think the ultimate goal, the higher goal which transcends again the politics and political barriers, I would hope

that we could perhaps as a Parliament at the very least consider this week.

I understand the hon. member has suggested the month as she said so very eloquently, but I think we have to try to do what we can here today. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to work with her on this bill. I know she has met many people, as so many of us have, young people and older people who have given away that part of themselves in dying with the understanding and the knowledge that they may give life to other people.

The importance of this bill should not be forgotten in terms of what it is trying to accomplish: awareness and education. Without those two elements, despite having the means to provide more transplants, we will still wind up in deficit situation of nearly 1,100 people dying every year because they do not or cannot wait to receive the gift of live.

I hope we are not in a position where we forget the sacrifices being made by those and other people who tonight at this very time are either on dialysis machines or awaiting in the various hospitals around this country for the gift of life.

It is my belief that this House from time to time may be criticized for getting mired down in politics, of getting mired down in the day to day distractions based on ideologies and what not. This bill brings a common sense of purpose and a common sense of unity to the posterity of our own species, of our own society and of mankind.

In recognizing that the hon. member has made these motions and in the interest of perhaps getting this bill passed as soon as possible, and honouring the sacrifice made by young Stu Buddy I ask if it might be possible that we make an amendment to the motions that have been put forward, in the interest of getting this done before Christmas in the context of giving.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the word "month" with the word "week".

I submit this now.