Roger Pomerleau

[Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I am very happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-285. First of all, I wish to thank the NDP member who introduced this bill and who has done so in such an entertaining and informative way.

Bill C-285 provides for the elimination of financial support for nuclear reactor design and construction. That prospect is viewed by the Bloc Quebecois as interesting and relevant under the present circumstances.

Indeed, how could we not have doubts about the nuclear energy development policy of the Canadian government and the significant investments required for the implementation of that policy. As the Official Opposition of the House of Commons, we are deeply concerned by energy development policies.

Our concerns are twofold. First, we should wonder about the environmental costs of the development of any type of energy, in this instance nuclear energy, and second, about the impact the development of such energy may have on the economy of a country. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss those two issues.

The Minister of Natural Resources of Canada said recently to the Nuclear Awareness Project that she believed it would be appropriate to continue to develop nuclear energy in Canada. But at what cost to the environment and the Canadian taxpayers, that is the question.

First of all, in the industrial process of long term development of nuclear energy, the risks for the human environment are very high. Indeed, we know fully well that radioactive waste produced by the nuclear industry is most dangerous to the human species. Spent fuel represents not only the highest risks, but also the most difficult challenge if we want to find a safe, long term method of storage.

After 500 years, for example, nuclear fission material produced by the Canadian nuclear industry will still be active. In December 1992, there were 21,000 tonnes of spent fuel stored in Canada, 90 per cent of which was produced by Ontario Hydro, and the Canadian nuclear industry is not even 50 years old. For human beings, radioactivity is highly cancerous and very harmful genetically.

Clearly, the results of the accidents that occurred at the nuclear compounds of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are very good examples of that. We must also remember that the nuclear industry in eastern European countries is in such a state that it is a time bomb for humanity and we can all see clearly what political problems that creates. The coming apart of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics left nuclear power plants almost abandoned everywhere because the people in charge of those plants moved from Eastern Europe to more financially secure countries where they can earn a better living. Mechanics and plumbers generally speaking operate the power plants and these certainly are time bombs for humanity.

Not only does the nuclear reaction from the fuel produce radioactive elements, it also produces neutrons which strike other components of the reactor itself and activate some of its substances which also become radioactive. This means that the reactor structure will have to be stored as radioactive waste once the reactor has reached the end of its useful life. The Chalk River nuclear laboratory of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited contains three outdated nuclear reactors, and the site itself is seriously contaminated by radioactive waste. Atomic Energy is also responsible for two outdated reactors, at Whitshell, Manitoba, for the NPD reactor at Rolphton and the Douglas Point reactor at Bruce, both in Ontario, and for the Gentilly 1 reactor in Bécancour. All of these reactors are no longer in use and should be stored.

The cost of a stockpiling system is astronomical. The estimated cost of stockpiling a little over 100,000 tonnes of used fuel is $9 billion. We share the view of the Auditor General of Canada that Atomic Energy of Canada will require even larger subsidies in order to cover the costs of dismantling these outdated reactors. This means that the costs the government is calculating now, in terms of the cost of this energy, the costs that have to be budgeted later, to ensure safe storage of the waste from these plants when the government is no longer in power, simply because hundreds of years are involved, these costs are never calculated.

This leads to the next question of whether the nuclear industry can turn a profit over the long term. Another question with respect to the human environment concerns the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. Uranium 235 and 238 are consumed in Canadian reactors of the CANDU type; they are elements which, when bombarded by a neutron to cause fission and create energy, become plutonium 239 atoms. The creation of plutonium 239 in nuclear reactors raises a very serious problem in regard to nuclear weapons and world peace. Plutonium 239 is

fissionable and can be used in the production of nuclear weapons.

Even if plutonium 239 is the isotope preferred by arms manufacturers, other plutonium isotopes are also fissionable and can be used to manufacture bombs. Knowing that Atomic Energy of Canada, the body responsible for promoting nuclear energy in Canada, is trying to sell CANDU reactors by any means possible, which is, after all, why they are building them all over the world, we must look into this very closely. Despite the many multilateral and bilateral treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons between Canada and the rest of the world, we must be realistic: there will be a real risk of nuclear technology being used for military purposes as long as the nuclear industry is developing in the world.

The second facet of Canada's nuclear industry is government financing. I have already mentioned the astronomical costs of storing radioactive waste. Maintenance at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is subsidized by the public purse, and has been for the past six years, to the tune of $1.2 billion. The cost of building a reactor is $1.5 billion, an investment on which even a long term return is not guaranteed. We are justified in questioning the investment of public funds in this industry.

During the Prime Minister's trip to China last fall, according to representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited who were interviewed in Peking, Atomic Energy made a proposal to build two reactors on Chinese territory under a turnkey proposal without requiring a large investment by China. The representatives said that acquiring these reactors, valued at $3 billion, would be extremely advantageous for the Chinese, who would not have to tie up foreign currency holdings for a long period. In other words, we are selling CANDUs, but we are financing them entirely.

What about the people of Canada who pay the major part of the construction costs of such reactors? Is the present evolution of Chinese society collateral enough for Canadian investments? These are legitimate questions we should ask ourselves.

The present Canadian policy in the area of nuclear development is costly and dangerous, in terms of both public finance and the human environment. This is why, considering that Canada is trying to reduce its deficit, we believe that Bill C-285, which seeks to eliminate financial support for nuclear reactor design and construction in Canada and abroad, is a worthwhile initiative.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also listened closely to the speech of the hon. member. Like all the members who took the floor today-I have been sitting here all day, although I never intervened-I agree that the Canadian situation is very difficult right now.

I also think that the government has a tendency to study, to set up committees, to ask for reports and, generally speaking, to postpone any decision. For 20 years we have heard the same speeches from the various ministers of finance. We could take any of them and reissue them, they are all the same.

There are two opposition parties in the House. The Bloc Quebecois proposes a very clear option: let us review completely the Canadian taxation policy. We sincerely believe that without a complete overhaul of taxation we are going nowhere fast.

The Reform Party's option is to cut deeply where it really matters, into social programs. Unlike my Liberal friends, I do not believe that our Reform colleagues are fundamentally evil. I think they have done a serious economic study of the situation.

If the Reform and the Bloc parties do not do anything, Canada is going to go bankrupt right away. We have to do something.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague on an economic matter. Most people know that we want to make Quebec sovereign and we seriously think that this will become true within a few months from now.

Most Canadians actually believe in two assumptions concerning Quebec. The first is we are a bunch of troublemakers, politically speaking, because we are never happy with what we get. Second, we receive much more money from Canada than what we put in. A lot of people believe these assumptions.

I would like to ask this question of my colleague. Does he not think that a sovereign Quebec would be part of the solution for Canada, depending of course that we take out of Canada our fair share of the debts and assets? That is exactly what we intend to do. Would this not be part of the solution for Canada?

[Quebec Sovereignty, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in stating that a sovereign Quebec would not be part of GATT and NAFTA, the Prime Minister has once again, for lack of other arguments, resorted to scare tactics. With his remarks, the Prime Minister is increasing the risk that his own people of Saint-Maurice will be isolated.

The Prime Minister is also going against the interests of the rest of Canada for which maintaining trade with Quebec will continue to be an unavoidable necessity. The most recent poll by Léger & Léger indicates that nearly 60 per cent of English Canadians would want to maintain economic ties with a sovereign Quebec.

Nor is there any doubt that provisions under GATT and NAFTA will effectively apply to a sovereign Quebec, the second most important trading partner for the rest of Canada and the eighth most important for the United States.

Would the Prime Minister care to explain why he so prefers Valparaiso, Chili to Shawinigan, Quebec?

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which I thought was rather well researched and skilfully crafted.

I wish to tell him that members of the Bloc Quebecois are not against this bill but would like to discuss it more thoroughly. I want to take this opportunity to add my two cents' worth to the discussion.

Today's debate is on Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and non-profit organizations that receive public funds to report the remuneration of their directors and senior officers, which was introduced by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

This bill would require charitable and non-profit organizations that receive, directly or indirectly, any payment from the public funds of Canada to report the remuneration and benefits received by their directors and senior officers. My Bloc colleagues and I think that the objective of this bill deserves our support.

It would be appropriate, in the name of openness, to require organizations receiving funds from the federal government or the public to disclose the remuneration and benefits provided to their directors and senior officers. Canadians would thus be able to ensure that public funds used to support charitable organizations do not end up in the pockets of those who administer these organizations, as we have seen recently at all levels.

As a donor, the federal government would be entitled to require that the remuneration and benefits received by the directors and senior officers of non-profit organizations, at least those supported by the government, be made public.

We support the principle of this bill for another reason: it will always be difficult to assess with accuracy the voluntary sec-

tor's contribution to Canadian society until we find out the number of paid employees and their salaries, as well as the size of the infrastructure in place to facilitate the work done by volunteers.

In these difficult times, understandably, volunteer work and donations are more needed than ever. This is due to the fact that voluntary organizations face an ever-growing demand for programs and services, on the one hand, and a reduction in government assistance and stiffer competition for private funds, on the other hand.

We must recognize that volunteer work is an essential element of society as well as a way of life and social duty. It is a democratic gesture which plays a very important role in the life of the community and compensates, as I just explained, for the government's gradual withdrawal from a number of sectors.

However, the situation is more complex as regards non-profit volunteer organizations, since they include various national, provincial and municipal organizations which are active in sectors as diverse as health, social services, the environment, justice, education, international assistance to name but a few.

I have some concerns regarding this bill. First, as my hon. colleague mentioned, line 16 in clause 3 reads as follows: "-receives, directly or indirectly". That wording is very general and could include a vast number of non-profit organizations which think they have nothing to do with the federal government, or with direct funding from Canadian taxpayers.

For example, a university research fund receiving money from a provincial government would or could be affected by this bill, since money received could indirectly come from federal-provincial transfers. Consequently, that research fund would have to disclose the salaries of its managers or directors.

As well, would an organization like the Knights of Columbus in a small town be subject to this bill, since the vast majority of such small charitable and non-profit organizations rely on public donations and therefore on public money?

I am concerned that the objective of this bill might be altered by the means used to achieve it. I fear that this bill might be stalled because it is too ambitious and could generate a lot of red tape.

This bill put forward by my colleague is commendable, its purpose being to eliminate as much as possible frauds committed by administrators and directors of non-profit organizations who take money from the Canadian public and use it more for themselves than for the great causes they claim to defend.

In order to respect the spirit of this bill, I think that we need to look more closely at its scope. We cannot treat in the same fashion organizations that are responsible and those that some people use to their own financial advantage, as can be seen occasionally.

We must also make a distinction between most small non-profit or charitable organizations and those that have large budgets. What constitutes a large budget, $50,000, $100,000? We do not know exactly. We need to have statistics on this and discuss the issue.

We must also make a distinction between a person who works hard all year long for a cause he or she believes in and who receives, for example, $40,000 a year as executive director and another person who would receive the same amount of money to organize, for example, a fund-raising campaign lasting two months. A mere report to the minister cannot make the difference between these two cases.

There is also a problem of confidentiality, of course, when a person's employment revenues are disclosed without the job description or the length of employment being known. For all these reasons, I think that the scope of this bill has to be limited.

First of all, only the organizations receiving directly any payment from the federal government and major non-profit or charitable organizations would have, for example, to file along with their annual reports a statement of income and salaries specifying the major positions and the remuneration of their incumbents.

With this proposal, there will be no need to create more bureaucracy, since companies already have to produce an annual report to which the income and salaries annex could be added, as would be the case for some charitable or non-profit organizations that meet criteria which, I think, still have to be defined.

Hence, the remuneration and benefits of the directors and managers of all major non-profit organizations would be disclosed, which is the purpose of this bill, and the financial institutions minister would be able to answer any legitimate inquiry.

Knowing full well that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is acting in the interest of the Canadian population, for which he must be commended, we would be prepared to support the principle of the bill if we could amend it to abolish some of the pointless conditions it prescribes for the vast majority of non-profit organizations whose staff receive little or no remuneration and to avoid creating another useless level of bureaucracy.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers in Canada as well as in Quebec, who work day in and day out to promote a cause they believe in.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to my friends from the Reform Party and the way they talk today, I fully understand why they will probably form the next government. They know how to target the real problems.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. He was talking about having an active imagination and looking at the overall structure of the government. I would like to ask him if he would agree to start with plucking the other place.

[Social Program Reform, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday, on TV, that some people were flying to Finland on a Concord to meet with Santa Claus. Yet, I was always told that Santa Claus lived at the North Pole, and was therefore a Canadian.

Well, it is bad enough for Canadians to learn that RRSPs will be taxed and that the GST is here to stay. Social program reform, unemployment insurance cuts and tuition fee increases are nothing pleasant to put under the Christmas tree. New taxes, supposedly temporary, are no way to start the New Year.

As if we did not have enough bad news, the government is letting them take away our Santa.

Just one more thing: what happened to the red book reindeer in all this?

[Pre-Budget Consultation, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in a report tabled yesterday, Liberal members are paving the way for a new tax increase affecting all taxpayers, thus reneging on the election promise made by the Prime Minister not to raise taxes.

Besides recommending this possible surtax, the Liberal majority on the finance committee proposes to increase the tax burden of the middle class by imposing a new tax on gasoline and by giving the Minister of Finance full scope to tax RRSPs and pension funds in particular.

Moreover, by recommending additional cuts of $3.4 billion to social programs, the Liberal members on the finance committee confirm how despicable the Axworthy reform is, since it seeks to reduce the deficit on the backs of the unemployed, welfare recipients and students.

Faced with these unacceptable recommendations from the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, in a dissenting report, proposed ten progressive and specific recommendations to reduce the deficit and create jobs.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present the following petition: We, the undersigned, residents of Anjou, Montreal and the surrounding area, want to bring to the attention of Parliament the following facts: whereas senior citizens are naturally more at a loss when faced with the technology of voice mail boxes; whereas senior citizens are entitled to appropriate service, particularly as it regards their income security enquiries; therefore the petitioners pray and request that Parliament ask the government to abandon its plan to implement voice mail boxes for senior citizens. I concur with the petition, Madam Speaker.

[Defence Policy, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in his white paper the defence minister claims that he is going to save $7 billion over the next five years. Yet the minister is planning to buy numerous helicopters, submarines and a good deal more. In short, the Department of National Defence is embarking on an unjustified equipment purchase program which will be the source of additional waste.

Since today's international context does not justify new capital expenditures, how can the defence minister explain, in view of the present fiscal restraints, the planned purchases listed in his white paper?

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, here is a suggestion, the simplest one I can find in here: give us the exact amount, the exact current amount, of capital invested in family trusts in Canada.