Serge Cardin

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, basically, the hon. member is saying that I was right. I would like to digress a little to comment on what the member has just said. He told the House that a reduction in tax rates does not mean a reduction in revenue, not if we sell a lot more.

In fact, that is exactly what I was saying at the beginning. The more we sell, the more we pollute. And the more we pollute, the more we will need to invest to meet the Kyoto targets. It takes a lot more gas to drive a motorcycle at 200 miles an hour or at 200 km an hour. Therefore, there should be a special tax on speed so that the member can do more to help us clean up the planet and meet the Kyoto targets.

That is exactly what I was saying. What would promoting the sale of petroleume products bring us? Just more pollution. Our reserves will decrease faster. To all intents and purposes, oil and gas should become a secondary source of energy. There are things that cannot be done with renewable and clean energy.

Oil and other pollutants should become secondary sources of energy. We should focus on renewable energy so that we have something to turn to the next time we have a blackout. I know that the problem in Ontario is probably not linked to a lack of energy, since they have 20 reactors generating energy.

Nuclear energy is another issue we should be addressing. There is probably a technical problem somewhere, which would explain why, as we have noticed in some discussions, the federal government is thinking about investing in electricity in Ontario, something it never did in Quebec.

Renewable energy is still the best investment, and oil and gas should always remain a secondary source of energy.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have spoken to Bill C-48. The first time was at the second reading stage, and today we are debating the bill at the third reading stage.

First I would like to thank my colleagues who took part in this debate, namely the member for Joliette, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the member for Drummond and the member for Champlain who has taken part in this debate with a lot of passion over the last few hours.

I would say that the debate today has gone in a different direction. When we first started to talk about this bill, there were two easily identifiable aspects, namely energy and mining. In my last speech, I started to address the environmental aspect, but today I was pleasantly surprised to see the member for Davenport and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis bring the environmental dimension into this debate.

I also heard comments from other members, one being I think the secretary of state, who said that the cuts were good for businesses, for development, for employment, and so on. It is almost as if the government were saying that it would reduce taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, but it does not because it must invest in anti-tobacco campaigns, saying that people must quit smoking because it is not good for their health, and it continues to collect taxes on alcohol, saying that people must drink responsibly.

In the energy sector, we know that oil causes a lot of pollution. There are “catastrophic” consequences for the entire planet. We are talking about the environmental aspect, but maybe I should go back to the financial aspect, both on the energy side—oil—and on the mining side.

Recently, I read in the June 28, 2003 issue of the Trois-Rivières Nouvelliste an article by Hubert Reeves, who painted a very sad picture of the state of the earth. In his most recent book published in March 2003, the astrophysicist and philosopher Hubert Reeves voices his concerns about the behaviour of governments. They always have their eyes on the next election instead of managing for the long term; this is especially true of this Liberal government. Governments can look like a chicken without a head. You do not know where it is heading. It goes all over the place, darting every which way and leaving a trail of blood behind it. Currently, it is even worse, there are actually two chickens going here, there, and everywhere

While the government is lowering taxes on oil companies, the earth is hurting. Its health is getting worse. We have learned over the last few months, or even the last few years, that the most important element in our society is health. Of course, if we want to be healthy, we must live in a healthy environment on a healthy planet. Otherwise, in a few years we will have to post a sign saying “Earth for sale, garage sale”.

Mr. Reeves said also that there are indeed solutions, starting with the development of clean, renewable energies. So the money that is given to the oil companies could easily be used to develop clean and renewable energies, even though Mr. Reeves acknowledges that it would take major investments on the part of politicians and business people who manage the day-to-day affairs of the nation with short-term profits as their goal.

But on this planet, we must work together with the earth and in the same direction. We should not be afraid of investing. If we do not do it, who else will do it?

Mr. Reeves said that in the end, it is every citizen's responsibility to act; indeed by doing such things as recycling domestic waste each one of us as an individual can help stop the degradation of the planet. Again, all that money, some $260 million, which is left in the pockets of oil companies, could be invested elsewhere.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis also talked about fossil fuels in terms of reserves.

He was talking about a 50-year horizon, of course, but it depends on our sources. If we ask Mr. Bush of the United States, he would probably say 200 years. I imagine that one of his reasons for going into Iraq was that there are reserves that have not been found or exploited.

However that may be, looking at our current consumption in North America, that is, Canada and the United States, Mr. Reeves says that we use 12 times as much energy as necessary. In Western Europe, it is 5 times more, while one-third of humanity is well below the norm.

It is this over-consumption that must be reduced in order to alleviate energy constraints. Therefore, we could use that $260 million for advertising, to persuade people that we should stop using petroleum fuels the way we do today, for moving about and staying warm.

We know that there are many kinds of renewable energy already at hand. One of the major sources will always be the sun. Mr. Speaker, I know that you must absorb a lot of sunshine in order to be able to cast so much light on our deliberations. That is why you inspire me.

Of course, in the context of sustainable development, I believe the government would have been better off to take these sums of money and reinvest them in awareness and research. We have heard a lot about wind power today. I think I have already remarked that some of the hon. members on the other side of the House do not know yet whether it is the wind that turns the vanes or the vanes that make the wind. But one thing is certain, we know that it is a source of renewable energy that should go on forever. Certainly, there are mechanical aspects and of course, there is always some maintenance, but it is still renewable energy.

Some might say that it is less than good for the visual environment, but at least we can breathe it in. And any over-supply will always refresh us.

I must return to the basics of this bill. It is a fiscal bill. A few years ago, the government decided to reduce corporate tax rates from 28% to 21% for all industries except, of course, the petroleum and natural resource industries.

Others had also wondered about the principles of justice and fairness with respect to corporate income tax rates. What kind of justice and fairness are we talking about when we basically do not want companies to increase their sales?

No restriction policies were set, but a rate existed. The income tax rate was lowered to help the rest of the economy. However, surely the legislator realized at the time that decreasing oil companies' taxes might have a less pleasant or positive impact on the entire energy sector and, of course, on the environmental sector.

To make up for reducing taxes from 28% to 21%, the 25% allowance was also eliminated.

In this context, the oil companies would have lost out in all this tax reform. Nonetheless, it is now known that there might be deductions for royalties. Look at Petro-Canada, for instance. If I am not mistaken, the government is still a shareholder and indirectly will receive a larger return on its investments if it pays less tax.

Let us look at Petro-Canada: in 2002 Petro-Canada received $227 million in royalties. If it maintains the same level of royalties in 2003, it will have saved nearly $7.5 million.

So, when they talk about going from 28% to 21%, with the 25% allowance eliminated, the oil companies would definitely have taken a hit. Naturally, tax deductible royalties are being reintroduced.

As has been said several times today, the Minister of Finance also estimates it will cost close to $260 million once the reform is fully implemented. Something does not add up: reform will be fully implemented over five years, from 2002 to 2007.

If the oil companies' earnings are any indication, things are going much faster than expected, and much faster for some than for others. In its quarterly report to shareholders, Petro-Canada had announced second quarter earnings of $450 million. That includes a $96 million adjustment related to changes in the corporate tax rate.

Shell Canada reached almost the same figure, because all our accountants use the same generally accepted accounting principles. Shell was entitled to the same tax treatment as other companies. There are deferred taxes, but I am not going to launch into a lesson on that subject, because it is quite technical.

Also in the second quarter, Shell Canada reported, on July 23, 2003, profits of $178 million. These results include a one-time benefit of $54 million from a revaluation of future income tax on profits followingannounced changes to income tax on profits.

So that is about $150 million for these two companies: Petro-Canada and Shell. We must not forget Esso-Imperial. In its report to shareholders for the second quarter, the tax rate reductions enacted by the federal government and the provincial government in Alberta and settlement of various tax matters benefited results, mainly in the resources segment, by $109 million.

So we have $150 million, $109 million and $250 million. In August, the newspaper headlines read, “Oil and gas companies get lucrative gift from Ottawa”.

We learned that the oil and gas companies were getting $250 million. Around the same time, people were emptying their wallets to put gas in their tanks because of the pump prices.

As a result, the public has a strange view of the federal Liberal government; it is like two chickens whose heads have just been cut off and are running all over the place.

These oil and gas companies announced their profits and the $250 million tax cut, and the government told us that, ultimately, it will be $260 million; so we can presume that this will increase to a quarter of a billion and perhaps soon a half a billion dollars. This money is going to the oil and gas companies; the mines have been left out, because they are in a very different situation.

The mining industry is facing serious problems. Simply reducing the tax rate from 28% to 21% or simply eliminating the tax credit and adding the deductions for royalties was too little for most of the mining industry.

Since mines were penalized quite heavily, it was decided that a new 10% tax credit would be established for eligible mineral exploration expenses, but this applies only to metals and diamonds. This does not apply to the oil and gas industry iin any way.

I was talking earlier about generally recognized accounting principles. Indeed, in CAmagazine , which is the official magazine of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, we read the following:

From a federal tax perspective there will be winners over the phase-in period—companies with high royalty rates, such as oil and gas producers operating in Western Canada...However, in such provinces as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and the Maritimes, the elimination of the resource allowance deduction for companies that benefited from the resource allowance results in an increase in the overall effective rate.

The government also talked today, possibly to make up for this shortfall, about bringing this up to 20%. Then, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois were accused of suggesting a 10%, 14% and 20% increase, I think.They were accused of this and were almost called every name in the book. Frankly. They suggested roughly the same increase rate or increase increment that the government is suggesting with regard to the 10%, and in the same way.

In the long run, these measures are expected to be profitable for all sectors of the economy. In the short term, however, some sectors will win and others will lose. Among the winners will be businesses working in tar sands, petroleum and precious metals. I have just heard someone say that tar sands are easy to work without excessive pollution. We probably have not been reading the same environmental analyses.

Among those who stand to lose are the natural gas, potash and diamond industries. However, Hugues Lachance, senior tax director with KPMG, says the following:

With the first two provisions in this bill, the oil companies would be losers. But these are not the only changes. The petroleum industry pays substantial provincial and crown royalties. In 2007, they will be able to include 100% of these provincial royalties as expenses. Still, for the mining industry, where royalties are generally small, this third provision of the bill does not lighten their tax burden very much.

The bill's actual impact will be that the Canadian oil and natural gas industry will be paying lower taxes than in the states of Alaska or Texas. The 2002 tax rate in Canada the rate is now 42.1% and, with the federal government proposals, the rate will drop to 30.1%.

So we can see there is a marked improvement for the oil and gas companies, at the expense of the environment and sustainable development of course. This is nothing new. Government investments in oil and gas are enormous. I would remind hon. members in closing that this is why they have had enough. It could all be terminated, with the money invested instead in sustainable development and renewable energy sources.

In the past 30 years, Canada has put $66 billion in direct subsidies into oil, gas and coal, all forms of energy that are directly responsible for climate change. Quebec taxpayers have therefore each put $27,000 into hydrocarbons, while we ourselves use hydroelectric power, which is non-polluting. We will, consequently, be voting against Bill C-48.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague.

There are aspects of this bill that create a new tax structure in the resource sector, including with regard to the mining industry. We heard several colleagues talk about the environment.

According to my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, how does the environmental aspect fit in with this government policy, which tends to favour the oil industry?

[Immigration, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when invited to intervene, he did in fact say, “I am not going to start negotiating in churches”.

Does the minister not realize that, for these refugees, sanctuary in a church is their final recourse because of his inability to create an appeal tribunal?

[Immigration, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Borja family has spent the last 100 days in a church in North Hatley, in the Eastern Townships, under threat of expulsion.

This family is desperate for a fair and equitable review of its case. This sad case due to the lack of any appeal tribunal for refugees.

What is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration waiting for before he complies with the act and sets up an appeal tribunal for refugees?

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member opposite.

When the government is considering changes of such magnitude, I presume it develops models and makes projections.

Could the hon. member tell me what these projections are? Can he confirm that all sectors in the natural resources industry, all the mines and the oil companies, will benefit from these changes? As far as the oil industry is concerned, we know for certain that a $250 million surplus will be created rather quickly.

What will the impact be on each category of mines? Will all of them benefit from these lower taxes or tax changes? Can the hon. member tell us honestly if there will be differences and what they will be?

[Alliance Novare, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Université de Sherbrooke and Bishop's University are having an increasing impact on Sherbrooke's economic and social development. Last Monday, the official launch of Alliance Novare was attended by members of the chamber of commerce.

This project bridges the gap between research and industry. Novare Capital will buy shares in companies in this sector, and the resulting profits will fund university research. We are witnessing the birth of a real mechanism to confirm our region's reputation as an academic centre.

We are blessed with entrepreneurs and a dynamic region, top level researchers and a quality research infrastructure and, as Mr. Racine mentioned, the stars are aligned for a successful future.

Congratulations to all the visionaries who contributed to the birth of this project: Bruno-Marie Béchard, President of the Université de Sherbrooke; Jean Nicholas, former Vice-president of Research, Janyne Hodder, Principal of Bishop's University, and Serge Racine, businessman. I thank them all.

[Social Condition, September 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Bloc member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve as well as my hon. colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP.

The House will understand surely that I am completely floored by some of the comments made by the Liberal member and my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance. These people are basically wondering what social condition and grounds of discrimination or even discrimination could mean.

In fact, during the first hour of debate, the first Liberal member to speak on this bill had basically said the same things, showing how ignorant he was about social condition and discrimination.

I realize of course that the federal government is totally disconnected from the reality and the concerns of Canadians and Quebecers. That is why they cannot even define the terms “social condition” and “discrimination”.

It is so simple, really. One only has to visit the web site of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec to find a clear definition of the two terms which were a complete mystery to the Liberal member.

Social condition is defined as “a specific place or position in society as a result of particular facts or circumstances”. These can be income, occupation or education. For example, it can apply to socially underprivileged people including welfare recipients or the homeless.

Prohibited discrimination exists when an individual or organization uses a personal characteristic as grounds for refusing a job, housing, access to a public place or the exercise of any other right under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

I hope these definitions will enlighten my colleagues. I also remember clearly the remarks made by the Liberal member. He stated that the government had no intention of making hasty, special or piecemeal changes to any legislation, including the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I believe the member was not referring to any particular legislation or policies of the federal government. Let us look here at the employment insurance fund. To eliminate its deficit and then increase its surplus, the government did not hesitate to make drastic cuts in benefits and in the number of people eligible for EI benefits. This also creates difficult social conditions and often forces people to rely on welfare, which means that Quebec and the provinces have to bear the costs.

When the federal government refuses to make full retroactive payments of the guaranteed income supplement, that creates particular circumstances.

In Quebec, this also applies to housing. In Canada, Quebec and seven other provinces already have social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Obviously, it does not apply to the same sectors and the same activities. For people in general, it applies mainly to banks and telecommunications.

After introducing my motion, I got a huge number of letters confirming that those who are less well off are discriminated against. Today it is difficult to be without a bank account. Some people are denied accounts because of their social condition. They are not applying for credit, just for a service. Moreover, increasingly, banks do not want to deal directly with people. They want us to use automatic tellers. They want to see people as little as possible, and they deny access to the disadvantaged.

As for telecommunications, we know Bell is very quick to cut off people's service. And we also know that this is a service essential to the less fortunate.

In this connection, because Quebec has made social condition a prohibited ground of discrimination, Hydro-Québec has been forced to negotiate with people and thus to allow them a little dignity.

Social condition as a ground of discrimination ought, therefore, to be prohibited.

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at second reading of Bill C-48. The main purpose of this bill is to reform the taxation of industry and natural resources.

Everyone will remember the gas price saga in August. In fact, there was a very substantial increase in gas prices this summer. At the same time, we learned that the federal government was giving a lucrative gift to the oil and gas companies.

We know that, in the 2000 budget, the federal government promised to lower corporate income tax from 28% to 21%, except obviously for businesses in the natural resource sector, such as oil, gas or mining. Because, naturally, there was also a tax credit.

Were it just a question of dropping the rate from 28% to 21% and eliminating the 25% allowance, the oil and gas companies would suffer as a result of these tax reforms. However, deductions for royalties might be allowed on their expenditures.

Consider the case of Petro-Canada. In 2002, it had royalties of $277 million. If it maintains royalties at this level in 2003, it will save approximately $7.5 million.

The finance minister also estimates that it will cost close to $260 million once the reform is fully implemented.

If we take a closer look, we can see the figures that some oil companies have made public recently.

Coming back to Petro-Canada and its second quarter report for shareholders. We know that Petro-Canada announced second quarter earnings of $450 million. That includes a positive adjustment of $96 million related to changes in the Canadian tax rate.

In the meantime, on July 23, 2003, Shell Canada Limited, in its quarterly report to shareholders, announced second quarter earnings of $178 million. Earnings included a one-time benefit of $54 million from a future income tax revaluation following announced income tax changes.

Meanwhile, Esso Canada in its second quarter report to shareholders, announced that tax rate reductions enacted by the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta and settlement of various tax matters had benefited results, mainly in the resources segment, by $109 million.

The three big oil companies are declaring future incremental profits of $250 million. Most of these profits can be attributed to Bill C-48.

Let us recap. We know that with the bill, the oil industry will see its tax rate decrease significantly. However, the mining industry in Quebec more than elsewhere will be penalized by this same measure. We might have expected the government to give a tax break to industry sectors that are having difficulties, but never to one of the most profitable sectors in the economy.

The bill would reduce the statutory corporate tax rate applicable to resource income from 28% to 21%.

As I said earlier, in the February 2000 budget speech the federal government announced a 7% reduction over five years of the general corporate tax rate, except for the resources sector.

The federal government did not grant the reduction to various industrial sectors, including the resources sector, which benefited from preferential corporate tax treatment.

In reality, since the resource sector benefited from other deductions, the actual tax rate was not 28% but rather 22%, according to KPMG.

Then there is the 25% resource deduction, which will be restricted, whereas the deductions for provincial and crown royalties, as well as mining taxes, might now be considered expenditures.

At the present time, the natural resources sector benefits from a 25% tax credit. Until 1974, provincial royalties were deductible. While the provinces were raising their royalties, the federal government's revenue was dropping. This 25% deduction was initiated in the 1974 federal budget to offset the non-deductibility of royalties.

Then there is the new 10% tax credit for qualifying mineral exploration expenses, but this applies only to metals and diamonds. The oil and gas industry is not included.

As far as tax rates are concerned, the benefits to these corporations can be seen. The rate will drop from 28% in 2002 to 21% in 2007. The deductible percentage of the present 25% resource deduction, which was still 100% in 2002, will drop to zero by 2007. The deductible percentage of mining royalties and taxes, which was of course zero in 2002—having only just been implemented—will hit 100% in 2007. Finally, the new mining exploration tax credit will go from zero to 10% by 2007.

To quote an excerpt from CAmagazine, the official publication of the Institute of Chartered Accountants:

From a federal tax perspective there will be winners over the phase-in period— companies with high royalty rates, such as oil and gas producers operating in Western Canada—.

However, in such provinces as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and the Maritimes, the elimination of the resource allowance deduction for companies that benefited from the resource allowance results in an increase in the overall effective rate.

With respect to effective tax rates, I can quote a few figures. In this context, the overall effective tax rates, taking into account federal and provincial income tax, will increase. According to financial analysts, in Manitoba, the effective tax rate for the entire natural resource sector will increase by 2.9%; in the Maritimes, it will increase by up to 3.25% and even 4%; in Quebec, it will increase by 2.25%; and in Saskatchewan, by 4.5%.

You will therefore understand that we cannot support a bill that will result—and even accounting analysts say so—in an increase in effective tax rates, if we take into account all of the measures, and not just the reduction of the tax rate to 21%, to match the other industrial sectors.

I repeat that the figures quoted here come from prestigious accounting firms as well as the Mining Association of Canada. PriceWaterhouseCoopers compared the current system with the reform proposed in Bill C-48 for two types of mines.

Excluding the phasing out of the income tax on large corporations announced for all sectors—a measure that will benefit all Canadian businesses—the reform proposed in Bill C-48 means an average tax increase from 39.9% to 42.8% for gold mines, and from 38.8% to 46.6% for copper mines.

This does not affect only Quebec, but all of Canada. However, it is well known that there are quite a few gold and copper mines in Quebec. We are sensitive to this argument, and I cannot see what we, as the representatives of Quebec's interests, would stand to gain from supporting a bill that would increase the effective tax rate for a number of natural resource sectors in Quebec and other parts of Canada.

Finally, the association also told us that steps had been taken to promote mine development in the provinces, including Quebec. In this case, we can see that the federal government is literally encroaching upon the fiscal autonomy of the provinces and Quebec.

In the long run, these measures are expected to be profitable for all sectors of the economy. In the short term, however, some sectors will win and others will lose. Among the winners will be businesses working in tar sands, petroleum and precious metals. Among the losers will be those involved in natural gas, potassium and diamonds.

Mr. Hugues Lachance, senior tax director with KPMG, says that with the first two provisions in this bill, the oil companies would be losers, as I said before.

But these are not the only changes. The petroleum industry pays substantial provincial and crown royalties. In 2007, they will be able to include 100% of these provincial royalties as expenses.

Still—and I repeat it again even though I said it before—for the mining industry, where royalties are generally small, this third provision of the bill does not lighten their tax burden very much.

The Minister of Finance estimates that, when fully implemented, the complete program will cost him $260 million in foregone taxes. A very high percentage of this tax relief will be absorbed by the oil companies.

The bill's actual impact on the petroleum and natural gas industry will be a 12% reduction in the tax rate. Once this measure has been implemented, the tax rate for oil companies will be 5% lower than in Texas. In the United States, currently, the rate is 41.1% in Alaska and 35% in Texas. In Canada the rate is now 42.1% in Alberta. With the federal government proposals, the rate will drop to 30.1%.

The Mining Association of Canada, or MAC, estimates that “when all is said and done, thedisappearance of the Resource Allowance will likely result in higher taxespaid by the mining industry, even if we are able to deduct provincial royaltiesand mining taxes.”

The MAC goes even farther and states that the federal government is undercuttingthe good work by Quebec and the provinces to make mining investmentmore attractive.

More specifically, looking at the impact on the mining industry, they are saying that the federal government is implying that the new tax structure will be simpler, that it will streamline compliance and enforcement, attract investors, improve the competitiveness of the Canadian mining industry, and foster investment, innovation, productivity, economic growth and job creation in Canada. However, the industry does not believe that the tax reform program will meet the stated goals.

The gradual reduction provisions, announced in the 2003 budget, are too complicated and will be difficult to implement.

According to the Canadian Mining Association the hardship created by the 2003 budget and Bill C-48 would require a quick solution as well as the involvement of governments at the federal, provincial—including Quebec—and territorial level.

They are saying that the proposed changes to the federal income tax have a serious impact on a number of mining activities in Canada, and result in an increase in the combined federal, provincial and territorial taxes at the expense of the net revenues of corporations.

What can we say when we look at how this reform will benefit oil companies, especially in view of the fact that over the past 30 years Canada has given $66 billion in direct subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industry. These forms of energy are directly responsible for climate change. In other words, each Quebec taxpayer gave $27,000 to the oil and gas industry.

With the oil companies racking up huge profits, what can we say about the position of the federal government that still levies 1.5 cents per litre of gas to eliminate the deficit. We are now in a surplus situation but this tax is still being collected. Will the impact of these outrageous tax savings for the oil companies be felt at the pump? It is very doubtful.

We do not have the whole picture as far as the economic data and the impact are concerned, even though some accounting firms and experts have made some assessments. The committee will have to look very closely at the benefits claimed by the government as well as the real drawbacks for the mining industry.

[Atomic Energy of Canada, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the $132 million that Atomic Energy of Canada received this year, we learn that the government is getting ready to provide another $46 million to allow the agency to develop new nuclear reactor technology.

How does the government explain this additional subsidy, when it knows that under the cover of nuclear technology research, most of Atomic Energy of Canada's work consists in subsidizing the generation of electrical power for Ontario?