Serge Cardin

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have started this day together, and we will finish it together.

The request for an amendment to section 46(3) did not come out of the blue. Somebody pressured the government. I have documents by people who did pressure the government. One thing strikes me. Here is what I read in the remarks of an organization:

Generally, the legislation has a negative impact on the capacity of private corporations to invest in nuclear plants, and this is detrimental to the future development of the Canadian nuclear industry.

It is easy to see what the private sector investment is all about. It is clearly said that the legislation has a negative impact on the capacity of corporations. We also realize that the government is intent on transferring the ownership and operation of nuclear plants to the private sector.

As I said this morning, I do not want to scare anybody, and I do not want to impute motives to anybody, but I read in a fairly serious book that plutoniumis used in nuclear weapons and has always been the byproduct of civil nuclear plants. When a substance is dangerous, it should be managed by and controlled by a public authority to prevent any slippage.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about having private corporations in nuclear plants.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point this out to my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. The amendment to subsection 46(3) obviously specifies that the financial institution will no longer be responsible if a place is contaminated.

When financial institutions lend money to someone who represents a certain risk, they often ask for extra guarantees and even endorsers, sometimes one, sometimes two.

In contrast, and we know very well that the nuclear industry is particularly dangerous, the section of the act that existed before allowed them to be held responsible.

So, indirectly, and I said this throughout the day and will repeat it once again, the section that existed before ensured that the private sector would not be favoured as a manager of nuclear plants.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Quebecers and Canadians, I want to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his efforts to protect the environment in Quebec and in Canada.

I would like to make a comparison with one of the main issues that my colleague is responsible for, namely Bill C-55 on controlled access military zones. In this bill, which is brilliantly reviewed by my colleague, I cannot help but see how, on the one hand, the government is prepared to interfere with people's freedom in the name of security and, on the other hand, how it is prepared to jeopardize public safety for the benefit of the nuclear energy industry. We are well aware that nuclear energy produces waste that is difficult to control.

This is very clear. On the one hand, the government is leaning in one direction, while on the other hand it is leaning in the other direction. Who is the Liberal government trying to protect? The public or the interests of a nuclear energy program, this at the expense of public safety? I would like to hear the hon. member on this issue.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know something from my colleague.

Of course, it takes political will to get rid, at some point, of this dependence on nuclear power. Politicians must really want to do so.

However, I wonder if my colleague has thought about the way to get rid of nuclear plants and nuclear energy. We are aware—we must be realistic—that this represents big investments. We are also aware that even bigger investments are required to maintain these plants. But we have, of course, the renewable energies that could be used to replace nuclear energy. We are able to use them. It has been demonstrated; my colleague has demonstrated this. It is feasible with wind power, and the money would be available if the government had the will to invest in this.

The fact remains that the day when we do away with nuclear energy, we will still have to manage that. I do not know if my colleague, following his erudite readings and reflections, has thought about a quick suggestion that the Liberal government would have no choice but to immediately agree with.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. Like my colleague from Jonquière, he is particularly committed to the environment. He is also a striking example of renewable energy. Today is his birthday; I believe he is turning 33, yet he looks 18. His is a constantly renewable energy.

Sometimes there are things that I do not comprehend. Even the public would like to know this. My colleague talked about 18,000 tonnes of nuclear waste. It can be hard to imagine how much waste that represents. I wonder if my colleague could explain.

At the same time, given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources do not seem to be concerned about nuclear waste, I would like him to tell me whether it could be stored in their swimming pools.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since I have a little bit of time left, I would like to make a comment.

On the topic of wind energy, to stay in the same vein, even here in this House, we could save a lot of energy by installing a small windmill. With all the hot air produced by Liberal members across the way, the windmill would go round and round and light up the whole chamber. It would probably produce a greener light, which would provide more inspiration to the Liberal members. That was my comment.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if she agrees with me. Like almost everybody else, for some time now I have been pondering all the problems we have in our society and my conclusion has been very simple; it can be summed up in just one word: concentration.

When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, in fact we are really talking about concentrations of these emissions that are too high. When we wonder about all the problems there are in the area of nuclear energy, we are really thinking about the high concentration of nuclear waste.

Finally, in almost all areas, even in the case of social problems, everything is due to concentration. Therefore, this problem is even bigger than we think.

Even here in the House, the problem is due to concentration; there are simply too many Liberal members.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that my colleague from Jonquière sat as I did on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources when the report on the long term management of nuclear waste was examined.

She is therefore very much attuned to the nuclear waste problem. We had the opportunity to look into it in great depth and it is, obviously, a major problem.

I wonder how anyone could convince him or herself that there is no problem with nuclear energy. Just dig a hole, dump in the waste, and the world will be none the worse for it.

I wonder how anyone could have such a perception of things. This is both my first question and my first comment.

I imagine that the process of osmosis, as far as the Liberal members are concerned, is not working very well. Given the colour of the seats in the House, they ought to have gone green a long time ago.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, on her speech.

According to her, is it unrealistic to think that one day, the Liberal government will turn green? I am not asking the government to stop being red, but it could be a bit greener. The fact of the matter is that the investment it is seeking from the private sector for nuclear energy will mean less money for the development of renewable resources.

Moreover, as my colleague clearly demonstrated, not only is wind power a renewable energy but it creates jobs. In regions like the Gaspé peninsula, this would be beneficial in every regard: for job creation, for families and, of course, for the government, in tax revenue.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the member for Athabasca and also refer to the comments made by the member for Windsor—St. Clair.

The member mentioned earlier that his mortgage lender was not responsible if he contaminated his land. He used this as an example.

However, I have news for him. If, throughout his lifetime, he did oil changes that he dumped on his land, and at some point he went bankrupt and left, the mortgage lender, when taking over his assets, would automatically be required to decontaminate the land. However, I know that this would never happen, since I doubt that the member is a polluter. So, he will not have a problem with this.

However, I would like to come back to the section that existed before. I would like to know from the member for Windsor—St. Clair if he thinks it was truly the legislators' intent to limit private investment in this way.