SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 83

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22
Hon. Steven MacKinnon
  • Jun/7/22 11:27:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
25 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Blaine Calkins
  • Jun/7/22 11:27:59 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting against the motion.
14 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille
  • Jun/7/22 11:28:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour.
19 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Rachel Blaney
  • Jun/7/22 11:28:12 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will be voting in favour.
13 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Mike Morrice
  • Jun/7/22 11:28:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
15 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Vuong
  • Jun/7/22 11:28:25 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the result of the previous vote, voting against.
14 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/7/22 11:28:50 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed.
21 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Mona Fortier
  • Jun/7/22 11:29:29 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
11 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/7/22 11:29:29 p.m.
  • Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. government whip.
41 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Steven MacKinnon
  • Jun/7/22 11:29:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude this very productive evening by stating that I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
38 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Blaine Calkins
  • Jun/7/22 11:29:48 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting nay.
12 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille
  • Jun/7/22 11:29:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour.
19 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Rachel Blaney
  • Jun/7/22 11:29:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will be voting in favour.
13 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Mike Morrice
  • Jun/7/22 11:30:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
15 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Vuong
  • Jun/7/22 11:30:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the result of the previous vote, voting against.
14 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/7/22 11:30:40 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-25 
I declare the motion carried. The Deputy Speaker: We have a point of order from the hon. whip for the official opposition.
22 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Blaine Calkins
  • Jun/7/22 11:30:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac stood in his place in the House and voted in favour of the opposition motion. There was an assurance from the table officers that he did in fact vote and that the official record would reflect that fact. The electronic dashboard, however, continues to show otherwise. Therefore, I would like the record to show that we have brought up the matter to the House and expect Journals to have the correct recording of his vote.
86 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • Jun/7/22 11:31:16 p.m.
  • Watch
I thank the member for that intervention. Of course, the Table had that listed already, so Journals will reflect that tomorrow.
21 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)
  • Jun/7/22 11:31:50 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in Adjournment Proceedings. I have to say the hour is awfully appropriate. I am going to be following up on a question I asked in question period on May 2 related to what are called small modular reactors and their connection to nuclear proliferation, so it certainly is appropriate that the clock is approaching midnight. It reminds me very much that there is something called a doomsday clock, which is kept up to date by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I just checked it and it shows that we are “100 seconds to midnight”, given the combined factors of the increased threats of nuclear war brought on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the significant risk to the whole planet brought on by the climate crisis. These issues are related, and I related them in my question in the House on May 2. The answer from the Minister of Natural Resources was not sufficient and that is why I have brought it forward this evening. The so-called small modular reactors are not part of any solution to the climate crisis. Moreover, they are untested and essentially experimental. Lastly, I again draw the attention of this place to the risk of nuclear proliferation. Just to walk through those three points, the Minister of Natural Resources has said frequently in this place that there is no pathway to climate solutions that does not include small modular reactors. That is simply not true. Reducing greenhouse gases involves phasing out fossil fuels, cancelling the TMX pipeline and not pursuing Bay du Nord. These are tangible things that have nothing to do with nuclear. Nuclear is actually in the way. It is highly expensive. Per tonne of carbon reduced, it is about the most expensive way we can go. There is also a long timeline before we see any results from a decision to go with nuclear. The fact that these reactors are untested and essentially experimental has not had enough attention in this country. I turn to an expert in the area, Professor Allison M. Macfarlane, as a source. She is actually the former chairperson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is currently at the University of British Columbia. She told this to the CBC: “Nobody knows what the numbers are, and anybody who gives you numbers is selling you a bridge to nowhere because they don't know. Nobody has ever set up a molten salt reactor and used it to produce electricity.” A molten salt reactor is exactly what the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick are throwing tens of millions of dollars at. A private sector operator has proposed this and wants approval to go ahead and build it. It is being reviewed at this moment, but the money is flowing toward a molten salt reactor that will use plutonium from the spent fuel at Point Lepreau in order to create this unproven technology and allegedly produce electricity. It is all very much in question, except for one thing. There is a huge risk in taking plutonium from spent fuel. It is the kind of risk that existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties are very careful to prevent us from taking. If we are promoting a global plutonium economy, even a tiny, infinitesimal amount of plutonium in the hands of terrorists could create a dirty bomb. If it is in the hands of other countries around the world, there is the very large risk that they will produce a nuclear weapon. We had this experience in 1974 when Canada gave India one of its CANDU reactors. It turns out that these new SMRs, which was just recently noted in The Globe and Mail this week, produce far more nuclear waste than conventional reactors, that is, two times to 30 times more. I ask the government to think twice. This is a mistake. This is radioactive snake oil.
664 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
  • Jun/7/22 11:36:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will state at the outset that on this matter our government's top priority is to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and our environment. As the member opposite knows, Canada is recognized for having one of the world's most comprehensive climate plans. We recently updated it with new details and targets to illustrate how we will reach our ambitious 2030 target, which is to cut emissions by at least 40% below 2005 levels. This update includes $9.1 billion in new investments to help us strive toward our goal, to create more than a million jobs while making clean growth the cornerstone of our economic future. Our climate plan includes, for instance, measures to spur the development of next-generation technologies to bring more clean power onto our grids, encourage greater use of public transit and zero-emission vehicles, and make homes and businesses more energy-efficient. We also see great potential for the development of non-emitting hydrogen. In fact, Germany's ambassador to Canada said recently that we have the potential to become a global hydrogen superpower. Yes, nuclear also plays a role in our plan. Why do I say that? It is because nuclear already plays a big role. It is the second-largest source of non-emitting electricity in Canada after hydro, generating roughly 60% of Ontario's electricity and close to 40% of New Brunswick's. The fact is that the International Energy Agency has repeatedly made it clear that getting to net zero will require an acceleration in nuclear energy generation around the world, so Canada is among a number of nations supporting research into small modular reactors, also known as SMRs. We are also working with interested provincial governments that are responsible for making decisions on electricity generation projects. Our support is reflected in our SMR action plan, unveiled in late 2020, and most recently in budget 2022, which included $69.9 million over five years to advance the development of this technology. This also included the provision of $50.7 million, and an ongoing $500,000 annually after that, to help the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission develop the capacity to regulate this emerging sector. As for the company the member opposite cited, we are supporting the Moltex plan to use recycled CANDU reactor fuel. This would give us the chance to further extract energy from a used resource. The member and all Canadians should be confident that safety and security remain paramount. Canada remains a signatory to and a strong advocate of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This means we implement all the safeguards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that nuclear materials are used solely for peaceful purposes in Canada. Most Canadians know that the member opposite has long urged Canadians to take the climate crisis seriously. We on this side hope the hon. member will soon see, as other environmentalists have, that solar and wind power alone will never get us to net zero. To succeed, we must explore all possible solutions.
516 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border