Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire:

Honourable senators, it is late and I will attempt to be brief.

I have only five years of experience here, so I still feel I am in my apprenticeship or at least ebbing my apprenticeship phase in this institution. I cannot go back, as some of our colleagues, to the 17th or 18th century to use references, but I can go further back than CNN history, which is just last week, and go to the Cold War era. I wish to discuss Part 15 of Bill C-9, which deals with the sale of AECL.

First, there are masters of deception on the government side. In the Cold War, the Russians were masters at deception. It was part of their operational art and, in fact, led us astray in our need for security by creating enormous deception capabilities. One of the most effective tools was to camouflage things so you could create deception and give a different perspective to something in order to catch someone by surprise. I think 3.5 pounds of legislation is a great way to camouflage a whole bunch of subject matters and legislation that you really do not want to bring forward in front of the Canadian people or their representatives in an overt way. You camouflage it by putting it into a budget bill.. That is essentially what we have seen with this massive overdose of legislation in Bill C-9.

I wish to bring the attention of honourable senators to AECL and particularly to the arguments surrounding the sale of that entity. In Senator Gerstein's very eloquent presentation, he argued well about the sale in terms of a business case, but he did not convince because there is a whole dimension of this sale that is lost in the exercise, and that is the security dimension. It is not only the technical security aspect of this proposed sale, but it is also the national security aspect of the sale of our nuclear capability, putting it in the hands of industry.

I am not against industry. I think they have their own ethical standards, but I would like to bring forward an argument that Teddy Roosevelt used in 1902 — I am going back a little further now, but not to the 18th century — when he was busting up the railroad giants. His argument was that he was not attacking the corporations but endeavouring to do away with any evil within them. He went on to say:

We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.

We have a similar exercise in putting this incredible capability of nuclear security — not only nuclear technology — in the hands of industry completely, as we did with the Canadian munitions industry. In the 1990s, the Canadian munitions industry suggested that they should do the safety analysis of the munitions. They argued that they would be the most effective people to do the safety inspections of the munitions that they were producing and that the troops would be using. That proposal was subjected to an enormous debate and ultimately was agreed to, but a whole set of caveats was put on the industry to ensure that they would not, by reason of economic constraint or competition, start cutting corners and ultimately have our own troops blasted away by the premature firing of our own munitions.

We did that with the munitions industry, but this nuclear dimension is even far more sophisticated, far more demanding and far more reckless if you make it into a pure profit exercise. I have no problem with the fact that we want to make money off this capability and that the government should be so engaged. I am not necessarily for government doing business, but in the case of national security, I believe it is essential.

There is not only the waste disposal dimension, but there is also the possibility of that fissile material falling into evil hands and ultimately the security of the actual reactors. All that is needed is a third catastrophe to throw that whole industry up in the air. The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is an easy example compared to what would happen if one of these reactors went up in smoke.

The Pugwash movement, which is the anti-nuclear movement with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the continued distribution of nuclear capabilities, has been arguing whether nuclear energy really stands the test of being clean energy. Their position is that we should be considering alternative clean energy sources rather than going nuclear. Although we have been moving down that road and a number of countries are going that way, it has not been fully accepted.

You have an industry that might be turning a profit, that might be increasing in scale massively, that might make money over the next few years, and yet you want to get rid of it and give it to industry? You are also throwing industry a bit of a left hook or a sucker punch inasmuch as that industry might go backward if it is proven that there is a movement to alternative energy. You will end up with a white elephant.

In my opinion, we should, as an institution responsible to the Canadian people, not fiddle with national capabilities such as our nuclear capability, and certainly not fiddle with the possibility of technical security breaches and the ultimate loss of fissile material.

When I commanded the Quebec area, I inspected all the hydroelectricity capabilities of the province of Quebec. When reviewing that infrastructure, it struck me that in fact we believed this country would never be attacked. Of course, if you look at the American weatherman's map, you would say there is no problem because they do not know we are here; there is nothing north of the United States. In fact, many of our American friends cannot believe there is a country north of Vermont, but even so, we are here. We are vulnerable and yet that hydroelectric infrastructure is essentially guarded by 80-year-old commissionaires who are World War II veterans. That infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable.

The question is: How secure will we be when this falls into completely corporate hands? Will we have a hard time doing the inspections and validating the inspection tools?

Honourable senators, we should not lose our overarching responsibility, control and command of the nuclear capability in this country. On the contrary, we should be assisting it, selling the product, turning a profit, yes, but also assuring we have a national safety net that will ensure we will not be held at ransom by the cost-cutting measures of industry.

I wish to terminate my remarks by raising a point in regard to what was quoted about how we have been putting up with all this nonsense. I am quoting the Leader of the Government in the Senate who, in her presentation, I considered to be rather facile and even at times flippant. As a French Canadian in the artillery, as an officer cadet, I was told at one point by senior staff that I was flippant. Of course I did not understand what it meant, so I checked it out. I used a term my mother used to call me, which is that I was a bit of a snot-nosed smart aleck.

I believe some of the statements raised in the presentation were of that nature. There was a facile, condescending look — in fact we did not get the look, we just got the words — in regard to how we should be doing our work here. I think there is a bit of a problem with the definition of our role and responsibilities. I do not have ancient documents to prove it. I am using something that was published in 2005. I do not know if all the new senators have a copy. I believe Senator Joyal offered it for free and I hope someone has read it. I would like to read a short passage therein, at page 240, 242.

Less and less do governments look to debates in the Commons and the examination of bills in Commons committees as an opportunity to test, improve and validate their legislative ideas. Instead, the overriding goals are the most efficient possible passage of the overall legislative program and the denial of opposition arguments.

Because senators are not preoccupied with re-election, the Senate is normally less partisan and majoritarian in its procedures, culture, and activities than the House of Commons, and this allows it occasionally to slow the Executive juggernaut that normally rolls over the House of Commons. With greater co-operation from governments and more independent-minded senators, the Senate could perform even more effectively as a source of "sober second thought," as a technical revising body, especially for more specialized bills, and as a way to relieve some of the pressures on the Commons. . .

We have a role here. And that role is not to march around like some infantry regiment, following the party leader and saying:

Yes, sir, yes, sir. Three bags full, sir.

I applaud the level of discipline. In fact, I wish I had a regiment that was as disciplined as we see on the other side with regard to their roles and responsibilities, because it certainly attenuates any sort of debate that we might have as we have essentially been talking on our side and not having any debate.

In that sense, honourable senators, I think that we have a role. Yes, it is part of our exercise and, yes, it is July 12. So what? How many people have a lot of time in the summer to be on leave? I think my place of duty is here. This is the job we are supposed to be doing.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Dallaire: They are not paying us by the hour, or double time and overtime. We are quite prepared to serve. That is the aim of the exercise.

Honourable senators, I would like to end with the following. I am not very skilled in wit and quick retort, so I have to use some references. The first reference I use is from a little book here, a little ditty called The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill. I have been reading this as I have been listening to debate. I would like to raise the following with regard to political parties. Churchill states:

Asked what qualities a politician required, Churchill replied, "The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."

That is sort of anticipating the future. A five-year budget plan is still a fairly long time, remembering that the Russians built their whole economy on five-year plans, and look what happened to them.

I also thought it interesting to quote Winston Churchill again:

The world today is ruled by harassed politicians absorbed in getting into office or turning out the other man so that not much room is left for debating great issues on their merits.

Churchill said that in 1947. That is rather interesting, however, I would like to get closer to home in the political arena. I will end with these following two quotations. The first one is:

The political arena is famously a battleground where the weapons are words, and many are the insults that flow back and forth across the parliamentary floor.

I stand here with my colleague Senator Lapointe. . .

. . .realizing that there are potentially some times when we need to speak with passion, yet we still need to be careful of what we say.

I would like to end with the following quotation:

Not long before Churchill crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party, he remarked of his (then) fellow Conservatives: "They are a class of right honourable gentlemen —"

Of course, in those days they were all men.

"— all good men, all honest men — who are ready to make great sacrifices for their opinions, but they have no opinions. They are ready to die for the truth, if only they knew what the truth was."

Ladies and gentlemen, we need these amendments. It is irresponsible and bordering on unethical not to approve these amendments and send the bill back with the amendments to the House of Commons.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Please click here to read the full text of this debate

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators