Bill C-4 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

Supply

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by reading the motion that we are talking about today.

That, in the opinion of this House, all Canadians are to be treated equally and fairly, and since Prairie wheat and barley producers are discriminated against solely because of their location and occupation, this House call on the government to take immediate action to end this discrimination and give Prairie farmers the same marketing choices that are available in the rest of Canada.

I read the motion into the record because the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, in a comment to the Bloc Quebecois member who just finished his remarks, indicated a few moments ago that the Canadian Wheat Board was moving into Quebec. I am wondering how it is that a motion that is directed because it solely discriminates against people in western Canada, all of a sudden this board now has duties and responsibilities which are clearly outside western Canada in the province of Quebec.

Fortunately, Madam Speaker, you do not have to rule on that because this is a non-votable motion that, from our perspective, wants to force the board to move to a dual marketing system rather than a single desk selling system that has worked in this country since the 1930s.

I agree with others who have spoken before that the motion is out of place. We should not be debating it because the Canadian Wheat Board has become a farmer-run organization with two-thirds of the board now elected directly by farmers. Surely it is up to the farmers themselves and the farmer directors that they elect to decide what the board should do and what it should become, and not the purview of politicians.

The motion today, put forward by members of the Canadian Alliance, is really part of a well orchestrated, and I would add well oiled, campaign to influence elections for Wheat Board directors, elections that are occurring later this month.

On the basis of the vote in 1997 and on direct elections of Wheat Board directors in recent years, a majority of prairie farmers have demonstrated at the ballot box that they do support the Wheat Board as the single desk seller for wheat and barley, despite the fact that a few draw headlines by being flagrantly opposed.

These headline hunting farmers, who were referenced earlier this afternoon, deliberately chose to break the law and, rather than pay a fine, they deliberately chose to go to jail. That is their right. That is their vehicle of choice for grabbing publicity. I do not object to that but let us not, for heaven's sake, fall into the trap of making freedom fighters out of lawbreakers who knowingly and with forethought did what they chose to do.

As I indicated, I believe that a majority of prairie farmers do support the Canadian Wheat Board. I reference the 1997 referendum where 63% of feed barley growers voted to retain the board as a single desk seller for their product despite an aggressive campaign by opponents of the board at the time.

In 1998, and I was here, we debated Bill C-4 which resulted in elections to the board of directors, and in the ensuing elections that occurred following the passage of Bill C-4, 8 out of the 10 members elected by farmers were supporters of the Wheat Board's single desk selling of wheat and barley. These Wheat Board directors were elected despite an aggressive campaign by third party intervenors to shovel money from agri-business corporations to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

As I indicated, we are in an election period this fall for five more directors, or regions up for election or re-election, and again, third parties are busy at work funnelling money from corporations to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

We know that it is the American dominated, multinational agri-businesses that would benefit from the demise of the board. The American government has launched trade actions against the Wheat Board on eight previous occasions and all of them have failed. It is now in its ninth attempt to destroy the board. I believe that the eight previous attempts have failed because the Wheat Board has not been proven to be doing anything illegal according to international trading rules.

The board's sin, I think, and the one that raises the ire of the Americans, is that it is doing a reasonably good job of marketing Canadian grain, something the American government and American based multinationals have trouble accepting.

The motion today has been carefully timed to coincide with elections of Wheat Board directors which are occurring this month. The motion is part of a broader strategy by the board's enemies, of whom there are many, to attack the board and discredit its reputation among farmers.

We have to legitimately ask why the Canadian Alliance is working as a fifth column in Canada to assist the Americans in destroying something that has worked well for Canadian farmers for many decades and, I submit, continues to work well.

The latest tool in the arsenal of the opponents of the board and the Alliance in particular is to hammer the fact that the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board has recently changed direction. In 1999 the Ontario board moved to a dual market where farmers could sell a portion of their crop on the open market. Of course, that was not sustainable. It was widely predicted at the time that it would not be sustainable, and that was proven to be accurate. This year the Ontario board has decided to basically legislate itself out of existence.

The lesson here is that we either have single desk selling, as we have at the moment through the Canadian Wheat Board, or we have an open market. A dual market simply does not work.

The point was made clearly by Justice Muldoon in Alberta some years ago in a charter challenge to the Wheat Board's single desk selling authority. Judge Muldoon at the time threw the case out of court, saying that a dual marketing system would simply be a rapid transition to an open market.

I do not believe western farmers want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board but that is exactly what would follow if the Ontario model were to be adhered to. Let the Ontario wheat board put itself out of existence if it chooses to do so, but that is not necessarily a model for western farmers who sell primarily into an export market, which the Ontario producers do not.

In terms of good marketing, several independent economic studies have proven that the Wheat Board does do a good job of marketing on behalf of western farmers.

In the most recent study, Dr. Richard Grey, an agricultural economist at the University of Saskatchewan, found that in 2001 farmers received approximately $10 more per tonne under single desk selling than would have been the case otherwise.

Similarly, in 1997 a Kraft-Furtan-Tyrchniewicz study showed a benefit of slightly over $250,000 a year as a result of single desk selling. An even earlier study by agricultural economist Dr. Andy Schmitz showed that marketing through the Wheat Board increased the returns of barley producers by $72 million a year.

Opponents of the Wheat Board do not accept the findings of these reports but they have never bothered or been able to refute them in any factual way.

At the time we were debating Bill C-4 there were wild allegations about the Wheat Board's governance being secretive and possibly corrupt. Since then Canada's Auditor General has conducted a thorough study of the board and reported in February 2002. She basically gave the Wheat Board a passing grade and said that it was doing a reasonably good job of managing its operation and, further, that the board has a solid reputation as a strong and capable marketer of quality grains.

It was not a perfect report. The Auditor General, in fairness it should be pointed out, indicated that there were areas where the Wheat Board could improve itself, but by and large it certainly did not agree with the allegations that had been alleged prior to the study by the Auditor General.

I said earlier that today's motion is carefully orchestrated as part of a larger strategy to attack and undermine the board. There are elections occurring at this moment for five of the Wheat Board's directors. In the 2000 election for five other directors, a group called CARE funnelled money and other advantages to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

CARE was clearly a third party intervener and as a third party intervener should have identified itself in any advertising it undertook and reported its activities following the election. In the 2000 election campaign the CARE group chose to thumb its nose at these election regulations, even though it had been independently documented that it took money from at least one grain company, UGG, and passed it on to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

This same third party group is at it again in these elections, again refusing to come clean about the sources of its support and is refusing to register as a third party.

I would ask this of colleagues in the Canadian Alliance who are so worried about alleged secrecy in the operation of the Wheat Board. Do they not care about the secrecy being practised by their friends in that group? Do the members of the Alliance, who are normally so interested in law and order, condone this flagrant disregard of the law by the CARE group?

I would also direct this question to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does he continues to allow the law to be ignored in this manner?

As far as we are concerned, the motion is an attack on the board and part of a broader strategy by enemies of the board, many of them big players in the multinational agri-business, to destroy the Wheat Board. Unfortunately, I think the Alliance is a willing collaborator in this campaign and is prepared to condone and even encourage people who oppose the Wheat Board to break the laws of the land. The Alliance is attempting to use the experience of the Ontario Wheat Board and apply it to that of the Canadian Wheat Board, even though such an application does not hold up.

If adhered to, the motion would destroy the board, one of the few remaining methods that farmers have to retain some power in the agricultural marketplace, a marketplace that is being increasingly diminished as a result of multinational corporations that seemingly run everything.

The motion I believe is out of place. It ought to be up to the farmers to elect the board of directors and see in which direction they want to take the board. That would be the proper outcome. This is not a decision that should or will be made by politicians. It should and can be made by farmers.

Just before I take my chair, I was admonished by the leader of the Alliance when I asked him a question about the need to listen to what was being said by people who were actually farming under the Wheat Board. I want to make reference to a letter that was sent to members of the standing committee on agriculture from Mr. George Calvin, who resides in New Norway, Alberta, on August 29 of this year. I will not read the whole letter, but there are several salient points.

Mr. Calvin writes:

I am a central Alberta farmer who has been well served over the years by the C.W.B. single desk selling. I am opposed to ending the C.W.B. sales monopoly for a trial period. The main thrust for this no doubt comes from the Canadian Alliance members on your committee. It is common knowledge that the C.A. Party wishes to destroy the C.W.B.

Of course their intentions are also being promoted by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and Barley Growers Associations, and the Alberta Barley Commission. The Government of Alberta has financed these groups over time to push for the--

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the main motion for Bill C-4 where it is being recorded as being sent to committee after second reading, I would like to vote against that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-4.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on the wisdom of his comments today on Bill C-4, to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

I have had the pleasure and the honour of speaking on this bill for a total of 90 minutes. I have a little more to say. In light of the evidence presented by the government, there is a need to put more energy—not nuclear energy but something more common sense in nature—into this issue, and ask the government not to move any further into privatization by basically promoting private investment in the nuclear industry.

The fact that major financiers were not investing in the nuclear industry because they were indirectly liable for such a project shows that they knew it was risky. It is well known that financiers do not put their money into ventures that pose huge risks, the scope of which they do not know.

No one here can know the full impact of radioactive waste. During the previous session, we reviewed Bill C-27 on the management of nuclear fuel waste. We are well aware, because we examined the issue, that many countries have still not found the solution. I mentioned this yesterday in my speech. Some radioactive elements are present for periods as short as 550 years. That may seem very short in the history of a people or of humanity. However, other radioactive products remain present for 14 billion years, which is a much longer period.

As regards nuclear energy, we must question this form of energy, which is seen as a contributor to greenhouse gases. There is an inherent danger to the use of nuclear energy in terms of the world's safety, whether it is in the production of that energy, in the burial of radioactive waste, or even in the possibility that someone could get these products to make nuclear bombs.

I firmly believe that a debate should take place on whether or not to continue to develop nuclear energy. There are some rather striking examples. Take Germany, where 30% of the electrical energy was dependent on the nuclear sector. Germany is now announcing that it is dropping nuclear energy and that by the year 2050, it will have eliminated around 80% of its greenhouse gases. That country is ending the development of nuclear energy and, at the same time, it is able to commit to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by over 80% by the year 2050.

As we can see, these two objectives are not incompatible. This is what I am urging the government to do. It must go forward and begin a process to drop nuclear energy and its proliferation. This proliferation is being promoted by the bill, which tells major financiers “There is money to make in the short term in the nuclear energy sector, with no long term responsibilities anymore”.

We know full well that large multinationals, whose only objective is to make money, can easily invest in the nuclear energy sector. Should a catastrophic environmental disaster occur, they will just withdraw and their responsibility will be limited. They will not go any further. They will have made their money when it was easy. When there are responsibilities to be assumed, who will assume them? Who will have to clean up all these contaminated sites? Again, indirectly, it will be the public, because this situation will always occur.

In environmental matters, the government is always the one responsible for decontaminating, for reassuring the public and for ensuring that we have a healthy environment to live in. This is why it becomes more and more necessary not to involve the private sector in such important areas but to withdraw it from those sectors because it is not capable of assuming long-term responsibilities.

I think it is pretty clear that the government is not up to speed, particularly where alternate or renewable energy sources are concerned. It cannot therefore really want to invest in them.

Moreover, we are told that governments have invested over $15 billion in the nuclear sector. With opportunity costing, this represents indirectly over $161 billion invested in nuclear power.

Let us try to imagine the investments that could have been made in opportunity costs on renewable energies. There is nothing complicated about it: nuclear waste is with us just about forever, and is a risk to the entire population of the planet and the planet itself. There are, however, other important elements that are also equally eternal: the sun, the air, the water, the land. These are all elements with which we must work to obtain constantly renewable energy.

The Bloc Quebecois has raised this, has made predictions about the potential employment benefits of the wind energy industry. But to no avail, because the government wants to invest in nuclear energy.

This government has a fundamental problem when it comes to wind energy. There is, of course, always the exception that confirms the rule, and I again thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his speech. The government is still at the stage of wondering whether the windmills are turned by the wind, or create the wind. So if that is the stage they are at, there are a lot of serious questions to be asked.

I am therefore urging the House to put this bill on hold so that the public can have its say as to whether it wants nuclear energy or not. According to the latest surveys, the people of Canada and of Quebec are saying no to nuclear energy.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to Bill C-4. In itself, this is a very small amendment to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

This bill contains only one short paragraph with the effect of limiting to the owner or occupant or any other person who has the management and control of the nuclear facility the responsibility of taking measures to reduce contamination or the level of contamination.

In other words, very subtly, the intent is to relieve financial institutions and lenders who choose to invest in nuclear facilities of any and all civil or legal liability. These institutions and investors would be completely excluded from the legislation with respect to any liability when investing in nuclear projects.

That raises the basic question of why is this so. Why should they be exempted? Yesterday the report of the Auditor General on contaminated sites brought home to us the issue of extremely costly and enduring problems caused by the disposal of toxic waste.

In 1995 the Auditor General set out a figure of approximately $850 million as the cost for the federal government to arrive at a solution regarding the disposal of nuclear waste.

The nuclear energy industry involves two major risks and problems. First, there is plant safety. I know that in Canada our industry has been reasonably safe. At the same time, examples have occurred, certainly in the United States at Three Mile Island and also outside. Of course the worst example of a meltdown within a nuclear plant was Chernobyl.

Also there is the whole question of nuclear waste. We still have not found a solution to permanent storage of our nuclear waste. Not only Canada but countries all over the world have been wrestling with this problem. Those that use nuclear power are faced with the problem of having to deal with nuclear waste. It is always the problem of where to store waste on a quasi-permanent basis, which is the large challenge posed to them.

The benefits are certainly there. Nuclear power is present in Ontario. Nuclear power is used extensively in France. Certainly the power by itself is deemed by the industry to be clean power. At the same time, there is no possibility of putting aside the huge risks of plant problems and meltdowns, especially the problem of dealing with the waste which can stay in the environment for literally thousands of years.

This is the reason countries like Sweden and Germany have had national debates on nuclear power. Most recently Finland had a national referendum on nuclear power. Finland decided to go ahead with it. On the other side, Germany declared a total moratorium on nuclear power. Sweden declared a moratorium on nuclear power. In Canada, Quebec has decided to curtail nuclear power. It has a small nuclear plant, but no more nuclear power.

We should encourage investment in green energies, renewable energies, whether wind, solar or biomass.

Bill C-4 enables investors to treat nuclear power as strictly a business risk, ignoring all environmental risks and liabilities which are potentially huge. It is due to the huge potential risks that the Paris and Vienna conventions have placed a limit of liability regarding nuclear safety, which is more than six times higher than the limit placed in Canada. In Canada we use a limit of $75 million, whereas the Paris and Vienna conventions place that limit at $600 million.

Therefore, rather than facilitate and exempt investors from any liability regarding an investment in nuclear power, we should heed the report of the Auditor General and with the utmost safety, caution and prevention use all our skills to put in place safeguards and constraints regarding whatever will cause future toxic waste.

The time may have come, like in Sweden and Germany and most recently in Finland, to review our energy policy and declare, especially in the context of Kyoto, that we are firmly in favour of renewable energies and firmly against making it easier for investors and others to invest in nuclear power with its huge health and environmental risk.

For these reasons, I hope that Bill C-4 will not proceed in the way it is structured now, that we revert to a position where, if there has to be such a law, that investors in financial institutions will bear the burden of the risk, as they should. We should not make it easier for investors to invest in nuclear power. We should, on the contrary, put constraints on them so that in turn they turn their thoughts, their money into investing in green energies of the future, especially in light of Kyoto and the fact that we are soon to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the amendment lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 40 minutes. We will now proceed to debate the main motion at second reading of Bill C-4.

[The Speaker]

It being 4:10 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-4.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to this bill. It might be useful to remind those who are following that we are studying Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The purpose of this bill is to relieve lenders dealing with the nuclear industry in particular, of the responsibilities of decontaminating sites. This means that if ever there are spills, problems or sites that are contaminated as a result of the development of the nuclear industry, the people who agreed to lend money for these projects will not be held accountable for the results and cannot be prosecuted. This refers to banks, but it could also include any other stakeholders.

For this reason, the member for Jonquière, seconded by the member for Joliette, has proposed the following amendment, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

This would allow the proposal to be studied again, to make it more specific, more concrete. As it is currently worded, it is unacceptable to us. I will read the wording that the government wants to modify. In the current legislation, it says:

—any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

The amended text reads:

—any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

We can see that every word counts. We start with a text in which any person who had a right to or interest in, any person who was involved in making the decision about setting up this type of industry, had to ensure that they were not investing in something that could, in the end, harm society, quality of life or the environment.

With this bill, the federal government is attempting to exempt these people from the application of this act. In the area of nuclear energy, I believe that we must obviously be very specific and very cautious when it comes to decisions being made to ensure that we will in no way allow anything that could have irreversible effects in the future.

Nuclear energy development initiatives also address issues such as waste storage and recovery, which may be very expensive to put in place but even more expensive in terms of what consequences an error would have.

If we accept that the lender, the financial institution lending money for mechanical things, equipment, and the investments required to ensure a waste burial project can be carried out, no longer has any moral responsibility concerning the consequences of the decisions it makes, this takes an enormous weight off its shoulders. This opens the door to overly liberal decisions and, at the end of the day, everyone will wash their hands of any responsibility and we will find ourselves with an unacceptable situation. There is no area where we do not have to ensure that we are not dealing with charlatans. In the nuclear energy field as in any other field, there have been instances where equipment or radioactive material was stolen.

In this respect, in today's world where attempts are made to regulate the use of nuclear energy, we must make sure that greed does not lead major lenders to stop taking their responsibilities.

We need only look at the financial scandals, in the U.S. in particular, in the past year or so. They involve individuals who seemed above all suspicion initially, but who, out of greed, did things which, ultimately, have jeopardized many jobs and undermined economic stability, all because there were no safeguards tough enough to prevent reckless action.

Try to imagine the consequences for the management of nuclear waste and the whole nuclear energy issue if such action had been taken in the area of new technologies.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois believes that, in this respect, the federal government is moving a little hastily. It seems to me that it is just trying to make political hay, regardless of all the consequences its action may have. It would be in our best interest to review this bill.

It also strikes me as a bit odd that, at a time when many questions are being asked in Canada about energy choices, we would still be involved in making development easier by lightening up the regulatory framework on the whole matter of the use of nuclear energy. This at a time when everyone is calling for the development of soft energies such as wind energy, which I would like to see this government devote more attention to.

In my opinion, implementation of the Kyoto protocol requires initiative, innovation and government programs conducive to the development of renewable energies. I am thinking of such things as wind power. As we know, 50% of the Canadian potential for this type of energy is in Quebec, and 80% of that potential is in eastern Quebec.

There is talk of using windmills to capture the energy produced by air displacement, but the energy of tides and currents can also be captured. That seemed futuristic a few years ago, but today there is a possibility of developing this industry. It would be a matter of killing two birds with one stone. On the one hand, improved environmental quality, and on the other economic development in regions that need it. The regions in question are a kind of tourist haven, with potential for ecotourism, and the development of a cleaner and greener economy based on the use of a source of energy that has been with us since day one and has been underestimated and undervalued.

It seems rather odd that we are today debating a question like allowing nuclear energy to develop within a less stringent safety framework, when we have the possibility of developing a whole range of softer energies. The federal government does not seem all that anxious to allow this kind of industry to develop and to come up with plans that will yield concrete results in terms of new energy use within 10, 20 or 30 years.

Let us look at both scenarios. What this bill does is to liberalize the creation of infrastructures using nuclear energy, with all the risks and nuclear waste management that are involved. The other scenario would allow us to develop all the new energies without any risks and without any dangerous implications in the short, medium and long term.

Why not provide the same funding opportunities for new energies? What would have been the impact of creating a level playing field from the outset and providing the same opportunities for everyone? We must all live with the choices that we make, and that includes lenders and other stakeholders. The change proposed by the government would give it too much leeway.

In the current context, and considering the specific interests at stake, I hope that the government will be receptive to our arguments and will agree to withdraw this bill and review it again in six months.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Jonquière, seconded by our colleague from Joliette who has just spoken, and I congratulate him on his speech.

What both my colleagues are proposing is a six month hoist, so that people can be consulted and have the opportunity to express their views on the bill in question.

I would remind hon. members that Bill C-4 is a carbon copy of a bill from the last session. I recall at the time expressing my great surprise that the present government would want to ram through such a bill at any cost. I am equally surprised today.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to totally absolve financial backers of responsibility vis-à-vis the nuclear industry. What this amendment would do is exempt backers from liability in the nuclear sector. This means that corporations which make loans to nuclear facilities will no longer be liable. They will be able to make loans without subsequently assuming liability if there is contamination when these sites are abandoned. One day or other, they will be abandoned, and they will have to be decontaminated in any event. We know that this will have to be done at most sites.

What does Bill C-4 say? That backers will not be held liable. A corporation could declare bankruptcy tomorrow morning, disappear, and responsibility for decontaminating the sites in question would revert to the government.

There have already been many problems with contaminated sites in the past, including in the oil industry. Companies disappeared, and today the government has to take over responsibility for these sites. When companies disappear and leave contaminated sites, in the end it is the taxpayers who are responsible. They are the ones who have to pay to decontaminate the sites in question.

There is a good example in my region, with which my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is very familiar. It is a recent and very obvious example. It does not involve nuclear contamination, but a large company, Noranda, in Murdochville.

Over its 50 years in Murdochville, if my memory is correct, I believe it is 50 years, Noranda contaminated one site and two ports, Mont-Louis and Gaspé. Today the company is leaving the sites and it is completely exonerated of its responsibility to decontaminate them. The Government of Canada is being asked to clean up the Mont-Louis and Gaspé ports because they belong to Transport Canada and are managed by Transport Canada.

Really, it is the responsibility of the company; it is the company that contaminated the site and the ports. Today, the company is leaving to set up shop in South America. As a result, it will be up to taxpayers to cover the cost of the cleanup.

Are we going to do the same thing with the nuclear industry? That is my question. It seems clear to me that with Bill C-4, as my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke mentioned, the lenders no longer have any responsibility. We are saying to them, “you can lend money for nuclear energy”, even though it is an obsolete energy, as far as I am concerned and despite the fact that many countries around the world would like to replace it.

We are telling them, “You can lend them money; you will not be held responsible”. That is what the bill being considered says. To paraphrase, it says, “Go ahead, lend them money. Regardless of their responsibilities, regardless of what they do, in the end, if the company disappears, the state, we the taxpayers, will have to take on the responsibility”. Obviously, I cannot support such a proposal. I find it dangerous and risky.

The banks and the lenders that are asking for this legislation are doing so because they simply do not have faith in nuclear energy or because they do not want to take on the responsibilities that they have to clean up the sites. There are also responsibilities in cases of accidents, but I am speaking for the most part of responsibilities regarding the cleanup of sites.

One does not deal with nuclear energy the same way as with copper, in Murdochville for instance, or oil. In fact, when talking about nuclear contamination, we are not talking of hundreds of years, but rather of thousands of years before the sites in question can be completely decontaminated.

It is much simpler with oil, of course. Let us be clear, however. Oil spills in oceans are not simple to deal with. Cleanup is possible nonetheless, whereas it is a totally different ball game with nuclear energy.

For years, in society at large, businesses have been asked to assume their responsibilities. The will is expressed to adopt a principle, and the principle is adopted with respect to certain businesses in the pulp and paper sector or other sectors, namely the polluter pays principle. I have a hard time understanding why nuclear industry backers should be given the significant advantage of being relieved of responsibility when any other industry is required to assume its responsibilities.

Let us take a look at how things are done, for example, in agriculture. Farmers are held responsible when there is pollution. In any other area, be it transportation or manufacturing—I mentioned pulp and paper earlier, but I could list many other examples—the polluter pays principle is widely accepted.

If you invest in a business as a lender, if you agree to lend money to any business and this business is not, or is no longer, creditworthy, naturally, the lender has a responsibility.

Looking at the bill before us, which, I repeat, is a repetition of the legislation that was put before us in the last session, one wonders why such a privilege should be given to the nuclear industry.

I cannot agree with giving such a privilege to the nuclear industry.

We in the Bloc Quebecois hope that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified and that it will even go a little further. If we adopt Kyoto, some companies will have to make adjustments. They will have to progressively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. I am referring to nuclear energy, but if we want to force companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they will say “Why do you grant such a privilege to the nuclear industry while we are forced to be clean?”

This is a double standard. The government is basically saying “We are granting privileges to the nuclear industry, but we refuse to grant privileges to those who produce greenhouse gases”. It is basically saying “You are responsible, but the other industry, which produces nuclear energy, cannot be held responsible. We cannot hold his lender, or the bank that lends money to him, accountable”.

I cannot agree with such an attitude. When this bill was first introduced, the current Minister of Natural Resources clearly said, and I quote:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise. This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

I have a bit of a problem with that. The minister is basically saying “No one wants to lend them money, but we will open a door by taking away their liability”. We cannot agree with that. That is totally unacceptable. As a member representing the Gaspe region I refuse to support this bill, particularly since we in the Bloc Quebecois have proposed alternative energies that could be developed, that would create more jobs and that would allow my region, among others, to develop new technologies, including wind energy.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Terrebonne on her speech. Mine will, of course, be along the same lines as hers. I shall, however, try to bring in some new elements in order to enable this assembly to be in a position to make an informed decision.

Bill C-4 may seem somewhat innocuous, given the relatively few changes it makes, but when placed in a historical context, looking into both the past and the future, it can be seen that its scope is far greater than it may seem.

It has already been said, but I think it bears repeating, that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to vary the classes of persons that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may order to take measures to reduce the levels of contamination of a place.

As it stands, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act states that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission:

--may order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

It can be seen that the terminology used here, that is “or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place” is far broader than what the new formulation proposes, which is simply:

--any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

Obviously, reference has been made to the banks in the debate, but there are many other funding bodies that might be affected by this amendment, might be relieved of responsibility for their investments. We are not talking of just any investment. It is not an investment in seal-packed potatoes or some kind of sweet snack, it is an investment in an extremely controversial industry. It is the nuclear industry.

Looking at our society here in the year 2002, it is somewhat of an anachronism to be amending existing legislation, although it has been around for some time, at the very moment that it is generally agreed that there is no future in developing the nuclear industry.

Why then relieve lenders of responsibility when they have until now been responsible for their investments in the nuclear industry—a very particular industry—at the very moment that it is generally agreed that nuclear industry is an energy source that is uncertain, to say the least?

Like the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois is also calling on this House to act responsibly by not amending this legislation at this time. The amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière is to that effect. It seems to me that it would make sense to adopt the amendment, so that the matter can be examined further.

We must bear in mind that the legislation, in fact these energy options, date back to the early and late 1970s. In the early 1970s, in 1973-74, there was a first oil crisis. This crisis caused the first major global crisis since World War II. I clearly recall reading about it in December 1974, in Le Monde diplomatique , which I read at the time. We experienced a crisis, the first major one since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

This had an incredible impact on the collective psyche, particularly in the western world, which had enjoyed phenomenal growth since 1945. The skyrocketing oil prices were immediately linked to very serious financial and structural problems. It will go down in anecdotal history, for instance, that the then Minister of Finance, John Turner, ran his first deficit in 1975, following the recession caused by this oil shock.

Unemployment grew substantially, and continued to grow until the mid-1990s. So, the danger of this oil shock was linked to a more serious danger, namely global economic instability.

The situation quickly got back to normal following the 1974-75 recession. However, we were hit by another oil shock in 1979, with the revolution in Iran.

The shah was overthrown and Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran. There was another jump in oil prices, which reached $42 a barrel.

At the time, I was at the Université de Montréal and I was studying this issue. In fact, my masters thesis was on the cost of energy resources. I can unequivocally state that all the forecasts made by experts, both in Quebec and around the world, including in the rest of Canada, were to the effect that, by the year 2000, the price of oil would be around $90 a barrel.

We therefore turned to alternate sources of energy. For example, in Canada, the Alberta tar sands were developed to ensure that our country would be self-sufficient from an energy point of view. This initiative proved extremely costly for Quebec. All over the world, people looked at new sources of energy, and particularly nuclear energy. This did not occur exclusively in Canada.

In Quebec, we had the great debate on the vast hydroelectric projects around James Bay. These projects were initiated by Robert Bourassa, following the initial work done by René Lévesque as minister of natural resources, in the early or mid-sixties. So, it is in this context that nuclear energy became an option. This context no longer exists.

A barrel of oil currently costs around $23. Instead of being at $90, as was anticipated 25 years ago, the price of a barrel of oil has gone down significantly. Why? Because during the 1970s and 1980s, huge efforts were made in almost all western countries to conserve energy. Our cars now use less gas than they used to. We now have much more energy efficient systems. Our homes are better protected from the cold.

The result of this is that demand for energy resources has dropped worldwide, in spite of the tremendous economic growth experienced after the crisis of the early 1980s. We now find ourselves in a situation where nuclear fission has been ruled out not only from an environmental and safety point of view, but also from an economic point of view.

It seems to me that Bill C-4 is sending out a very wrong message to the population and to industry in general in Canada and in Quebec, but also to the entire international community. As we are debating ratification of the Kyoto accord, the Canadian government is proposing to this Parliament that we relieve financial backers of their responsibility as far as nuclear development is concerned. This is totally contrary to common sense.

I would also remind hon. members that these choices were made, as I have already pointed out, in the wake of recessions, first of all the recession of 1974-75 and then particularly the major one of 1981-82. It must be kept in mind that the latter was far more serious than the one in 1974-75, and was in part a result of the rapid rise in prices due to the Iranian revolution. It created an awareness of the fact that the model of development on which we had based economic development ever since World War II was in crisis. It was a major crisis, but not strictly caused by oil prices. On the contrary, it was caused by a general dysfunction, that is successive government deficits, very heavy inflation, disputes between businesses and workers on how the gain in productivity would be shared. It is, therefore, a far more complex matter and has taken just about 15 years to get over.

Remember that throughout the 1980s, the unemployment rate was extremely high, not just in Canada and Quebec, but all over the western world. For the most part, the situation has improved since 1995. Quebec, like Canada, is experiencing considerable growth. Parliament must not therefore pass legislation that is not only a step backwards, but that is no longer relevant in terms of the economy, the environment or safety.

For this reason, we propose looking into developing other sources of energy that are much more promising both in the short term and the long term. For example, setting up certain types of wind energy would create considerable employment.

We must remember that the government, as I just explained, has spent tremendous amounts of money, not only on nuclear energy, but more importantly on the oil industry. Every Quebecker has paid $27,000 out of his or her own pocket to develop the oil industry in western Canada. I would not want the House to make a decision today that would lead to the same type of problem.

Given the context, I think we must adopt an approach with vision, we must learn from past mistakes, and look to the future. In the context of the debate on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, we must pursue the only position that is consistent: maintaining the legislation as is, and putting off the debate until after the debate on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol is over.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this afternoon to speak to the amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière. This amendment says, and I quote:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

I think this is very wise. People have mixed views about nuclear control regulations.

If I refer to the bill introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources, it seeks to amend subsection 46(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act by replacing it by the following, and I quote:

Where, after conducting a hearing, the Commission is satisfied that there is contamination referred to in subsection (1), the Commission may, in addition to filing a notice under subsection (2), order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

The enactment amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to vary the classes of persons that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may order to take measures to reduce the level of contamination of a place.

At first, there was no agreement as to who should be responsible for cleaning up. Public opinion is divided on the issue. As we will see later on, this is not the only problem; there is also the fact that the government does not think other forms of energy could be developed to replace nuclear energy, and I will get back to that later on in my speech.

As it is presently drafted, the legislation says that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may, and I quote:

—order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

Currently it says “any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place”, which is very broad.

This means that any person with an interest may be made to pay in case of a spill or any other kind of problem. A bank that loaned money to a plant could thus be sued and incur what would inevitably be very high costs should the land have to be decontaminated.

Already there are people saying “Wait a minute”. Banks cannot be allowed to shirk their obligations. For instance, a bank that sells a house with a hidden flaw has an obligation just as would any private citizen selling a house. It is the same here. People with a financial interest in a project would not have to face up to their obligations. I think this is an element worth thinking about and taking into account.

Already, public opinion is not very favourable. Right from the start the Bloc Quebecois has believed this amendment not to be appropriate.

The reason why I support the amendment aimed at postponing consideration of the bill for six months or ten years, or putting off indefinitely making decisions regarding the deregulation of the nuclear industry is simply that, on the one hand, nuclear energy comes with too many risks and, on the other, that other so-called renewable energies could be used.

At the international level, there are a number of countries that are no longer interested in nuclear energy. These states are turning to something safer, cleaner and cheaper.

I could mention the case of Germany, which just made the historic decision to gradually stop using nuclear energy. In so doing, Germany is following the example of many other countries that have also concluded that this type of energy is not good. These countries include the United States, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Austria and Sweden. It is rumoured that Canada is considering doing without nuclear energy.

As a consumer, as an ordinary citizen, I believe that Canada is thinking about doing without nuclear energy. However, the government wants to amend the legislation to make it more flexible, because otherwise no bank will want to invest in nuclear energy. This is fishy. This smells of privatization and of leaving this sector to foreign interests. I have no guarantee that these interests will act with caution, as I would with the government.

I want to get back to those countries that want to drop nuclear energy. The “Sortir du Nucléaire” network is a federation of close to 250 French associations that have been fighting for years against the use of nuclear energy. This network hopes that the example of Germany will make investors think, particularly certain large businesses and banks. The power to make decisions belongs to politicians, but they cannot ignore the public's determination to drop nuclear energy for safety reasons.

In western Europe, Finland, Great Britain, France and Switzerland, as I mentioned earlier, also expect to soon opt out of nuclear energy.

What could replace nuclear energy? The Bloc Quebecois has made proposals, including using wind energy. In Quebec alone, the wind industry could help create over 15,000 jobs. Wind energy could also be used elsewhere. All across Canada there are provinces where it is windy and where such jobs could be created. Even here in the House, where it is very warm, we could use wind energy.

Canada could sign the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That would be a step against nuclear energy.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to have a federal investment program in the wind energy industry because it could create at least 15,000 jobs in Quebec, as well as jobs in other provinces.

In my last few minutes, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a fundamental development. In New Brunswick, a Canadian commission has recommended against any investment in the Point Lepreau nuclear plant, saying it would be too expensive. There is no justification for investing $845 million in this operation. Ultimately, the very existence of the plant may have to be reconsidered. Private investors are not interested because they have no guarantee that the government will let them use the plant without assuming the liabilities.

My time is up, but I can tell you it is not easy to make a ten minute speech when it is so hot.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to contribute too much hot air to the environment here.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to indicate our very strong opposition to the legislation.

We join our Bloc Quebecois colleagues in opposing this bill.

Nuclear power is an extremely important issue for Canada given that it is our major power source but it is also the power source that poses a number of very serious threats in terms of the environment, both in terms of workers health and safety and in terms of security.

I want to put it clearly on the record that I strongly believe we should be phasing out the use of nuclear power in Canada sooner rather than later. I believe Canada could join with countries like Sweden, Germany and a number of others that have made the landmark decision to say that in the longer term, and I hope not too distant future, that they will have alternate sources of energy. We would then be able to say to the nuclear industry that it is, in many respects, a dinosaur that has no place in Canada.

Obviously we have to make sure we have proper transition programs in place to support and assist the workers and communities that will be affected by this decision, but at the end of the day I believe a very compelling case can be made that we should be phasing out the nuclear power industry in Canada at the earliest possible opportunity.

The purpose of the bill seems simple enough. It would amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to clarify who is liable in case of a nuclear accident. As the Minister of Natural Resources has explained already, under the current wording the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the authority to order the owner or occupant or any other person with a right to or an interest in it to take measures to reduce radioactive contamination.

However the proposed amendment replaces the words “person with a right or interest in” with the words “person who has the management and control” which would limit the scope of liability. We should certainly not be limiting the scope of liability in those circumstances.

The minister further said that the amendment served to clarify the risk for institutions lending to companies in the nuclear industry. What this really means is that banks can freely lend money to the nuclear industry without having to worry about any kind of liability. Once again, a gift to the big Canadian banks, which we know already bankroll that government party to the extent of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I am very proud to say that my party, the New Democratic Party, alone among all members in the House, is the only party that does not accept that kind of funding from the banks in Canada. We are a democratically financed party.

I think that, unfortunately, even the Bloc Quebecois decided, two or three years ago, to accept contributions from large businesses such as banks. I found that sad. I know that several Bloc members were opposed. Unfortunately, however, they were not successful. In future, there may be public financing. I support such financing, and I commend the Quebec government, the Parti québécois, which effectively said no to contributions from businesses and unions. I hope that, nationally, there will be public financing.

Banks can now invest in nuclear power plants without having to worry about any consequences like contaminated air, water and land. If we need any evidence of some of the concerns around nuclear contamination, all we have to do is look at some of the very grave concerns around the uranium mining industry in Canada.

My colleague from Saskatchewan is well aware of the horrors of the situation up near, I believe, Uranium City in northern Saskatchewan. We know all too well of the risks not only to communities and workers in those areas, but we know that the government has been absolutely and shamefully negligent in its responsibility to help clean up the toxic waste from these communities. In the case of nuclear waste, this is an issue that could last for literally hundreds of years.

The bottom line is that with nuclear power we still do not have any confirmed safe technology to deal with nuclear waste. That alone is reason enough to say no more.

The government and this legislation are telling banks to pony up all the money that the nuclear industry needs and they will be absolved of any serious risk. They do not have to worry about possible melt downs like what happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and elsewhere. They do not have to worry about seepage into the land that grows our food or into the water that we drink. It must be nice to make money without worrying about how this might affect other people or the environment.

Even without this amendment, the liability that banks and any other lending institution faces under the Nuclear Liability Act is a maximum of $75 million. Imagine the consequences of a serious nuclear accident, and under current legislation the maximum liability on the nuclear industry is $75 million. That is unbelievable when in fact the impact could run into billions of dollars, yet the nuclear industry gets off scot free.

We have seen the tragedy and the horror of the situation arising in the aftermath of the melt down in Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, in Belarus and elsewhere which took many lives and resulted in a huge increase in the number of congenital birth defects. The lives of each of those children suffering from a congenital birth defect are worth millions of dollars, yet under the bill the government will be limiting even further the liability of the nuclear industry.

Why is the government prepared to step backward as is being done in this case? Why are there only two parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québecois and the New Democratic Party, that are prepared to stand up and oppose this regressive and destructive legislation, legislation that will have an adverse impact on workers and on communities? I know the member for Fredericton deep in his soul must be asking the same question as to why his government is bringing this piece of regressive legislation before the House.

Considering the dangers and expenses associated with nuclear power, the only amendments that should be made should be to widen and expand the scope of liability for the nuclear industry, certainly not to narrow it as Bill C-4 would do.

The government has said that this legislation is only a piece of housekeeping. In fact, there are many serious issues that arise from the bill.

The bill makes it easier for banks to give loans to nuclear power plants because banks no longer have to worry about liability issues. The Minister of Natural Resources has said that the bill is not and should not be misconstrued as a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. This is frankly absurd. When banks finance virtually anything else, such as a house or a building, they take on a measure of liability. Why in this dangerous industry, an industry which has the capacity to create an accident which could have an absolutely catastrophic impact, are banks being let off the hook? How can this not be considered favourable treatment?

This Liberal government and, I am sorry to say, the Conservative government before it have long favoured the nuclear industry, giving it billions of dollars in subsidies. When we add up the subsidies to this dinosaur industry, the nuclear industry, we have to ask ourselves why Canadian taxpayers are prepared to put up with this.

I want to pay tribute to the various groups across the country, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, and individuals such as my former colleague Lynne McDonald, who has been working very hard, Gordon Edwards and others who have really been making a difference in trying to educate Canadians as to the destructive impact of this industry in Canadian society and elsewhere.

There have been massive accidents such as the horrendous ones in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the various “smaller” problems. Nuclear plants in Ontario and New Brunswick have not deterred the government from continuing to support this dying nuclear industry. In fact, the minister has made it clear that the amendment is designed to make it easier for the industry to gain capital and therefore to expand.

You are signalling me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only one minute left. I am prepared to speak for many more hours on the legislation. I am not sure if I would have the consent of the House to continue, but I would ask for that consent so I can continue to share with Canadians my concerns about this very destructive industry and this bill which is so regressive. I am prepared to continue certainly for the next couple of hours at least.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity on two occasions to speak to the bill formerly known as Bill C-57, which is now Bill C-4. This means that I was able to speak to this bill for more than 80 minutes. Now we must discuss the amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière to hoist this bill.

The last time I spoke to Bill C-4, I could not even finish because there were too many arguments in favour of its withdrawal and particularly in favour of a broad debate on the nuclear industry.

Today we have only ten minutes to speak to the amendment, and I must tell the House that this whole debate about the privatization of the nuclear industry could be postponed to a certain extent. We know that the purpose of this amendment proposed by the government is essentially to eliminate barriers to the privatization of the nuclear industry.

We have never had real debates on whether we should continue to invest in the nuclear industry and continue to try to fix, at an extravagant cost, nuclear generating stations that are in bad shape.

Privatization makes it easier to re-open nuclear plants that were quite rightly shut down. It also opens the door to the costly development of nuclear energy in Canada. I will digress for a minute. Atomic Energy Canada is for all intents and purposes a government entity. We can already see the emerging conflict of interest.

Obviously, we must look at reducing nuclear waste. Last year, we debated Bill C-27, regarding the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. We have compelling evidence that this waste may last for years, even thousands of years, and we do not know how to dispose of it properly. We do not know how to lessen the potential impact on the environment and human health.

Continued reliance on nuclear energy increases even further the risks of environmental accidents, not only those linked to nuclear waste, but also all sorts of other accidents that might occur. Cases in point are Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and others. We also have national and international security concerns due to potential terrorist acts as well as the use of nuclear reactors to make nuclear bombs.

Since 1997, when the Nuclear Safety and Control Act was drafted, section 46.3 of the act in some ways limited the possibility for businesses or financiers to invest in nuclear energy. People say it was a drafting mistake. However, neither during the debate nor in committee was that ever mentioned. It can be easily said—not claimed, but said—that at the time the government was trying to prevent the private sector from investing in a major way, to promote nuclear energy. At that time, there was no debate either on whether or not we should continue to invest in nuclear energy, much less about private investment.

In the world we live in in 2002, we realize that an increasing number of countries are getting out of nuclear energy. The majority of countries in western Europe that use nuclear energy, except for France, have decided to stop doing so mainly because of the lack of solutions for disposing of spent fuel containing 1% of plutonium; this is true too of states relying heavily on nuclear energy such as Belgium where the percentage is 50% and Germany where it is 30%.

Promoters of nuclear energy often say that this form of energy is the solution to the greenhouse gas issue. We know that 30 per cent of Germany's energy used to come from the nuclear industry. Today, by terminating its nuclear program and its investments in the nuclear sector, Germany will have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. This is a high figure, considering that Germany will have been able to do this even without 30 per cent of the energy it used to get from the nuclear sector.

It is totally false to say that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is closely linked to the use of nuclear energy. As I have already said, nuclear energy brings its own long-term and very long-term problems. I will give a few examples.

Carbon 14 is a radioelement which can remain radioactive for as long as 5,500 years. Mr. Speaker, you will no longer be there to verify that carbon 14 is no longer radioactive. I can even tell you that you will no longer be there to see those thorium 232 elements which can remain radioactive for 14 billion years.

In 1997, no attention was given to whether or not to continue with nuclear energy. Now there is, but obviously they had refused to allow the private sector to invest in nuclear energy. Today, people are increasingly withdrawing from this sector. There were some pressures at that time, mainly from members of the public who refused to allow the transportation of plutonium, of MOX, through their communities. In addition, in Canada, the Seaborn report also pointed out the vigorous opposition of the general population to the burial of radioactive waste. If the population is opposed to the burial of nuclear waste, we should not support the passage of legislation promoting the financing and development of nuclear plants in Canada. These plants would produce even more nuclear waste, which could be expected to generate even more opposition among the public.

In light of what is happening today in all European countries, Canada should finally take a stand, once and for all, on the development of nuclear energy. We have learned recently that even the Swiss, much of whose electricity needs are met by nuclear plants, are going to make a decision on their nuclear program. Right now, Switzerland is the third most nuclear energy dependent country in the world, after Lithuania and France, with 40% of its electricity coming from nuclear plants. The Swiss will soon have a referendum to decide whether to maintain the existing moratorium or phase out nuclear energy by gradually closing down their five nuclear plants by 2014.

Today, we have before us a motion that this bill be postponed indefinitely, and that emphasis be placed on priority action. We should hold a comprehensive debate and consult the general public and organizations promoting renewable energies.

We realize more and more that renewable energies are here to stay. This industry creates thousands of jobs. For the same amount of energy production, it creates many more jobs than the nuclear industry. Wind energy can create many more jobs.

Renewable energies tap resources that are almost indefinitely renewable, like the sun, wind, water and the biomass, as well as energy sources from the depths of the earth.

To conclude, I urge the government to withdraw this bill and to hold a comprehensive debate on the future of nuclear energy in Canada and on the investment we must make in renewable energies.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

It is great to see that my Liberal colleagues are listening. I am very pleased. Congratulations and thank you.

According to the experts, Quebec's wind energy potential, concentrated in the Gaspé Peninsula and the North Shore, ranges from 4,000 to 6,000 megawatts-hour, which is about 60% of the total for Canada.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois has always said that environment is important. We have caused enough damage to the environment; we must take immediate measures to protect the environment for future generations, for our children, our children's children and also for the present generations. Something has to be done; we have to go the way of renewable energy. Fossil fuels and nuclear energy must be abandoned.

It would be important to create industries manufacturing wind turbine components. They have a huge potential to make Canada one of the three best wind energy producers in the world. At present, this government is stubbornly staying the course of nuclear energy.

Bill C-4, introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources, is more than an administrative amendment. It will bring about the further development of nuclear energy. This must stop.

The legislation allows for additional funding to develop nuclear energy. Enough is enough. The government must stop. I am asking it to withdraw Bill C-4. This legislation does not address the nuclear problem. It only allows its development.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the hazards associated with nuclear energy require tighter regulations than for any other type of energy.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that if financial backers find this too risky an investment, there is no reason for society to react differently.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the government should focus its efforts on developing clean energy such as wind power.

Where energy is concerned, the Bloc Quebecois demands, first and foremost, ratification of Kyoto, and I will vote for it.

I wish to move an amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-4. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence”.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to Bill C-4, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Laval Centre, for her clear-sighted and impressive speech. It opens doors for the debate we will now have on Bill C-4.

I am very happy to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-4 today. As you know, nuclear energy is a very important issue for me. For more than a month, two years ago, I saw how the Canadian nuclear energy industry laughed at the citizens from the Saguenay region in the matter of MOX imports.

You all know about the debate we had on importing MOX from the Soviet Union and how people in my area were opposed to the idea of airplanes transporting containers of that product over their heads. We won our case.

Research scientists in the industry work behind closed doors, ignore the population, paint a bright picture of the industry and think that the public cannot and should not understand the situation, because people do not have the required training to do so.

One does not need to be an expert to understand that the nuclear industry creates radioactive waste that will last for thousands of years and that it is not a green energy like wind or solar energy, but rather a form of energy the appropriateness of which should be reviewed.

I can only approach this issue with a very critical mind. It is for this reason and for many others that I am so interested in taking part in this debate on Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

As it now stands, the act says that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may, and I quote “--order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in the affected land or place [to] take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”. That is what the current act says: “take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

The phrase “any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place” is quite broad. It means that any person with an interest may be made to pay in case of a spill or any other kind of problem. This means everybody, including lenders. That is what the current act says.

A bank that loaned money to a plant could thus be sued and incur what would inevitably be very high costs. It is mainly to spare third parties, like banks and lending institutions, especially those that are able to finance the nuclear industry, that the bill was introduce. The purpose of the bill is to replace “any other person with right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination” by “any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

This bill frees all third parties and lenders who finance nuclear energy, from any responsibility. What is being done through this bill is serious, all the more so when one thinks about all the doors that it will open for nuclear energy.

If the bill is passed, these legal entities would no longer have to clean up the sites contaminated by nuclear waste or the byproducts of nuclear energy exploitation.

It is not just a simple administrative amendment, as the minister would have us believe. There is a lot involved in this bill.

In fact, as the minister indicated in his press release, “Companies that own and operate nuclear facilities must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise”. This is where I have a problem.

Two elements caught my eye when I read this document, namely “finance their needs” and “environmentally-sound”.

It is a well-known fact that the current government, led in that by the Prime Minister, has always considered nuclear energy as an incredible economic development tool. Moreover, in terms of respecting its Kyoto commitments, the government is very favourable to this kind of energy

But, as we know, nuclear energy is not clean. It produces so much radioactive waste that we do not know what to do with it anymore. Yet, the Canadian government thinks differently, despite all that we know and the current situation. This is very serious.

Indeed, it says on the Internet site of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and I quote, “Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, and economical energy source that has many benefits, particularly in the areas of environment... It does not contribute to air pollution, global warming or acid rain”.

What a wonderfully incomplete propaganda tool. What Atomic Energy of Canada does not say is that we are stuck with over 20,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in Canada. This is serious. Do members know how much it would cost to get rid of it? It would cost over $13 billion. This waste has a half-life of 24,000 years—and this will answer the question of the hon. member for Laval Centre—and they want to bury it deep in the Canadian Shield. As we know, three quarters of the Canadian Shield is located in Quebec.

They want Quebec to become a dumping ground for the waste of others. It is Canada that has nuclear plants. It is Canada that created these 20,000 tonnes of nuclear waste currently stored on the plants' sites.

This government agency is really not telling the whole truth to the public and it would have us believe this incomplete and misleading information.

Furthermore—