Bill C-5 (Historical)

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident

This enactment establishes a liability regime applicable in the event of a nuclear incident that makes operators of nuclear installations absolutely and exclusively liable for damages up to a maximum of $650 million. Operators are required to hold financial security in respect of their liability. This amount will be reviewed regularly and may be increased by regulation. The enactment also provides for the establishment, in certain circumstances, of an administrative tribunal to hear and decide claims. Finally, this enactment repeals the Nuclear Liability Act and makes consequential amendments.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to present Bill C-5, the nuclear liability and compensation act. This legislation will replace the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act.

The purpose of this bill is to update the insurance framework that governs the nuclear industry and protects the interests of Canadians. This is an area in which we as a federal government have a responsibility to take action. The existing insurance framework was introduced in the 1970s and has become outdated in the last 30 years.

Today, I would like to explain a bit more about our role in this area, the principles of the insurance framework, and the modernizations this bill proposes.

The history of nuclear energy in Canada goes back some 75 years. For the past 30 years, nuclear power has been an important part of Canada's energy mix. Currently, there are 22 nuclear reactors in Canada providing over 15% of our electricity needs. These reactors are located in three provinces: Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The operators of these reactors are different in each province. In Ontario, Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power are the operators. In New Brunswick, it is New Brunswick Power. In Quebec, it is Hydro-Québec, which has safely managed its nuclear program for more than 30 years.

Decisions on the appropriate role, if any, that nuclear energy plays are decisions made by individual provinces. As I have said before, at the end of the day it will be up to each and every province to decide on its own energy mix, but we will be there to support them if they believe nuclear power should be part of their energy mix.

The responsibility of providing an insurance framework for the nuclear industry falls under federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada has a duty to assume responsibility in this area. I am pleased to say that we are doing just that.

Canada addressed this responsibility with the enactment of the Nuclear Liability Act of 1976. This legislation established a comprehensive insurance framework for injury and damage that would arise in the very unlikely event of an incident. It is the framework in existence today. Both this earlier legislation and Bill C-5, now before the House, apply to nuclear power plants, nuclear research reactors, fuel fabrication facilities and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

The framework established under the legislation of 1976 is based on the principles of absolute and exclusive liability of the operator, mandatory insurance, and limitations in time and amount. These principles are common to the nuclear legislation in most other countries such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. These principles are just as relevant today as they were when the original act was introduced.

Let me explain these principles in more detail.

Absolute liability means there is no question as to who would be at fault in the unlikely event of an accident. There is no need to prove that an operator was at fault in an accident, only that injuries and damages were caused by the accident.

As well, the legislation holds the operator of the facility to be exclusively liable for civil damages. In other words, no other business, organization, supplier or contractor can be sued for these damages.

This has two advantages. First, it makes it very easy for those who would make a claim for damage. They know who is liable. They do not need to prove fault or negligence. The other advantage is that exclusive liability allows the insurance industry to direct all of its insurance capacity to the operators.

The principle of mandatory insurance is straightforward. All nuclear operators must carry a prescribed amount of liability insurance in order to be licensed to operate its facility. This is a widely accepted practice across the world in countries generating nuclear energy.

The Canadian regime also places limitations on liability in both time and amount. In terms of the amount, the maximum that is payable under the current 30 year old legislation is $75 million. As well, injury and damages claims must be made within 10 years of an incident.

These underlying principles of Canada's existing nuclear insurance framework both protects the interests of Canadians, ensuring that they are covered in the unlikely event of a nuclear incident, and provides the certainty and stability that allows the nuclear sector to develop.

The insurance framework makes it easier for claimants and guarantees that funds are available to provide compensation.

Although there have been no major claims under the act, it has served as an important safety net for Canadians. At the same time, it has provided the stability and security needed to support the continued development of Canada's nuclear power industry.

Although the basic principles underlying the existing legislation and insurance framework remain valid, the act is over 30 years old. It needs updating to keep pace with international norms and standards.

The bill is intended to strengthen and modernize Canada's nuclear insurance framework through an all-encompassing package of amendments. It would put Canada in line with the internationally accepted compensation levels and it would clarify definitions for compensation: what is covered and the process for claiming compensation.

The bill is a culmination of many years of consultation involving extensive discussions with major stakeholders, including nuclear utilities, the governments of nuclear power generating provinces and the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada. They wanted to be consulted and they have been.

Canada's nuclear compensation and liability legislation should be consistent with international nuclear liability regimes. This requirement goes beyond financial issues related to liability and compensation. It extends to definitions of what constitutes a “nuclear incident” and what is a “compensable damage”, and so on.

Consistency brings Canada a broader national benefit. It makes it possible for us to subscribe to international conventions we do not already belong to should we wish to subscribe in the future. There are two international conventions that establish compensation limits: the Paris-Brussels regime and the Vienna Convention.

In the case of the Paris-Brussels regime, the maximum compensation is approximately $500 million Canadian, available through a three tier combination of operator, public and member state funds.

The Vienna Convention sets the minimum liability limit at approximately $500 million Canadian. The operator's liability can be set at $250 million by national legislation, provided public funds make up the difference to $500 million.

Although Canada is not a party to either of these conventions, it has participated in them in order to monitor international third party liability trends and other issues of interest, such as definitions of nuclear incidents and the extension of time limits for death and injury claims. It encourages investment in Canada. It also levels the playing field for Canadian nuclear companies interested in contracts abroad. These companies may be inhibited from bidding because of uncertainty about liability and compensation issues.

Consistency is important for a more fundamental reason. It demonstrates Canadian solidarity with other nations on issues of safety and liability. And, as a major user and exporter of nuclear power technology, Canada must uphold its reputation for uncompromising excellence, responsibility and accountability.

The key change proposed in Bill C-5 is an increase in the amount of the operator's liability from $75 million to $650 million. The current limit of $75 million is outdated and unrealistically low. Changing this limit balances the duty for operators to provide compensation without burdening them with huge costs for unrealistic insurance amounts. This increase would put Canada on par with most western nuclear countries.

It is important also that what is proposed in this bill is consistent with international conventions, not only on financial issues but also in regard to definitions of what constitutes an incident, what qualifies for compensation and so on. These enhancements would establish a level playing field for Canadian nuclear companies that will welcome the certainty of operating in a country that acknowledges international conventions.

Both the current insurance framework and Bill C-5 contain limitation periods restricting the time period for making claims. Under the current act, claims must be made within 10 years of an incident. However, since we know today that this is not adequate, the limitation period has been extended under Bill C-5 to 30 years for personal injury claims.

Both the current legislation and Bill C-5 provide for an administrative process to replace the courts in the adjudication of claims arising from a large accident.

The new legislation clarifies the arrangements for a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear claims. The new claims process would ensure that claims are handled equitably and efficiently.

In developing this legislation, we needed to be fair to all stakeholders and to find the right measures to protect the public interest. I firmly believe that the proposed legislation fully meets this challenge.

We have consulted with nuclear operators, suppliers, insurers and provinces with nuclear installations and they are supportive of the changes I have described. It is our intent to continue this practice and that stakeholders with expertise are consulted as the necessary regulations are drafted.

I know that some nuclear operators may be concerned about the cost implications or higher insurance premiums but they also recognize that they have been sheltered from these costs for some time. Suppliers welcome the changes as they provide more certainty for the industry. Nuclear insurers appreciate the clarity provided in the new legislation and the resolution of some long-standing concerns.

Provinces with facilities have been supportive of the proposed revisions to the current legislation. Municipalities that host nuclear facilities have been advocating for revisions for some time. They are supportive of the increased levels of the operator liability and improved approaches to compensation.

Parliamentarians have also spoken on this issue. In 2001, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources recommended that the government increase the mandatory operator liability limit from $75 million to $600 million.

In short, Bill C-5 was not developed in isolation.

The evolution of policy was guided by consultations with key stakeholders over the years and by experience gained in other countries.

I will now broaden my remarks and talk about the context within which I put forward the proposed legislation. As I said earlier, nuclear energy in Canada has a long history that goes back some 75 years. I should note that never in the history of Canada have we had a significant nuclear incident. We are a leader in peaceful development of this technology.

To highlight one of the great Canadian success stories, Canada is a leader in the production of radioisotopes, an element produced by nuclear reactions. Isotopes have been put to dozens of uses that have improved agriculture and made industry more efficient. Their most significant applications, however, have been in medicine where they have performed wonders in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease.

It is a little known fact that Canada supplies 50% of the world's reactor-produced radioisotopes for nuclear medicine and is used for the treatment of cancer and in over 12 million diagnostic tests each and every year. I believe the medical isotopes produced here in Canada are used in some 76,000 medical procedures each day.

The most widely used radioisotope is produced at AECL's Chalk River laboratory and prepared at MDS Nordion's facility in Ottawa. The short half life of this radioisotope requires efficient transportation around the world. Shipments are on airplanes within 24 hours of the material coming out of the reactor. Globally, an estimated 76,000 people benefit from these diagnostic procedures each day.

The improvements provided by Bill C-5 are now necessary for Canada to remain a leading player in the nuclear industry.

Much of our work in the nuclear industry has been to produce electricity, electricity to provide home comforts, to drive industry and to promote jobs across the country. Nuclear electricity has contributed to a healthy environment and affordable clean energy.

Purely from an environmental point of view, one has to consider nuclear power as a clean, greenhouse gas emission-free technology. Our government recognizes that Canada needs this type of clean energy. We need to encourage the development of all types of clean energy in Canada.

I believe that as an emerging energy superpower, Canada must become a clean energy superpower.

Under our eco-action plan, we are contributing to the development of clean energy technologies and practices that will provide cleaner air, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases and sustaining both our environment and economic competitiveness.

These cleaner sources involve hydroelectric power, wind, solar, tidal, biomass and other forms of renewable energy. I see nuclear power as part of that clean energy mix that will advance Canada as a clean energy superpower.

However, in order for Canada to advance in clean energy production, we need the certainty provided by the appropriate and up to date nuclear reliability framework to protect Canadians and provide stability to this important industry.

Canada's nuclear safety record is second to none in the world. Nuclear power is an important part of Canada's diversified energy mix. Now we need to update and modernize our nuclear insurance framework to reflect international norms and continue to provide the protection Canadians deserve. For this reason, I would ask all members to support this legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister's comments on this nuclear limited liability program, for which I think many Canadians would have some concern.

When we look at nuclear accidents that have happened around the world, let us call it what it is. Nuclear reactors do break down. It could be human error or it could be mechanical failure. We all would like to believe and hope they would never happen but, as we know, accidents are not predictable and they do in fact happen. We can ask the residents of Chernobyl if they expected it the day before their accident.

The figures promoted by the government may not be sufficient to allow full compensation of the potential costs of such an accident. If we look at where the nuclear plants in Canada are located, many of them are near large population centres. Many of them are very close to vast drinking water supplies for tens of millions of Canadians and Americans.

The compensation package is based upon historical evidence as to what it costs to actually clean up a site because the waste is so hazardous. It is the most hazardous waste material we know of on the planet. It is not simply taking a broom and sweeping it up. This is an extensive and expensive cleanup.

First, with regard to the liability limits he has prescribed, what happens if claims exceed those liability limits? What happens if there are claims in excess of what the government has laid down? Who picks up the tab? It is a fair question to put to the minister. Is it the public coffers that pick it up? He has obviously limited the liability in this bill regarding the suppliers who may have supplied some materials that in fact caused the accident. This is a confusing piece.

Second, and perhaps an equally important point, his claims of the nuclear industry being able to provide so-called clean power excludes the very notion of what nuclear waste is. He at one point spoke of being willing to take the nuclear waste from Canada's reactors into his riding. He was quoted as saying that it would only fill a couple of gymnasiums. That makes it sound as if it is not much, that it is not dangerous and that it does not last forever.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry but the hon. member has gone on for a couple of minutes now and we need to give others a chance.

The hon. minister.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. There are proper storage facilities. Let us bring this debate back to a factual basis and that is what we are purporting to do. We should take the politics out of something that is this important.

As far as the liability limit today, the act is 30 years old. The current amount is $75 million. The international standards and the Paris-Brussels regime has a maximum compensation of $500 million. It is $500 million minimum in the Vienna convention. We are purporting to set the minimum at $650 million. Arguably, this is the adequate amount. We will continue to pursue this.

As far as the volume of nuclear waste is concerned, that is another issue that is being dealt with. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization was set up by the previous government. It is an independent body with some leading scientists, who made a recommendation to government, and we have adopted that recommendation. It will begin a very lengthy consultation process on the storage of nuclear waste. Right now all of this is regulated.

Just to bring it back full circle, safety is fundamentally the single most important aspect of anything to do with nuclear energy, not to mention that it touches all our lives with the use of medical isotopes. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which regulates the industry, does an outstanding job. It monitors the most extensive standards of any country in the world to ensure the safety of all Canadians. We should support it for that effort.

This amount of $650 million is above both the Paris-Brussels convention and the Vienna convention.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a very important and timely resolution in terms of an issue that has been going on for some time. We all recognize that $75 million may not be enough.

The House will know that the first large commercial nuclear reactor is located in my riding of Pickering--Scarborough East. It employs well over 2,000 employees of the Power Workers' Union, who live in that community. We would like to believe that the reactor is not only safe but that regulations and legislation are following to make these things, to a greater degree, far more important so that our constituents and certainly Canadians in my province will benefit as a result of lower emissions in terms of nauseous gases and the burning of fossil fuels.

I would like to ask the minister if he envisions a greater role for the mayors of host towns such as Durham and Clarington in Ontario. Will mayors such as my great mayor David Ryan, and of course the mayor for the Bruce Peninsula, have a much more meaningful role to play in terms of the deliberations of this liability since the host communities tend to take a significant amount of the responsibility for nuclear waste as well as the responsibility for the potential for liability, which we hope does not happen?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to talk to the Power Workers' Union. As the member has expressed, this is a great organization and it should be commended for its leadership and its consultations, which have been going on for some time.

A Senate committee reported back to this House in 2001 or 2002 that this had to be done. There have been ongoing broad consultations. I do not have the specific information with respect to those mayors, but officials in my department would be happy to entertain a discussion with each and every one of them to ensure that their views are on the record. We would endeavour to proactively do that through the officials in my department as this bill winds its way through the parliamentary process. I will follow up to ensure that happens.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question for the minister as he may have missed it the first time.

It is possible that there will be more than $650 million involved with respect to claimants considering where these nuclear plants are actually located and the number of people who would be affected by a major nuclear disaster such as a meltdown or other such thing. I know the minister has based this amount on others, but we do know of countries that have gone into the billions of dollars in terms of setting their cap. Why limit the liability? If the liability is limited to this point, clearly it is an investment certainty, who would pay the tab beyond that? Will it fall to the public sector? Would Canadians, who are in the process of suing for some compensation, be left out in the cold?

It is a very straightforward question, and I would appreciate an answer.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

First, Mr. Speaker, the member said that some countries set their caps in the billions. This is not a cap. The $650 million is the minimum that would be required. It is important to set the record straight.

In the unlikely event that something would far exceed this, there actually is a report tabled in Parliament which explains this in great detail, not that I would be able to do that in a few minutes in the House but he would obviously be welcome to access that. That would precisely answer his question in the event that the resulting incident was over $650 million.

This is the correct amount. All the consultations with all the sectors and international standards, as I said, today are $75 million. We have to set a realistic amount. As I said, the other international conventions are at $500 million. This is at $650 million. This is the correct amount and I think we should again keep this based on the facts before us and listen to the experts in this area. That is exactly what we have done. This is not an issue to be politicized.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5. I want to thank the minister for tabling the bill and I also want to take this opportunity to thank department officials for providing me with an informative and educational briefing session yesterday afternoon.

As the minister extensively outlined, the bill is a housecleaning bill which updates the 1976 act and reviews the liability limit that was set in that act. He also did talk about the fact that it is a culmination of many years of discussions and consultations. In fact, I am aware that the Senate tabled a committee report a few years ago that recommended adjusting that limit. So this is a very important bill and I will be recommending to my caucus and my leader that we support it and send it to committee. In committee we will be doing our job as official opposition listening to stakeholders and experts, and we will review the bill in detail.

Since I am given the opportunity today to speak on this bill I want to discuss the importance and the significance of the energy file to our country. Energy is an important dimension of the triple E triangle. The triple E triangle is made up of energy, environment and the economy. Energy relies and has an impact on the environment. The economy depends on energy and this ongoing circle or triangle is very important and significant to the future and success of our country.

Unfortunately so far, the Conservatives have presented no national energy strategy. They have outlined no vision and have not acted. I want to take this opportunity today to call on the Conservatives to put some energy into their energy plan and produce real action and an outline for Canadians of what they plan on doing for this sector.

The Prime Minister always likes to talk about how Canada is an energy superpower, but he has yet to outline for members of this House and for Canadians what he means by that and what he plans on doing with that power. I agree with him that Canada is rich in natural resources. Canada is rich in skills and talent. Canada is a major producer of energy to the world, but what are we doing about that? We need real action and a real plan.

I want to take this opportunity to highlight an example that I would call on the Prime Minister to follow. The Ontario Liberal government under the premiership of Dalton McGuinty has just outlined a 20 year energy plan to set a strategy for the Province of Ontario for the electricity production system. The plan talks about conservation, renewable energy, nuclear and natural gas, power production, and this is a really important milestone in the history of the Province of Ontario. Obviously this was overdue after the eight years of mismanagement by the Conservative government in Ontario.

I would like to call on the Minister of Natural Resources and the Prime Minister to review this plan and to follow the lead that was set by Premier Dalton McGuinty in outlining a 20 year plan for energy supply needs.

Energy supply, energy suppliers, economists and industry talk about the need for energy predictability, and so far we are lacking that at the national level. We need to talk about conservation, about renewable energy plans, new technology, environmental consideration, and about our short term, medium term and long term goals.

My Liberal leader has already taken a leadership role on that and he has outlined various plans to address these concerns. My leader has talked about his carbon budget to address our environmental need for meeting the most important challenge that our planet is facing, climate change. We cannot sustain the rise of greenhouse gas emissions and we must put in a plan to deal with this increase.

My leader has clearly and strongly outlined what we could do about confronting this challenge. He set an ambitious target of 12,000 megawatts of renewable power, almost 10% of our total electrical power. He has outlined a vision of how to get there and that we must get there by 2015. We talk about energy conservation and working with industries and Canadians on how to achieve those goals.

Obviously nuclear energy is an important component and an important source of electricity as we face the rise in increasing needs. Greenhouse gas emissions are garnering greater attention than before. This deserves more debate and thoughtful discussion.

The Minister of Natural Resources said earlier this year that we are a nation of energy consumers and we must be prepared to have an open discussion about nuclear power. I could not agree with the minister more, but I am still waiting for the open discussion that he talked about. I am still waiting to receive an invitation to those discussions. I am hearing from stakeholders and Canadians in general that there is a great concern about the increased secrecy and lack of accountability when it comes to nuclear energy in particular.

It was reported in 2006 that the Prime Minister had been engaged in discussions in the global nuclear energy partnership initiative. It has been more than a year and we have yet to receive any information about what the Prime Minister plans to do, what the Prime Minister has committed Canada to doing and what the Prime Minister has in mind.

There is an increased shroud of secrecy, lack of accountability and an avoidance of openness. There are many unanswered questions. This initiative brings forward many issues to which Canadians want answers, for example, on waste disposal and the production of nuclear power. There are many unanswered questions. The government which claims to be a champion of accountability and openness appears to be avoiding this discussion. It does not want to reveal any information.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs did not want to answer questions earlier this month about his discussions with our international partners. It appears as though this discussion has become too radioactive for the Conservatives. I am not clear as to why. Even though they wanted to talk about it initially, all of a sudden it is a matter of secrecy and darkness.

We in the Liberal Party want to shed light on these discussions. We want to be involved in the discussions. We want all Canadians to be involved in the discussions. We call on the minister and the Prime Minister to open up the discussions and invite thoughtful debate.

I understand that the Conservatives do not appear to be that energetic about this discussion. I understand there is no political excitement in this topic, but it is very important for Canadians. We as elected officials must play our roles and accept our responsibility toward Canadians by engaging in debate. It is incredibly important for the well-being of our country economically, environmentally and socially.

I call on the minister and the Prime Minister to show leadership and to heed the calls of economists, engineers, environmentalists, other stakeholders and Canadians in general to follow the lead of the Liberal Party leader and the Ontario Liberal premier and articulate a national energy strategy that can set the tone for the next few years. This would create predictability for the industry and energy producers. It would respond to the needs of Canadians and put them at ease with regard to the many unanswered questions.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite challenged us to show leadership on the energy file and on this file in particular. That is what we have done. That is why we are here this morning. That is why this bill is important enough that it is at the lead of our legislative agenda.

The member opposite said that the Liberals would like to do something on this. They had a report for over five years that encouraged them to do exactly what we are doing, which is to raise the liability limit under the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. We are doing that. The Liberals did nothing.

While the member was speaking, I noticed he was extremely vague about the position that he is going to be taking on this issue. Could the member tell us if the Liberals are going to be supporting the bill or opposing it, or has the Liberal leadership confusion over there resulted in their not knowing what position they are going to be taking at this point?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure what the member's question indicates about his listening capacity, but the first thing I said in my speech is that we will support sending this bill to committee and that we will perform our duty as the official opposition in listening to stakeholders, in listening to experts and in having discussions with our colleagues in the House and in committee and then perhaps producing amendments.

In the meantime, I want to stress the fact that we have been very clear and we have taken leadership on this issue. The member himself and the Minister of Natural Resources know that this bill was started under the previous Liberal government. The minister said in his speech that this was a combination of discussions that took place over a few years.

I am glad this bill has come to fruition, and we will be performing our role as the official opposition.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is treating this issue with great vigour and dedication. He brings a very fresh perspective to the area as critic for natural resources. Ostensibly, issues of energy will flourish over the next few days, certainly, with the cost of energy as we head into a colder period of time.

During the deliberations, will the hon. member be able to provide direction to the government, considering what has happened south of the border in the United States? In California, a relatively depopulated area, we see that the forest fires there have accounted for well in excess of $1 billion in liability. Considering the cost of damage and that a number of our reactors find themselves in populated areas, I am wondering if the hon. member would be able to provide at least some direction to both the committee and to the House, should this bill be referred to the committee, as to whether or not that amount itself would be sufficient given the current realities in market valuations.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his ongoing dedication to his riding and to his constituents.

I know that in his riding there is a nuclear power generation plant. I can assure him that I will be consulting with him and other stakeholders in his riding about the future of this bill and the direction it will be taking. From what I understand so far, the minister has outlined that this comes up to international standards. It certainly is a significant improvement from the previous one. The information that I have so far leads me to believe that it is close to the international standards. I am certainly keen to listen to the ideas and the advice of expert witnesses in considering the future of this bill.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague has such enthusiasm for a bill I am not entirely sure he has read.

When the question was put to the minister in terms of what happens to liability claims that go beyond the cap of $650 million, the minister replied that there is some legislation in front of the House which means that, just so everybody is clear and we understand, if the claims go beyond the liability the provider is meant to hold, then a committee is set up by this place and the committee would designate how much money the public coffers of Canada would dole out to the actual victims of a nuclear reactor disaster.

If the public in this case were to pick up the cost of any unforeseen accidents, is that a good scenario in terms of the public purse?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the NDP is that it lacks pragmatism. The NDP has absolutely no idea how the world operates. The NDP can live in utopia and can pretend that it is defending the interests of Canadians but all it is really doing is living in a fantasy world.

The reality is there has to be a balance between what could happen and what should happen. If we did not set any liability, nobody would ever produce nuclear energy in our country.

We have to make assumptions on what is the most foreseeable unlikely possibility and make calculations based on that. What we do though is leave room so that in the case of a catastrophic failure there is some mechanism to deal with it. We cannot make assumptions on a daily basis under the worst case scenario that is most unlikely to happen and end up bankrupting the energy sector and the industries.

That is my response to the hon. member's question.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is very intriguing, Mr. Speaker. I am fascinated by the member's response because he is talking about worst case scenarios. We are talking about nuclear disaster. That is a worst case scenario. That is why we are talking about insurance and liability, because Canadians need to have that assurance in case there is an accident.

Nuclear energy has benefits but there are also concerns. One of them is waste and another one is accidents.

In the scenario that there is an accident, the bill right now has a limit to what the nuclear provider will carry in terms of liability. Beyond that limit, which is possible in terms of claims, especially considering where these reactors are based, their proximity to a massive amount of drinking water for a huge number of people, the public purse is likely to pick up the rest of the tab. Is he comfortable with that scenario, yes or no?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am never comfortable when we talk about nuclear accidents and this bill is not intended to talk about that.

I want to ask the member, what did he do in 1976 when the liability act set the amount at $75 million? Did members of the NDP support it at $75 million? If the NDP felt that $75 million was unacceptable, why did those members not raise the issue before? Why have they been silent on this issue for years?

The NDP can do nothing about it. All those members do is exploit the angst and feelings of frustration, and fearmonger, but they are unable to present practical solutions. They are unable to deal with the real life situations for Canadians.

I commend the hon. member for his ability to inflame emotions, but as far I am concerned, I am here to do my job. I am here to protect the interests of Canadians. I am here to work with my colleagues in the House of Commons. I will do what is best for Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to get in the way of my colleagues from the Liberals and NDP disagreeing, but I want to ask my colleague across the way a question.

We are talking about liability and risk management and all of those sorts of things. Is he aware and could I get his comments on the fact that in 2003 NRCan and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission contracted an independent firm to study an off-site impact of worst case scenario, design based accidents on two sites, Quebec's Gentilly-2 and Ontario's Darlington plant? That study said that the worst case scenario accident could range from a cost of $1 million to $100 million depending on the time period for the controlled release of radioactive material and so on. Based on that study we do seem to be within the bounds of the limits that are proposed under this bill. Could the member comment on that?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what the member is saying. I also want to add that this amount reflects those studies and also reflects international standards and what other countries have been doing for the last few years. It reflects the Senate committee report that was tabled two years ago. I agree with his sentiment and I believe that this amount is reasonable in this day and age.

Obviously I am very interested in hearing from witnesses and experts at committee, but at this point I am willing to recommend that we send the bill to committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this important government bill, specifically, Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

We recall that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources during the previous session of Parliament and had to be introduced in this House again after prorogation. It was quickly reinstated and has now been assigned the number 5, which says a lot about this government's priorities.

I would first like to give an outline of the bill and briefly put it into context. Like many environmental stakeholders, the Bloc Québécois has noted a renewed interest in nuclear energy, across Canada and around the world. In Canada, we have been hearing a lot about it since the current Conservative government was elected. A number of statements by the Minister of Natural Resources, who is one of its main proponents, clearly illustrate his government's renewed interest in the nuclear sector—at least, that was the case until very recently.

According to the newspapers, it will now be harder for the Minister of Natural Resources to promote nuclear energy. Le Droit reports that ministers will now have to tread lightly when promoting nuclear energy because Quebeckers and Canadians are particularly concerned about this controversial subject. It may therefore not be in the government's interest to hold a public debate on the issue just now.

The minister seems to have forgotten that nuclear energy is not, as he claims, clean energy. Radioactive waste is still a big, expensive problem. After 40 years, Canada still does not have a solution. That is why, when it comes to nuclear energy, the Bloc Québécois is calling for strict, effective control at every stage of the process, from extraction and transportation to the generation of heat and electricity.

For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle underlying this bill concerning operator liability in the event of a nuclear incident. Nevertheless, it is deplorable that the Conservative government has failed to respond to recent reports, such as the one last June about burial of nuclear waste, by holding Canada-wide consultations on nuclear power.

The government has decided to promote nuclear energy without holding a debate even though there is no consensus at all on the issue. In fact, environmental groups are very critical of nuclear energy. The Bloc Québécois refuses to make compromises when it comes to the safety of Quebeckers. We must never forget what happened at Chernobyl in Ukraine and at Three Mile Island in the United States, where the fallout from nuclear incidents was extremely serious. We must do everything in our power to prevent such incidents.

I would like to reiterate the goals of Bill C-5, which, and I quote, “establishes a liability regime applicable in the event of a nuclear incident that makes operators of nuclear installations absolutely and exclusively liable for damages up to a maximum of $650 million.”

Bill C-5 also seeks to amend and update the Nuclear Liability Act. It also replaces the power to create a nuclear damage claims commission with the power to create a nuclear claims tribunal.

In Canada, the Nuclear Liability Act, which came into force in 1976, assigns liability for nuclear damage to the operators of nuclear installations. The maximum coverage under the law is $75 million. Part II of the act enables the governor in council to create a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission, which examines the claims for compensation in cases where the federal government is of the opinion that the cost of damages caused by a nuclear incident could be more than $75 million.

Since the operator's liability is limited to the amount of its insurance, $75 million, it is presumably the federal government that would have to make up the difference.

The act is administered by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which designates the nuclear installations subject to the act, determines who is the operator by issuing permits in accordance with the provisions of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, and establishes the amount of the basic insurance with the approval of the federal Treasury Board.

The framework for nuclear power for civilian use is particularly developed in Europe. European states that were promoting the use of stand-alone nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity wanted to ensure adequate financial compensation would be available for victims in the event of an accident.

They were the ones who initiated the first instrument to be put in place, the Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of July 29, 1960, known as the Paris Convention. Developed under the auspices of the OECD and covering European countries, it incorporated a number of principles governing nuclear liability law.

In Canada, nuclear liability is based on the same principles: operators are absolutely liable for damage suffered by a third party; operators are exclusively liable for damage suffered by a third party; operators' liability is limited in terms of time and amounts claimed; and operators are required to hold insurance or some other financial security to cover their liability.

However, although limitation of liability is a known principle, European countries and Canada interpret it differently. There are gaps. One of these gaps has to do with the amount of liability.

In chapter 8 of her 2005 annual report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development dealt specifically with insurance coverage for operators of nuclear facilities, in response to two petitions. The commissioner indicated that the accident insurance requirements for nuclear facilities did not comply with international standards. The $75 million of coverage required by the Nuclear Liability Act is woefully inadequate by international standards.

Senior officials with Natural Resources Canada said that, with inflation, $250 million of coverage in current dollars would be equivalent to the amount required in the act when it was passed and that to meet international standards, roughly $650 million Canadian would be required. This opinion was shared by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in her own report in 2005.

Under the Paris convention, which most European governments signed, the recommended limit is $600 million. Why Canada is lagging so far behind, when the parliamentary committee that examined the bill before it was passed in 1976 recommended that it be reviewed every five years? Twenty-five years later, it still has not been updated.

The then Minister of Natural Resources stated in March 2003 that “it is time to bring forward revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act to update it and bring it up to international standards”.

Clearly, the current Nuclear Liability Act, with its limit of $75 million, is even more inadequate in 2007, and it is time the act was updated.

Now I want to talk about the review of the Nuclear Responsibility Act. This is the second deficiency. In an evolving issue such as this it is imperative to adjust the legislative and regulatory framework regularly in order for new realities to be taken into account. Review of the maximum award for which nuclear plant operators are liable has been quite deficient so far.

In 2003, officials from Natural Resources traced the history of the Nuclear Responsibility Act and the review process that should have increased the liability threshold. The act was passed in 1970, but not enacted until 1976, after an agreement was reached with a group that is now known as the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, or NIAC, on the matter of liability. In 1982, six years after the legislation was enacted, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission asked an interdepartmental working group to review the act. In 1984, the working group presented a discussion paper in order to get public input. It was not until 1990, however, that the recommendations were forwarded to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We also had to wait until 1995 for a new interdepartmental review committee to resume the modernization work. This work was not done until February 2001. The minister finally received the recommendations, but never carried them out. It is only now in 2007, 31 years after the legislation was put into force, that a bill is finally being introduced to modernize legislation that was supposed to be reviewed every five years. Thirty-one years in such a critical area clearly illustrates a significant deficiency.

Although Bill C-5 is rather voluminous in clauses and pages, it can be summed up in three major points: first, the definition of an operator's responsibility—by operator we mean the operator of a nuclear power plant or installation—the terms and financial limit of the liability and, lastly, the establishment of a nuclear claims tribunal, which would adjudicate claims for damage arising from any nuclear accident and determine who is liable for said accident.

Bill C-5 establishes the specific responsibilities of operators of nuclear installations and clearly indicates the damages that can be compensated and those that cannot. Of the most important clauses, clause 9 specifies that the operator's liability is absolute, and more importantly that it is automatic in the event of radiation emissions, as proof of fault is not required. Clearly, that means that in the event of an incident, no matter the cause—except for war, civil war or insurrection—the operator of the installation is liable and must compensate the persons harmed. Clauses 13 to 20 list all compensable damages and expenses, including bodily injury and property damage, economic loss, costs related to the loss of use of property and costs incurred for preventive measures ordered by an authority acting under federal or provincial legislation relating to environmental protection.

The second aspect deals with the financial aspects of liability. The main clause, clause 21, states that the liability of an operator under this act for damage resulting from a nuclear incident is limited to $650 million. The Governor in Council may, by regulation, amend subclause (1) to increase the amount. Subclause (1) does not relieve an operator from payment of the costs of administering claims, court costs or interest on compensation.

Thus, liability is being gradually increased from $75 million to $650 million over a period of four years. This considerable jump must not obscure the fact that such an adjustment is necessary at this time, precisely because of the federal government's failure to regularly adjust the amount.

If the federal government had fulfilled its responsibilities in this matter for the past 31 years, the amount of insurance would have been raised gradually to allow for suitable compensation, instead of increasing it so drastically, because it has become apparent that the amount is ridiculously low.

We can consider ourselves lucky that there were no major incidents here in Canada in the last 30 years, because citizens and communities would not have received enough compensation.

In clause 23, the bill specifies that insurance must be maintained separately for each nuclear facility, which only makes sense, since each facility could, on its own, be the source of an incident.

Lastly, the bill also establishes a special tribunal to hear claims, when the Governor in Council believes that it is in the best interest of the public.

The Governor in Council may declare that the claims in respect of a nuclear incident are to be dealt with by a tribunal, if the Governor in Council believes that it is in the public interest to do so, having regard to the extent and the estimated cost of the damage, and the advantages of having the claims dealt with by an administrative tribunal.

Subsequent clauses define the powers of the nuclear claims tribunal, granting it broad powers intended to accelerate and simplify the claims process, whenever circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.

Finally, in an effort to process claims expeditiously, the tribunal may establish classes of claims that may be determined by a claims officer without an oral hearing and designate as a claims officer anyone it considers qualified.

In closing, I would like to point out that the Minister of Natural Resources seems to have little credibility when it comes to nuclear energy. Indeed, the minister's enthusiasm for this energy resource, even though no serious debate has been held—a debate we in the Bloc believe is necessary—leaves us fairly speechless.

In his press releases and speeches, the minister alleges that nuclear energy is clean because it emits virtually no greenhouse gas. While it is true that nuclear energy produces only a small quantity of greenhouse gas, it does produce radioactive waste that is difficult and expensive to manage. To ignore this is to neglect an important consideration and mislead Canadians, especially when the Minister of Natural Resources is in favour of using nuclear energy to boost production of oil from the tar sands.

Nuclear energy may produce little greenhouse gas, but oil produces a great deal. The equation is simple. The benefits of using nuclear energy—reduced greenhouse gas emissions—will be offset by increased oil production.

The Minister of Natural Resources should show some restraint when it comes to this energy source, because it is far from being unanimously accepted by Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, and it carries very real risks.

Without being alarmist, we have to realize that nuclear energy should not be this minister's first choice. He should invest more in developing clean energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power.

The Bloc Québécois therefore supports Bill C-5 in principle, but will examine the bill carefully in committee to make sure that it has no loopholes that will allow operators to shirk their responsibilities, that taxpayers will not unduly share the risk and the cost of compensation and, finally, that the amount of insurance coverage is reviewed regularly, in compliance with international standards, and represents the real cost of the damage that may result from a nuclear accident.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her excellent speech. It was very clear and unequivocally stated the Bloc's position. However, I would like her to return to the issue of liability amounts. If I understood correctly, in the case of a war, sabotage or terrorist activity, the insurance would not apply, which means that in this case, citizens would pay. But we know that nuclear plants are prime targets for terrorists. There is no bigger target than that in Canada.

Are the minister and the government really irresponsible enough to propose nuclear power instead of other sources of clean energy, as my colleague mentioned? These energy sources are definitely not dangerous and there is no need to take out insurance to protect them.

Is Bill C-5 not in contradiction with the energies available now, in 2007? This is no longer 1970, when the original bill for this law was introduced. I would really like my colleague to assess the possibilities and risks that the costs would fall on citizens.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, when we read the bill, this clause is surprising. My colleague and I, on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, are committed to questioning the government and the witnesses on this clause in particular. It is true that a nuclear plant is a likely target for a terrorist act. So, this clause needs to be clarified.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was well thought out.

I point out that the government is bringing its debate forward. We are discussing these issues today and we have no fear of doing that. In the past the bill was set aside time and time again. She has a reasonable critique by saying that it is supposed to be reviewed every five years, and it has not been done.

However, the minister has taken great leadership on this file. He said that this was an important issue that we needed to bring it forward. We need to modernize this. It is unfair of the her to criticize him and say that he is unwilling to take responsibility for the file. He clearly has.

The government is finding a balance. We have talked a lot about the various sources of energy. We have talked about our biofuels initiatives, which have been important, especially for agricultural producers. We have brought forward proposals on clean energy and alternative energy.

How can she accuse the minister today of not taking responsibility for this file when he has shown such tremendous leadership on it?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. It gives me an opportunity to explain that, although the minister is being responsible in introducing this bill, it is not just by chance that he is doing it now.

We are seeing the emergence of nuclear energy as an energy issue. For 27 years no one said anything about it. The federal government was in absolutely no hurry to get this legislation sorted out. If they are in such a hurry now, it is because Canada is being pressured to get its practices in order. If it wants to respond to the invitation it received from the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, it must be able to meet the standards. If it wants to do a lot of business in the area of nuclear power, it cannot be out of step with the prevailing standards because of the insurance question.

I wish the Minister of Natural Resources were able to weigh the pros and cons of this. He is selling us nuclear power as if it were the magic bullet that will solve the problem of reducing greenhouse gases in Canada and around the world. Even with the new generation of nuclear reactors, however, we will still have the waste problem that we have failed to solve for the last 40 years.

They think they can bury the waste. Canada has decided on a method for doing so, but we have not decided yet on the locations. I will bet right now that when they decide on a location for burying the radioactive waste, whether it is in Quebec or elsewhere, there will be an enormous outcry.

Nuclear energy is very controversial. They should give the public an opportunity now to debate it. This issue had been set aside, but now they want to impose nuclear energy on Canada without any chance for Canadians and especially Quebeckers to discuss it.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources to allow us to debate this, at least in committee. Of course the bill will enable us to initiate a bit of a debate on nuclear energy, but we will still have the bill to deal with and will have to confine ourselves to its parameters. We need a chance to really debate nuclear energy and seek answers to our questions. We also need to think very seriously before joining the global nuclear club because it will probably not be in Canada’s interests.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the member's last point with respect to liability, is the member satisfied that the regime presented through this bill satisfies the existing liability? We have huge amounts of nuclear waste being stored in barrels around the various plants across the country. As part of the regime, does the bill assess and establish to protect the existing liability?

Would the member like to comment again on how absolutely critical it is to this industry to find appropriate storage within the context of some of the recommendations made by the commission currently reviewing this issue?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The law that applies at present is the current act, before Bill C-5 is enacted. Of course, nuclear installation operators are liable for up to $75 million, which would not really be enough. If a disaster occurred, communities would be at a serious disadvantage in terms of compensation, and the consequences would be terrible.

With respect to waste, I would recall what the Minister of Natural Resources said. He said himself, in a speech, that we are still decades away from being able to determine how, and most importantly where, to store this waste. We know that the waste is currently being stored underwater for a decade and then put in dry storage.

But what will happen if we create more and more nuclear installations and waste? We really have to think about this and debate the question publicly. I urge all of my opposition colleagues to put this request to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, given that we have started talking about managing nuclear waste. She told us that some progress had been made on this question and a method has now been adopted. The big question still remains: the question of where.

We are well aware that of the 22 or so nuclear power plants in Canada, there is only one in Quebec. I imagine that the same sort of principle will govern nuclear plants’ waste as governs the management of household waste: nobody wants it in their backyard.

Given that Canada seems to be intending to move toward expanding nuclear power generation, and given that at present the largest producer of nuclear waste is of course Ontario, we can perhaps assume that those provinces are not necessarily interested in keeping their waste in the long term. We are perhaps seeing a potential danger emerging from the fact that someone somewhere is going to be made the “where”, but it will be outside the provinces engaged in large-scale nuclear power generation.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. In fact, he is correct. Three percent of Quebec’s energy is nuclear and it has only one power plant within its borders, unlike Ontario which has 18 or 22.

Certain places have been designated and Quebeckers know very well that the Canadian Shield is one of them. I do not believe that the people on the North Shore want to become the dumping ground for Canada’s nuclear waste, or perhaps even other countries’ waste, given that waste might be coming from abroad.

This is an important issue for Quebec. We are fortunate to have hydroelectric potential that enables us to produce electricity without generating greenhouse gases. We operate only one nuclear power plant. On this point, the Government of Quebec is currently studying various possibilities: whether to go ahead with rebuilding that plant or to dismantle it. That decision is now up to the Government of Quebec. In any event, the question of waste has always been an important issue for Quebec, particularly given that Quebec is a province where a potential location for burying waste has been identified.

The Minister of Natural Resources can rest assured that as natural resources critic I will be keeping a very close eye on this issue.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the nuclear liability bill that is in front of us. It quite clearly has been brought forward in order to facilitate the development of the nuclear industry in Canada. In the original development in regard to nuclear liability, going back to the 1970s, we established that limit because private insurers of course would not deal with nuclear accidents. We set a liability limit of $75 million then.

Let us think of that number. We can refer to the American Brookhaven report of 1957, which suggested that liability for nuclear accidents could be in the $7 billion range in 1957 dollars. We can see that this limit was set very significantly to develop the industry. The industry has had a long tenure of development and has moved on. Now we are moving into designing legislation that will increase the amount of liability held by companies that develop or own nuclear plants.

Contrary to what the minister told us earlier, under this new act the liability for an operator for damage resulting from a nuclear incident is limited to $650 million. While small nuclear incidents such as the loss of a fuel bundle and the resulting contamination of an area of 400 metres, let us say, might be covered under this amount, certainly the larger scale nuclear accidents that we have seen in the world would not be covered.

We have a new bill in front of us in Parliament that is trying to catch up to something done in the early 1970s. Is it adequate? Has this bill been presented in an adequate enough fashion? Is the government willing to negotiate in an adequate enough fashion to make this bill acceptable? I have yet to hear that in the debate today. As such, NDP members will be considering what we hear as the debate moves along to the point of deciding to support or not support the bill.

I come from the Northwest Territories, an area of Canada that has had plenty of experience with nuclear contamination.

Let us think back to the 1930s and a community called Deline, which for many years was known as the village of widows because the men in the village serviced the development of Port Radium. They hauled the yellowcake on their shoulders in burlap bags which were put on barges and sent down the river to service the emerging nuclear weapons industry in the United States. There was no compensation for this. There was no consideration of this at the time.

There is a longstanding contamination issue. This year, finally, in Port Radium there is an ongoing cleanup effort at the mine site, some 70 years later. The mine site cleanup is not extensive, but it is costing in the tens of millions of dollars.

The nuclear trail from this contamination extends all the way down the river system. AECL came to my community in 1985 to examine the presence of nuclear material along the river system. My community was a portage point for all of the material that came out of the Port Radium site. At that time one could still find on the ground burlap sacks that had been dropped from trucks. The presence of the material after 70 years was still such that it could be detected quite easily and isolated.

That radioactive material was in the community for that many years, which suggests to me that when we talk about 30 years of liability for nuclear material in our environment, in our communities, we are talking about a number that perhaps does not match up with reality.

We also could talk about the Ray Rock Mines where there is still 71,000 tonnes of uranium mine waste. Ten families had to abandon their homes due to contamination from the mine. Radionuclides and heavy metals from the tailings have found their way into fish and mammals in the area. There has been no compensation. This is still part of the nuclear industry that we have in Canada.

We can see that in the Northwest Territories we do not have a great record when it comes to dealing with nuclear waste.

There is another incident of contamination that I would like to mention. It is about contamination that comes from an external source, one that is not covered in the bill. Canada has no liability coverage for external acts whereby contamination from nuclear waste comes from another country, but we live next to a very large country that uses a lot of nuclear energy.

However, I am talking about Cosmos 954, which in 1978 burned up in the atmosphere over the Northwest Territories. The nuclear reactor onboard a satellite is pretty small. It would probably fit in an average thermos bottle. My community was some 300 miles away from where that small nuclear reactor burned up in the atmosphere. The next year, I had officials from AECL in my driveway picking up identifiable pieces from Cosmos 954 and that nuclear accident. Those small bits of nuclear fissionable material spread over 124,000 square kilometres.

Therefore, when we talk about liability in the nuclear industry and the nature of what we are dealing with here, we are talking about a very serious issue.

I would like to refer to another matter that speaks to this as well. That is the Giant Mine, where in order to deal with an industry that has closed down, we now are dealing with 270,000 tonnes of arsenic. It is going to be left in the mine shafts. It is going to be frozen in there. This method of dealing with contaminated material is not to move it. It is simply to freeze it in the ground, right in the middle of the largest community in my riding.

Our record of dealing with contamination in this country, of dealing with the impact of industrial development that leaves behind material harmful to human existence, is not that great. It is not that perfect. Our record is nothing that we can stand up and be proud of in this country.

Therefore, when we speak about protecting working families in Canada with legislation, we have to be pretty careful about what we are going to do. We have to examine what we are doing here in great detail. We cannot just simply slap something through to make up for the 30 years of inaction by the government on this subject.

In 1957 the liability limit for a nuclear plant in the United States was $560 million. What is it today for our neighbour, the one we share so much with, the one the Conservative Party loves to harmonize with, the one the Liberal Party has worked so hard to harmonize with over so many years? It is now $9.7 billion. So what is going on here when we are setting our limit at $650 million? The public will have to pay for any amounts over the limited liability. Contrary to what the minister says, that is what is going to happen.

This liability level has to be increased. It has to be increased to a level commensurate with that of our largest trading partner, and not simply with signed treaties or conventions, but with the actual practical use of nuclear energy on this continent.

Limited liability was needed when the industry was getting started. The question is whether it should it be in place today. Do we put limited liability on a wind farm? Do we put limited liability on solar panels? We do not. Do other countries have limited liability? Germany does not. Germany, of course, lives downwind from Chernobyl and it has unlimited liability on its nuclear industry. Did its nuclear industry quit with that? No. Did the nuclear industry in the United States close up because it had a $9.7 billion limited liability? No, it did not.

What is different about Canada? How is Canada different from the United States? Why would our industry flee if we put a proper liability in place for it? It is a question that we can all ponder as we debate this subject.

The liability within the bill is too narrow. There are many more accidents of small amounts of nuclear material than there is from large plants and yet that is not covered in this legislation. Many times we have seen contamination coming forth from medical equipment, equipment that is used in the oil and gas industry and from various sources of radiation that are used in industry in our daily lives. Those are also things that should be legislated. They should be under some measure of control to ensure that the operators that use them dispose of them correctly and protect Canadians. Without legislation, people need to sue to get compensation from these types of actions, and that is not fair.

The definition of damage in the bill is also troublesome. Damage can be in the environment, as well as in one's building and in one's personal self. It can be long-lasting in the environment. I talked about it earlier in my speech. These are things that remain behind with the nuclear industry. The bill needs to have a proper definition of damage.

A damage definition could be expanded to include damage due to a loss of business or due to a fear of contamination like Japan. This could be part of the bill. We will be talking about this more as the days go on.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no particular protection for incidents that can happen from external sources of contamination from the nuclear industry, nuclear satellites, nuclear ships and all manner of the use of nuclear energy.

Germany provides this type of compensation and it has good reason to do so. It understands the issue.

If I may, I will bring this around to economics. What is it about setting a limit that is so much below the limit of our largest trading partner? What will that do to the industry? Does it subsidize the Canadian reactors over the U.S. reactors? Perhaps it does if they are built by American companies for export of electrical energy to the United States.

We could find ourselves in a situation where we are paying for the development of nuclear reactors for another country with our limited liability here, with our lesser standards for the use and development of this industry. Therefore, we need to be very careful about what we are doing in relationship to our major trading partner, the partner with which we engage in so many other harmonization activities.

The whole issue of the use of nuclear energy and moving forward with it should be part of a larger energy strategy. We cannot determine the future direction of the Canadian energy matrix without having everyone on a level playing field. If a level playing field means that the nuclear industry must carry the liability for its product, for its industry, for its demobilization and for its safe storage of hazardous waste, that should be it, that should be part of its equation. Just as part of the equation for the use of solar energy is the need to reduce the cost of manufacturing panels and just as the cost of wind power is the intermittency of its production, these are things that need to be put in context with each other.

We are dealing with the nuclear industry today. Let us deal with it and put it in a context that makes it fairer for Canadians for the future. When we make decisions about the direction we should take in Canada with energy, they should be made with the assurance that all is understood, that all is put into the equation and that it all makes sense. This is not the case right now. The bill does not go far enough to allow that to happen.

I want to hear what other parties have to say about this because is a tremendously important issue. We want to understand whether this is worthwhile to go to committee and whether we can get an acceptable result in committee for all the problems that we have identified in the bill today.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak to the bill because in many ways we need a frank discussion on the nuclear industry in Canada. We need to understand what it means to develop in this direction, what it costs and what we are leaving behind for our children and grandchildren.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I commend the member for Western Arctic on probing into the bill from a perspective that is very important given the discussions we have had on possible environmental disasters in Arctic sovereignty, our responsibilities with respect to the north. I would hope that we would support the bill going to committee.

Could the member follow up with respect to unlimited liability, given that the use of nuclear submarines, the use of surveillance aircraft and so on with respect to the north is becoming a major issue for the government and our country's policy, and expand upon the implications of the bill as it relates to unlimited liability with respect to possible environmental disasters that could occur as a result of the increase in nuclear usage?

It is extremely germane and the House would appreciate the bill perhaps being expanded to accommodate some of the concerns that have been raised by the member.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, if we consider it, a major nuclear catastrophe probably would not be covered by any sort of limited liability, whether it is $10 billion or $650 million.

There may be a requirement to create a nuclear liability regime of two tiers. The first tier would be liability insurance, which we are proposing here, but the second tier could be an unlimited amount paid initially out of the public purse with all the nuclear operators that are engaged in the same industry being required to pay back on a divided pro-rated basis. Therefore, we could have some protection within the industry as well, which might be one of the ways that we could expand the liability.

We are interested in the thoughts of members on this issue. These are potential changes that could be made to the legislation with the support of all parties.

As we have seen in the past, when we have gone forward with amendments that go beyond what the minority government wants, it simply does not bring the bill forward. We are concerned about that because it is not a useful situation in the work we do in Parliament.

We would like to see some frank discussions about the bill before we make our choice about how we vote on it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, just of interest, I was in Oslo, Norway when Chernobyl went up. We were kept in an underground bunker for an extra day at our NATO meeting because of that. It obviously was a terrible event.

My hon. colleague raises some valid points but he tends to focus on a doomsday scenario. However, in his last response he alluded to some reasonable limits, the $650 million being a reasonable limit, which is in accordance with most of the other people we deal with.

I would like to get the member's appreciation of the reasonableness of those limits based on the standards that are applied to nuclear facilities in Canada. It reads, “The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has concluded the process and mitigating systems required in the design of Canadian nuclear power plants rendered accident scenario with any significant release into the environment to be unreasonable”.

The Three Mile Island accident cost the U.S. $42 million, about $100 million in current Canadian dollars. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has also said that a worst case scenario accident would range from $1 million to $100 million based on the kind of standards we are talking about with Canadian technology.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would comment on the protection provided by Canadian technology and how that marries up with some reasonable limits of liability.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the American limit of $9.7 billion. The Americans had experience with Three Mile Island and they have had extensive experience with nuclear reactors. That is the limit they have set on their industry.

In looking at our industry, we have $75 million right now, so we obviously need to change. Where do we change to? If what the member is saying, that the likelihood of an occurrence of a large event with Canadian safety records and with the good work that Canadian engineers do we will not have a big event, I would suggest that might mitigate the charges that would go to accompany under any liability but does not necessarily mean that we need to limit the amount. The liability carried could be carried at a higher level regardless of what the anticipated occurrence cost is going to be. The occurrence cost is one thing and the liability is another.

When we look at the industry in North America and put it into context with what the United States is doing, where are we?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Western Arctic on his very clear presentation. I would also like to congratulate him on the work he is doing as part of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I hope that he will raise these questions about this bill in committee.

I would like to ask him a question. We heard about the trials and tribulations that his riding has been facing. Would the people in his riding like it if the government decided that it wanted to bury future nuclear waste there?

I would also like to point out that $75 million, as set out in Bill C-5, is 150 times less than $9.7 billion. One hundred and fifty times less is a big deal. Can he explain how the government arrived at that figure? Even if that number was to reach the $650 million suggested by the commissioner in 2005, that would still be 16 times less than $9.7 billion.

I would like the member to comment on that and to help us understand what is going on.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech in response to the question from my colleague, our experience in the Northwest Territories with industrial development, the responsibility for the clean up of contaminated sites, and the ongoing problems in human health has been almost non-existent.

What we have seen, what the past has given us, is not really all that favourable toward the industry. On the other hand, we all know that there are countless junior companies looking to explore for uranium in our region. We do recognize as well that the nuclear industry is an industry that is a well established industry in Canada.

To speak to what my constituents want is a difficult issue just as it is a difficult issue for everyone in the House. What we have to do is come to a rational understanding of the nature of the nuclear industry and the requisite amounts of liability that should be put in place that will put the industry on a level playing field with other energy sources in the country. To me that is a fundamental thing that should happen here. If we do not do that then as parliamentarians and as legislators we are not fulfilling our role but acting for special interests or acting in a manner that is not compatible with what Canada needs.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I rise in support of Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident. The intent of this bill is to repeal the Nuclear Liability Act, and in the process to update and modernize Canada's liability and compensation insurance framework.

I will take a few minutes to outline the rationale for this bill and explain why the changes that it proposes are necessary. In doing so, I will touch on the general principles that are the basis for both the current act and the bill before us, but first, for the benefit of the hon. members, I would like to underline the contributions that nuclear energy makes to our national well-being.

Canada was a charter member of the original nuclear energy club and today is a world leader in the development and use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. We have remained in the vanguard of many critically important fields, including reactor technology and safety.

With regard to the issues that this bill addresses, liability and compensation, we are pioneers in these areas. Canada can proudly claim to be among the first nations to establish an insurance framework that addresses the special circumstances of the nuclear power sector.

Concerning our national interests, the hon. members know that strong nuclear energy brings great economic and environmental benefits to Canada. The CANDU reactor is the workhorse of Canadian nuclear energy and it is one of the most environmentally clean energy sources available to us. Without it, Ontario, for example, would not have been able to reach the levels of industrialization that it has. Indeed, if it had not been for CANDU reactors in Canada, we would have had to burn huge quantities of coal to feed the furnaces, to turn the turbines of Canada's electrical generating stations.

Let me now turn to the bill itself. Like the current act, it is based on three fundamental principles: absolute liability, exclusive liability and mandatory insurance.

Absolute liability means that a nuclear operator will be held liable for an accident whether or not the operator was at fault. This means that even if the incident is a result of the actions of others, vandalism for instance, or negligence on the part of a supplier, the operator will be held exclusively liable for compensating third parties.

The concept of absolute liability has a great practical value. It means those affected will not have to wind their way through a highly complex industry to determine who is at fault because in all scenarios there will be no question of where to take a claim for compensation. Liability belongs with the operator and the buck stops there.

The second principle, exclusive liability, is closely allied to the first. It means that no party, other than the operator, no supplier or subcontractor, for instance, will be held liable for an incident.

This principle benefits both the nuclear industry and Canadians who could be potentially affected by a nuclear incident. For industry suppliers or subcontractors, it removes a liability risk that would deter them from getting involved in a nuclear project, especially when insurance against this type of risk is narrowly limited. For others, the principles of exclusive liability makes it easier to file the claims.

These principles are embedded in both the Nuclear Liability Act and in the bill before us, and for good reason, for without the certainty that the act provides on a question of liability, insurers would not be able to marshal the necessary insurance capacity to cover the facilities. Under these circumstances, without insurance, who would want to invest or get involved in nuclear development?

The Nuclear Liability Act has been a serviceable instrument, but nevertheless, it is time now to update it, modernize it and simplify it. This is entirely what one would expect. The existing act now dates back 30 years.

Indeed, if we started the clock at 1970, when the act was drafted, the legislation could be said to date back a full 37 years, which is several lifetimes in terms of nuclear technology and the related technologies such as computer compatibility.

The act, in its present form, thus reflects the technology, the science, and thinking of an early age and experience gained up to that time. In the interim, however, while the nuclear industry has evolved and improved dramatically, inflation and our evolving jurisprudence have caused the potential liability for incidents to increase.

Accordingly, the legislation must evolve. We must maintain the basic concepts of absolute and exclusive liability, but we must increase liability amounts, increase mandatory insurance requirements, add new concepts of damage, and provide better definitions of the compensation process. What we must do is meet the practical requirements and the realities of a new century.

The proposed legislation makes significant changes in the matter of compensation. In financial terms, it increases the liability for nuclear operators. The Nuclear Liability Act sets the maximum at $75 million, an amount that now stands as one of the lowest limits among the G-8 group of nations.

The proposed legislation would better reflect the conditions of today by raising that limit to $650 million. The proposed legislation would increase the mandatory insurance that operators must carry by almost ninefold. It would permit operators to cover half of their liability with forms of financial security other than insurance. This could be, for example, letters of credit, self-insurance and provincial or federal guarantees. All operators would be required to conform to strict guidelines.

In terms of time limits on compensation claims, this bill also raises the limit from 10 years to 30 years for claims related to injury or death. This change recognizes the reality that some radiation-related diseases remain latent for long periods.

This bill would include modern definitions of nuclear damage reflecting today's jurisprudence and international conventions in this area.

I want to emphasize that the issues and changes that the proposed act addresses are the products of years of experience, deliberation and above all compensation. We did not want the Government of Canada to proceed unilaterally or in a piecemeal fashion because such approaches do not make for either consistency or certainty. There are reasonable expectations and we have respected them. We will continue to do so.

The practical benefits of this proposed legislation to the people of Canada are many.

I am particularly pleased to recognize the important work of the 2,513 employees who work directly in the nuclear industry in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the 4,834 AECL employees across Canada.

At 6:10 a.m., November 3, 1957, the National Research Universal, NRU, reactor at AECL's Chalk River laboratories reached the starting point for the first time. Designed for research and plutonium protection at a cost of $60 million, with that landmark achievement, Canada's science and technology stepped onto the world stage.

I encourage all parliamentarians to join me in congratulating AECL as it celebrates this 50-year milestone in the history of nuclear research in Canada. I am pleased to recognize Mr. John Inglis, the shift supervisor and engineer in 1957 for the startup. Mr. Inglis still resides in Deep River today.

I support this bill because it makes for progress in a field of critical importance to our economic and environmental well-being. There is no question that Bill C-5 well services the national interest and the public good. I therefore urge hon. members to give it their support.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice in support of Bill C-5.

All members of the House know that nuclear energy is important to Canada's energy supply. Three provinces produce electricity from nuclear power. Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have safely used nuclear power for many years in their energy mix.

Nuclear power contributes 15% of Canada's electrical generation. Fifty per cent of Ontario's energy needs is nuclear. Nuclear is a clean greenhouse gas emissions-free technology and it is part of our energy security. It is also extremely important to our commitment to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada.

The debate should not be about alarming people, but the NDP seems to have taken that position. It should be about assuring Canadians that our energy future is safe and secure. We have generated electricity in Canada using nuclear power for more than 30 years, and we have done it safely and without mishap.

We fully expect that the nuclear industry's fine safety record in Canada will continue for many more generations and as technology improves, so should safety. As my colleague just pointed out, it has been 40 years since the debate begun on the issue of nuclear liability and the Nuclear Liability Act and has represented several generations of nuclear technology. It is time to update this act.

The government is also being realistic and responsible in its treatment of nuclear power. In the unlikely event that there should ever be a problem, we intend to be properly prepared to help Canadians. This is an important reason why the liability legislation is now being modernized.

The 1976 Nuclear Liability Act established a compensation and civil liability insurance framework to address damages resulting from a nuclear accident. It applies to Canadian nuclear facilities, such as nuclear power plants, nuclear research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel. The proposed nuclear liability and compensation act improves the claim compensation process for potential victims and requires nuclear plant operators to maintain financial security sufficient to cover potential liability.

We are modernizing Canada's nuclear liability legislation to give us nuclear legislation comparable to that of other western countries. We believe that Canadians deserve that protection.

The proposed new legislation will increase the amount of compensation available to address civil damage, broaden the number of categories for which compensation may be sought and improve the procedures for delivering that compensation.

The monetary limit in the proposed legislation for operator third party liability has been increased to $650 million from $75 million in the present act. Under Bill C-5, the operators will be required to carry at least $650 million in financial security to cover potential liability. This is in line with current international standards.

It is important that I correct something the NDP has been saying this morning and the impression it has been leaving.

In the United States individual operators are responsible for a limit that is very similar to what we are proposing in Canada. They are required to carry $330 million in primary insurance on their individual operations and $100 million secondary coverage for each reactor on the site. Therefore, the $650 million is within the range of what is happening in the United States.

The government is also prepared, through the legislation, to provide coverage for certain risks for which there is no insurance and it will cover smaller facilities through an arrangement with approved insurers. Under proposed Bill C-5, claims for compensation will be pursued through the operator and the insurer and such claims may be settled through the courts and a tribunal system, which we will establish through the bill. As I mentioned, the bill provides for an administrative regime, a nuclear claims tribunal, if deemed necessary by the government.

Since the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act was passed in 2002, almost $1 billion has been invested in trust funds by nuclear energy corporations for eventual use for the long term management of used nuclear fuel. When combined with modernized legislation, Canadians can be assured that the operators of Canada's nuclear facilities will be able to meet all of the financial costs associated with both long term waste management and potential liability. Unlike some industries, Canada's nuclear operators manage the effects of their own nuclear operations. This should address some of the concerns the Bloc has had on this issue.

Modernizing the legislation will ensure the highest standards for nuclear power in Canada. The new bill reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to taking clear and decisive steps to protect the well-being of Canadians and our future needs for power.

Our discussion today has focused on the issues of liability and compensation, but I want to assure Canadians that the emphasis on insurance does not mean we have become somehow more vulnerable. The fact is a Chernobyl type accident is not possible at a Canadian nuclear power plant. This has been the conclusion of a number of studies made of Canadian reactors to assess the degree of risk associated with their use. My colleague from Edmonton Centre mentioned two of these studies earlier this morning to make that point.

We have a number of inherent safety factors built into Canadian nuclear power plants, safeguards that would prevent the significant off site release of radioactive material.

Dr. Kenneth Hare was commissioner of an Ontario ministry of energy study. He said:

—if a shut-down system with the capability of a CANDU shut-down system had been available to the operator of the Chernobyl reactor, the accident would not have occurred.

The government is acting responsibly in regulating Canada's nuclear industry. Nuclear energy is vital to Canada's economic and environmental well-being. It is a clean emissions free technology and it will add substantially to our collective efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Bill C-5 would create the legislative infrastructure for the orderly development of this energy source to benefit all Canadians. The bill merits our support and I look forward to the support of the other parties in the House.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments on the proposed legislation are well exercised. I have both a question and an offering, which his minister may have discussed a little earlier.

It appears at first glance that no municipality currently host to nuclear waste or that houses a facility, such as mine in Pickering, has been consulted on the bill. While these are early days, it has our party's support to send it to committee to have that consultation, Would the hon. member accept an undertaking to consult the mayors of Clarington, Pickering, Kincardine and the member for Renfrew's mayor as well?

It seems to me that the municipalities carry an uneven burden. In terms of the liability immediately and the cost of deployment with any difficulties that occur, the municipalities tend to be on the hook for this.

Could the hon. member inform the House as to whether some facilities are now in the hands of the private sector, particularly the Kincardine Bruce power facility? Does the act in any way detract from or does the fact that some of our nuclear facilities, at least one, being owned in the private sector, create any problems as far as the bill is concerned?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as the member heard earlier, the minister has made a commitment to consult widely on this issue. He has mentioned that the principle of the bill has been discussed for several years now and there has been wide consultation in the past.

We look forward to consulting with people. I know there has been interest this morning in the committee having hearings on the bill and we look forward to hearing from a wide variety of people. Therefore, we will be looking at that.

The point of the bill is to make it easier for operators in the country to access the insurance they need to operate their nuclear facilities. We look forward to the opportunity for all of the operators to meet those requirements.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about American regulations and laws. Is one of the objectives of the bill to encourage American companies to operate and invest in Canada's nuclear industry?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member was present a little earlier. One of the members of the NDP continually raised the issue of liability in the United States and wanted to talk about those limits.

I specifically talked about the fact that the bill would bring our compensation limits into line with those of many other countries, including the requirements in the United States. The NDP wanted to use that example so I thought it was important to respond specifically to that.

One of the concerns I have had this morning with the NDP's position is its members would oppose the bill if the liability amount is set at zero. They would oppose it if it is set at $75 million. They seem to be willing to oppose it if it is at $650 million. I believe they would oppose the bill no matter what the amount would be.

The concern of the NDP does not have to deal with a realistic situation, as the Liberal critic pointed out earlier. It can stand in opposition on almost anything. However, we need to work to find a realistic solution for the industry in order to provide insurance coverage for it that is reasonable, given any likely scenario.

We think we have done that. It appears we have the support of a couple of the other parties in the House. We think this is a reasonable amount.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position is clear. With regard to nuclear energy, the Bloc is calling for strict and effective controls at all stages: extraction, transportation, and generation of heat and electricity. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill on operator liability in the event of a nuclear incident. However, it is deplorable that the Conservative government has failed to take advantage of the recent announcement—regarding radioactive waste disposal—to launch public consultations about nuclear energy. The government is going ahead without any debate while the use of nuclear energy has far less than unanimous acceptance.

The Bloc Québécois does not want any compromises where safety is concerned. The disasters of Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, Three Mile Island in the United States, many small accidents in China and India, and all the incidents which almost became accidents and which fortunately were not very serious, underscore and must always remind us of the serious consequences of nuclear accidents and incidents and the importance of doing everything to avoid them.

By answering to the powerful nuclear lobby, the Minister of Natural Resources is becoming one of the principal promoters of nuclear energy. The minister seems to forget that nuclear energy is not, as he mistakenly claims, a clean energy. Radioactive waste is still a significant problem and very expensive to manage. The Minister of Natural Resources, who continues to be optimistic about nuclear energy—primarily with regard to tar sands extraction—should exercise caution with regard to a source of energy for which there is less than unanimous acceptance and with risks that are far from benign.

In Pickering, waste from the nuclear plant is contaminating the lake. Thus, there are dangers at all stages of nuclear generation. Without being alarmist, we must realize that nuclear energy should not be this minister's first choice and he should insist more on the development of energy sources that are truly clean such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, which could meet all of Canada's energy needs.

I would like to point out that we are currently developing wind energy in a big way. For some provinces in particular, wind energy is starting to complement hydroelectric stations. Solar energy should be developed on a much larger scale. Nonetheless, I want to mention geothermal energy in particular, not at the surface, but at medium depths. Geothermal energy at depths of 3,000 to 5,000 feet can provide enough energy to drive co-generation electricity turbines for every small community in Canada and Quebec. This type of energy does not require any legislation to protect people. This energy is available and renewable for life.

We see that promoting nuclear energy is on the agenda for the Minister of Natural Resources. He wants to call it clean energy, but we do not necessarily think it is as clean as he claims because of its waste.

It is true that we gain in terms of greenhouse gases, but not if we use nuclear energy to extract oil from the tar sands. The greenhouse gases created by extracting the oil will not be offset by the nuclear energy that does not produce greenhouse gases. It does not justify extracting more oil and creating more greenhouse gases that have an irreparable impact on climate change.

The Bloc Québécois will study Bill C-5 carefully in committee in order to ensure that there are no loopholes that will allow operators to shirk their responsibilities, that taxpayers will not unduly share part of the risk and the cost of compensation, and that the amount of insurance coverage is reviewed regularly with a view to international standards and unstated risks.

This bill includes an amount that is not what the international community considers realistic. It is therefore obvious that taxpayers, Canadians, will have to pay any cost exceeding this premium in the event of an accident.

Furthermore, it is very important to assess the real cost of the damages that could result from a nuclear accident, so that we get the right amount of insurance. Earlier the Conservative government was saying that their studies show that damages would only be as high as a few million dollars. The committee will go over these studies with a fine toothed comb because we would very surprised if they had not been conducted by proponents of nuclear energy.

By introducing this bill on safety and liability in case of incidents, the minister is acknowledging that nuclear power poses a huge potential threat. Otherwise, he would not introduce bills about solar power. Truly clean energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro, do not need bills like this one. If this bill is passed, it should include a framework that really improves safety.

The Minister of Natural Resources does not have much credibility when it comes to nuclear energy. In fact, his enthusiasm for this energy source indicates that he is merely answering to lobbyists even though a thorough debate is needed. It is hard to believe that he himself decided nuclear is a good idea.

In recent press releases, the minister alleges that nuclear energy is clean because it emits virtually no greenhouse gas. While it is true that nuclear energy produces only a small quantity of greenhouse gas, it does produce radioactive waste that is difficult and expensive to manage.

To ignore this would be to mislead Canadians and Quebeckers who are afraid of nuclear and want nothing to do with it, especially in Quebec. Why are the minister and his government failing to recognize the concerns of our nation and avoiding a broader discussion and in-depth consultation with the people?

The Minister of Natural Resources announced that he had chosen the recommended approach, adaptive phased management (APM), to ensure the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel in Canada. APM includes the isolation and containment of used nuclear fuel deep in the earth. Where? Who knows. The government has been looking for a place to put it for 40 years now. As a temporary solution, the government will be looking for shallow underground containment. That is what the minister himself said. Clearly, he has no idea what to do with nuclear waste.

The minister also said that this is a safe long-term approach. How can he be so sure of that?

In that announcement, one also reads:

APM will ensure the used nuclear fuel is monitored—

Clearly the minister is not sure that nuclear waste can be safely stored this way. It must be monitored. Who will pay for that monitoring? It is certainly not the companies that use nuclear fuel. There is no reference to that in the bill. So, taxpayers will pay for that monitoring, and for the monitoring against terrorism at nuclear reactor sites. It will always be taxpayers who pay. The bill has nothing to say on that subject.

Further on, we read:

The [Nuclear Waste Management Organization] will begin planning and designing a site-selection process collaboratively with Canadians.

The Minister of Natural Resources is laughing at us. That is exactly what they have been trying to do for 40 years, plan a site, and it still has not been done. So, there must be major problems. The moment that the location of the site is decided, there will be such a public outcry that the minister will have to change tack.

It especially unsettling to know that the Minister of Natural Resources is in favour of the use of nuclear power to increase production of oil from the tar sands. Once again, he is being irresponsible. The minister has this to say:

“As we see the potential increase in oil sands production moving from a million barrels a day up to four or five million barrels, we need to do better. I think there is great promise in the oil sands for nuclear energy”.

The more oil we produce from the tar sands, the more greenhouse gases we will produce, and nuclear energy will not prevent greenhouse gas emissions, quite the contrary.

We ask the minister how this bill will protect the health of Canadians. That is what he says he wants to do. However, we know that nuclear power stations send contaminants into the air.

How can he show us that there is no more danger? He would not need this bill if this were the case. If he does not include this in the bill, we may conclude that he does not know how to protect the health of Canadians. Bill C-5 forces nuclear power stations to insure themselves against the damage caused by an accident. It does not deal with protection of public health.

Since the accident in Russia, at Chernobyl—more specifically, in Ukraine — energy safety has become the major political priority. In Europe today, for example, all possible solutions other than nuclear are being reconsidered. In England, a parliamentary commission has warned the public about the construction of new stations. A simple sentence confirms the fears of those who accuse the British prime minister of yielding to the nuclear lobby. In 2003, the government published a white paper on energy that emphasized renewable energy and ruled out any renewal of a civilian nuclear program.

I want to come back to the accident that occurred in Chernobyl 20 years ago. Twenty years later, people have visited the site, which is still radioactive. This site is still dangerous, and the effects of the accident are still being felt.

How does the Minister of Natural Resources think that a bill can protect people against radioactive fallout for 30 or 40 years or more?

Bill C-5 provides for $75 million, the same amount as in 1976. If this amount had at least been adjusted for inflation, it would be $250 million. The Paris convention recommends $600 million, and the international agreements refer to $650 million, an amount that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development endorsed in her 2005 report. This is a far cry from the proposed figure of $75 million. Rest assured that we are going to find out why. Can the Minister of Natural Resources justify why such a low amount was proposed for liability?

In conclusion, a thorough debate is needed. The government cannot deal with the issue of nuclear energy simply by saying that everyone is in favour of it. This is not true. Some people are not in favour of it. I do not understand how a government that claims to be in touch with the people can be unaware that people are reluctant to embrace nuclear energy.

We know that radioactive waste is difficult and expensive to manage. Other sources of energy exist, as I have already mentioned. I want to stress that money should be invested in these energy sources. Every year, Canada invests about $500 million in nuclear research. This year, the government is investing an estimated $807 million in safety, research and promotion. If the government had invested such an amount for years, it could have invested in research into really clean, safe energy and it could be developing these alternate energy sources, so that nuclear energy would not be needed.

We cannot ignore this reality and overlook an important option, that of replacing nuclear energy with other kinds of energy.

It is equally important that the public not be misled into thinking that legislation alone, such as Bill C-5, will protect them. That is not true. This bill is about compensation. It is merely an insurance policy in case of an accident. We all know what an accident means. This does nothing about people's health.

Knowing that, how can the minister continue to promote nuclear energy? By introducing this bill, he has made it clear that he has only one objective, which is to really develop the nuclear sector. He is using the reduction of greenhouse gases as a springboard. However, once he wants to invest in the oil sands to produce petroleum, we see what he is up to. This simply does not make sense.

The minister and the Conservative Party must show some restraint regarding this energy source, which we think is dangerous because of the emanations and waste produced when the plants are operational. Furthermore, it is far from being unanimously accepted.

The same amount of money needs to be invested in renewable energy sources, given that the risk of accidents is minimal and the entire population is much more interested in such energy sources.

To sum up, we are in favour of this bill, because it focuses on safety. However, we will examine it very closely, because we think it falls short of what is required, and is outdated by about 30 or 40 years. We truly hope that, if the government decides to turn to nuclear energy without consulting the public, that it will at least do so as safely as possible.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we have talked a little about balance. As the Liberal critic mentioned earlier, there is a balance of three things, the three E's, the environment, energy and the economy. We have worked hard to protect the environment over the last year and a half. We are trying to find a balance that will work for Canadians with respect to energy, and of course we want to maintain a strong economy at the same time.

I want to ask a specific question of the member. He said that nuclear power must be replaced with other types of energy. I think that is what I heard in the translation. For a number of years now, Quebec has relied upon nuclear power, as well as other sources. Is it the position of the Bloc that the nuclear power generation in Quebec should be shut down and that Quebeckers should have no option of nuclear power as one of those energy sources that is available to Canadians?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, in Quebec, we have only one nuclear power plant and it is operating at low capacity. Contrary to what my colleague has just said, I must point out that electricity production in Quebec is not based on nuclear power, given that we have only one power plant. In addition, we are currently considering the question to determine whether we should renovate that plant or instead close it completely. Nuclear energy is therefore not expanding in Quebec.

As well, the general public is much more in favour of closing that nuclear power plant than of upgrading it, because it does not comply with the safety standards that people expect of an power generating site.

In terms of the economy, as my colleague heard me say, we can perfectly well develop our economy using other sources of energy, clean energy. I reiterate this because it is of real importance: research has been done, particularly in the United States and Europe, into medium-depth geothermal energy sources—great-depth geothermal energy sources may be tapped in the future. That research shows that we could produce the same quantity of energy from those sources as is produced in nuclear power plants.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the member who just spoke. He gives us the impression that the city of Pickering is not a safe place.

I would first like to ask the member a simple question: whether he has ever in his life been in a nuclear power plant. If he has not done it, he should do it. I invite him to visit my riding. At some point, it might be a good idea for the entire committee to come to Pickering or somewhere where there are other nuclear plants. He would understand the situation clearly.

When we constructed that building in the 1960s, nearly 50 years ago now, there have been no major incidents involving people living there for a long time. The member should know that in my riding there are two million people living in the vicinity of the nuclear plant, within 25 km of that plant.

I have to say that I am not a nuclear power promoter—I have never worked in that field—but I know very well that the workers, the employees who work there, provide good management of the plant. Everyone who works there always lives in the region, they are proud of their work. We are not flooding great expanses of land or displacing people to build a hydroelectric generating station.

I invite the member, before he says any more about things that affect my riding, to come at our expense, at some point, and visit the power plant to learn the measures that are taken there. I believe that he will have a completely different opinion about our nuclear power plant.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to offend my Liberal colleague. I only wanted to say that I had read a report.

It is true that I have never been in a nuclear power plant, but I do not think that I have to go there to be aware of what is going on. I read a report that stated very clearly that the nuclear power plant was contaminating the water in the lake and that the water was actually contaminated. I did not say that it was dangerous to humans. I only said that the water in the lake was contaminated. That is undeniable because an official report has been published, dealing with the water in the lake.

It is obvious that walking about in a nuclear power plant will not prove that it is not dangerous. Nuclear radiation is invisible, and you can not feel it on your body. So, visiting a nuclear power plant is no way to determine that it is clean.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made some very good comments on the bill.

We know that in places like Alberta there is talk about putting in nuclear energy to support the tar sands. We have heard a number of people talk about nuclear energy as being clean energy. There is a mining process and a transportation process before a nuclear plant is even built. I wonder if the member thinks those factors should be included when determining whether or not nuclear energy is actually a clean energy source.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for that excellent question.

That is exactly our objective. If it is possible, without changing the meaning of the bill, our goal is to include the mining process in this bill. Indeed, there is a danger during the mining, refining and transportation of such material.

That is where we see that building and operating nuclear power plants creates a danger to human health for all of the people who work in the production of nuclear energy for heating or electricity.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has had some very specific questions from other members about the bill we are debating. I would like to ask for his comments on a much broader subject.

We learned this week that the French president has just asked the European Commission to introduce a European tax, no more, no less, on any product coming from a country that does not conform to the Kyoto protocol.

In economic terms, especially, I wonder what that means to my colleague, in the broader sense of the environment, obviously.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the French president has discussed a series of actions that he is preparing to take. They are very valuable for the environment and we applaud him for that. Obviously, this is far removed from Bill C-5. We notice that the French president did not place an emphasis on the production of nuclear energy. Nor did he say that he would not use it. We know that France does rely a lot on that kind of energy; but he did not emphasize the fact that he would produce even more. Quite the contrary. He talked about a tax on products that are not produced by countries that comply with Kyoto. He added that he would build 2,000 km of very high speed train lines in France. He also spoke of introducing taxes on overloaded trucks.

Thus, the French government is proposing a very interesting series of measures for the environment. We would hope that the government has the same intentions.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his speech. I would like to ask him a question.

He has done a lot of travelling and has met with many people, including a number of European parliamentarians. Could he tell me why Germany, for example, has decided to abandon nuclear energy? What are the advantages and what are Germany's reasons? That country is currently creating a lot of economic wealth by supporting and encouraging solar energy. Can he provide some arguments to inspire the Minister of Natural Resources?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be hard to answer in 30 seconds. Indeed, Germany is somewhat on the leading edge. It is selling its technologies in other countries. That is how the German economy does so well in terms of clean energy.

In Germany, the entire population truly realizes that it can produce the energy it needs without using nuclear energy. The Germans find they do not really need nuclear energy and that is one of the reasons they are turning away from it. I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will realize that even though lobby groups have an appetite for nuclear energy, the global community is currently expressing reservations about it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I enter the debate today. I have listened to a number of my colleagues from all sides of the House, and it is with growing concern rather than reassurance that I rise today to address the bill, simply because of my concern about the depth of knowledge of my colleagues and about whether some colleagues who have spoken to the bill have read the piece of legislation or considered its implications.

In the nuclear energy context, I think there are two central facts around which people pivot their concerns. One probably gets an undue amount of attention, and I think there is a need for greater balance, and it is around the environmental component and the fact that the off-products of nuclear are serious, long-lasting and immensely damaging not only to human health but to the planet in general. The second is financial, as to whether the nuclear industry, if left to its own devices, would be able to compete with the other forms of energy that exist within our energy mix in the country. It is a subsidized industry at various points along the process, and now we are entering the debate very specifically about the limited liability that the government is putting forward.

Allow me to say two things first before I get into the details of each of those aspects. One is that the review of this act is long overdue. The world has moved on significantly from when the act was first put together. Its application is no longer connected with any reality in regard to what is happening in the world and in the state of the nuclear industry.

Second, let me just comment that I think the Minister of Natural Resources, who spoke earlier today, did himself and the issue a disservice by not coming forward completely and transparently with what the implications are. There were several direct questions that we in my party put to him, just to simply lay the facts on the table, not one way or the other, but simply to put them on the table so that we can have a fair and honest debate in this place. At every opportunity, the minister chose to avoid answering the questions directly.

This pertains specifically to the liability question and the fact that within the bill the movement is from a $75 million cap to a $650 million cap on limited liability. The minister pretended, and in a sense stretched the point to nearly misleading the House, to say that the cap was a floor and that liability would start from $650 million and then go up.

I then took the bill itself to the minister to show him that in fact this is not a floor. As written in the bill, it is a ceiling. If he wishes to change that, then we look forward to the amendments, but presenting it as a floor as opposed to a ceiling changes the whole context. The $650 million that is noted in the bill as limited liability for the industry suggests to us and to many others who study these issues that beyond $650 million there is another question that arises: who picks up the tab in the event of a nuclear disaster or accident if the claims go beyond $650 million?

To some Canadians who are watching and following this debate, a little over half a billion dollars might seem like quite a bit, but we have to localize and contextualize the discussion. These nuclear plants do not tend to be located in far-flung places. They tend to be located in densely populated parts of our country. They tend to be located right next to much of the most significant drinking water supplies for our country and also for our neighbours to the south.

As for the implications of an accident, we certainly do not wish it and we encourage the government to take every mean and measure possible to prevent it, but an accident by its very nature is not predictable. An accident is an unknown, but it can happen, and if it never did we certainly would not need the insurance industry at all. However, the implications are extraordinary.

Of course when we get into debates on energy use and the profile of this country, the words and specific attributes of every energy source are important. The nuclear industry has gone to great lengths and measures to present itself as clear and clean. It uses a very well polled and well versed terminology to assure Canadians that it is an okay source of energy with few implications.

We do not have to be rocket scientists to understand that nuclear waste is extraordinarily dangerous. It lasts far beyond our lives and may last far beyond the existence of countries as we know them today. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of years.

There are implications for us as parliamentarians, as decision makers and leaders of this country, when dealing with issues that have implications that last many generations. There are implications that are more serious than we have seen in the debate to this point. We have a responsibility and an obligation to dig through the bill, to dig through the issue itself with the greatest scrutiny available to us, with all the information and the power we can muster, simply because the ramifications of what happens as a result of our decisions will not in all likelihood be borne by us but by generations to come.

We all care for our children, our grandchildren and our families. It is most important when dealing with issues like this one that we take the time as the parliamentarians to scrutinize those issues to the fullest extent.

So when the nuclear industry comes forward and says it is clear and clean, with all the rest of the jargon and spin it hires very competent marketing agencies to do, it flies in the face of what is actually in the bill. That is simply because to say there is no risk or no element of risk within the nuclear industry is a bit specious considering that under the list of compensatory damage are listed: “Bodily injury or damage to property; Psychological trauma; Close personal relationship; Liability for economic loss; Costs and wages; Power failure”; and “Environmental damage”. These are all conditions under which, in this piece of legislation, the supplier of nuclear energy can be taken to court and sued.

Let us take a look at that list. What is the limit for psychological trauma as a result of a nuclear accident? What is the limit on psychological trauma suffered by anyone in a close personal relationship with a person who has suffered bodily injury as a result of a nuclear accident? What about liability for economic loss? What about economic loss due to power failure or economic loss due directly to the incident itself? As for costs and wages, again, is it for those people directly affected or for anybody in an ancillary position who has been affected as well?

These are extraordinarily extensive realms and parameters in which someone could apply for compensation from the courts. As for suggesting, then, that we are going to limit the liability for this to provide what is essentially investor certainty for anyone looking to make a dollar through the nuclear industry, and then suggesting that this Parliament will then convene a special committee to pick up the tab for the rest of any damages that are forthcoming, let us be honest about the debate, folks.

Let us simply name it as it is and say that this is the ceiling. That is what is described in this bill as we have read it. The minister has said otherwise. In that case, I am not sure that he has read the legislation or if he is choosing to interpret it in a way opposite to how it is written.

There is obviously special treatment for the nuclear industry. This has been an industry that Canada has fostered for many decades. It has attempted to export it to other countries, with some success and some failure in bringing our technology to other countries. There are negotiations going on right now with some countries in the developing world to further export this technology, again with long term and serious implications in regard to the decision.

One wonders if the same application, the same treatment, is given to other industries, other industries with major investment, which the nuclear industry has had, other industries that have incurred liability. When an airline is begun in Canada or when someone brings an airline to Canada, does the government offer a limited liability insurance guarantee through the Parliament of Canada? When the auto industry got its start in Canada, was there an implication of the limited liability applied to the auto sector to say that if it had a major malfunction in any of its products, any of its cars, that the government would pick up the tab beyond a certain point?

We are aware of none. Perhaps some of my colleagues from the government can offer some points and suggest that in fact the nuclear industry is not treated as a special circumstance. That would be enlightening for us.

The nuclear debate is an extraordinarily sensitive hot topic. There is a lot of to-and-fro. There are extremes on both sides. Over the years we have seen various politicians go to the lengths of actually taking effluent from a nuclear plant and drinking it to show just how incredibly safe that effluent is. Those folks are no longer with us.

It is lamentable, but it shows that in the face of serious concern and evidence, in order to play politics, in order to assure Canadians that everything is okay despite overwhelming evidence, some politicians have gone to the extreme and have threatened and ended their own lives.

There is also the other extreme, with people presenting the case of nuclear energy in such tones of conflict as to suggest that it is the devil incarnate and brings forward all sorts of destruction by its very existence.

We think the balance point is in between. We think there is a place where we can achieve a serious and honest debate about the use of nuclear energy in our energy mix in this country. It is necessary to do that and we need to have representatives of the government come forward to present the facts as they are written in the legislation and not try to pretend they are otherwise.

There is indeed a lesson of unintended consequences when looking through legislation like this. It is very difficult for parliamentarians to imagine the various trajectories that can be taken with an issue like this. It is difficult to imagine what the energy mix, profile and demands will be in 50 or 100 years.

That brings me to the second point, which is about the environment. The financial circumstances of the nuclear industry, at least within this province in which we are debating, Ontario, have been mixed at best. There have been cost overruns. There have been liability claims. Ontario taxpayers, and through them the federal coffers as well, have picked up an enormous debt. It is for the Ontario voters to decide what they will do. Let us not kid ourselves. There have been rampant issues with and difficulties faced by the nuclear industry in making ends meet in simply operating cost-efficient electricity production.

On the environmental side, there are obviously the two main components of this. In this particular bill we are dealing with accidents. We are dealing with those times when things go wrong in a serious and significant way with implications that are far-reaching.

My colleague spoke earlier of the nature of a nuclear accident and its ability to produce a variety of contamination effects that can spread out over many thousands of hectares. The cleanup of such effects is extraordinarily expensive, never mind the cost to human health and insurance as dealt with under the bill.

The other component of the environment, of course, is the legacy of the waste. What do we do with the waste? The minister did speak truthfully earlier. It was a unique and enlightening moment when he talked about the creation of a committee that has gone around the country to talk about the issue of nuclear waste.

When those committee members came before the environment committee some time ago, the only real question I had for them about the 200 or so community visits they conducted across the country was to find out in how many communities, as I suggested at the end of their presentation, a nuclear waste facility was welcome in the municipality. Most of these presentations were done at the municipal level. If we want to talk for a moment about a legacy, the question is being put to these small regional districts and small communities in a presentation of facts by this nuclear waste committee in regard to making a decision that would last for generations to come.

It is a fascinating thing to look at the structure of municipal politics within this country, because most people enter politics for a three year term. They enter for a variety of reasons, such as making the sidewalks better or changing the tax base within their community, but rarely have I heard a municipal politician running for office say, “Vote for me because I want to make decisions about nuclear waste for our community”. Rarely have I heard municipal politicians say they want to make decisions that will have implications and effects that will last for generations to come. It is just not within the general context of what happens within municipal affairs.

I asked the committee members how many communities, mayors, councillors and presidents of chambers of commerce approached them during, afterward or before the presentation and said, “Please come and be a part of our community and form your industry here”. After four attempts at getting an answer, one was finally delivered. “None” was the response. There were no communities that said this. Of course the government has since gone ahead and is pushing the debate further in trying to find a place to put the waste. It is a serious implication.

Earlier a number of my colleagues raised the issue of climate change. We have to keep in mind that globally in the nuclear industry the amount of power provided by it is smaller than that provided by what we now call the alternatives: wind, solar, wave and tidal. There is often a perception out there that the nuclear industry and nuclear power provide this source of energy that is just absolutely irreplaceable.

This is so often trotted out as an excuse for why the energy mix is the way it is and why it will be so forevermore. Governments will come forward with self-fulfilling prophecies and say that currently we produce 13% of our energy through coal or nuclear, or whatever the case may be, and if we were to strip that out tomorrow, this is what the implications would be; therefore, they say, we need to continue with the source of energy that we find worrisome, whether it is with respect to climate change or other environmental concerns.

If we continue to point ourselves in that direction, that is the place we will end up. That has been the legacy of energy policy in Canada for the last 40 years. It is a continuance of more of the same.

Now we have questions and concerns coming out of the U.S. The energy agency is now looking at the tar sands as one of its major focuses, not simply to take energy from them but concerns around the climate change impact of what that energy delivers. This is a classic example of a government getting on a track and enjoying the gravy train so much that it cannot consider pulling in the implications of what the true cost of doing business is.

Looking at the nuclear front, we must include the true cost of doing business. If we put false ceilings on liability, if we continue to subsidize various parts of the chain, we present a false debate and a false option to Canadians. We pretend that the cost of production is only so much per kilowatt when actually it is much more because the subsidies are built in all along the way and not accounted for, as are the externalities, in this case the externality of liability, the externality that is put forward as waste management.

We can no longer consider this term “externality” as a viable economic argument. It is specious, it is wrong and it will continue to lead us in the wrong direction when it comes to caring for the planet and the implications of climate change.

If business is what the government claims to be all about, then it should allow business to do what it does, which is to find economic solutions to the problems posed by society. Subsidies are no way to solve an energy mix. Subsidies are no way to look at what it is we want our future generations to be left with. Clearly, the forces of the market can allow themselves to work and find a happier compromise.

If levelling the playing field is what the government is truly interested in doing, then I can assure it, and many Canadians will join me, that in given options, time and again Canadians will pursue the option that has the least implications and impact for the environment. We clearly see this on a number of fronts that are happening in the commercial sector and in its products.

Time and again, industries realize where the benefits may be. One of the greatest challenges the auto sector has been faced with is the continuance of the making of models that it believes Canadians want while, on the other hand, the price of gas at the pump goes up week on week and Canadians are seeking lower emission cars, higher efficiency cars and yet we stay in a rut that takes us in a different direction and then lament the fact and look for help from government, which the previous government and the current government consider somehow to be a viable economic strategy.

The truth presented in this bill is that there are serious and significant implications when dealing with a nuclear accident. If it were not so, then the government would not need to, under the advice of its lawyers and insurance consultants, list bodily injury, psychological trauma, close personal relationship and trauma to somebody affected, liability for economic loss, costs of wages, power failure and environmental damage.

If there were not strong and significant implications, we would not need to list any of those. If there were not strong and serious implications for human health, we would not list them. Of course we need to list them because they need to be considered. The consideration back to government is: Why would one limit liability within the industry? Why would one then share the liability across the entire country?

I represent people from British Columbia. They will rightly ask me, as they will ask any member from British Columbia or the other provinces that do not currently use nuclear energy, “If there is an accident and if the accident exceeds the government's cap, why is the cost then spread across all provinces and all taxpayers?” It is a reasonable question. It is a question that the government needs to answer. If the government has a viable and ready answer for us, then we are prepared to discuss it. It is only in the interests of truthfulness and looking for full disclosure as to what this debate is really about.

The final point I would like to make, which has been raised by some of my colleagues, is that in the United States no similar cap can be identified that limits the nuclear energy producers to this liability limit. Does this start to create a scenario in which there is an enhancement for creating nuclear facilities north of the border rather than south? One of the greatest costs is the cost of insurance when dealing with the nuclear industry. If one of those costs is considered more favourable in another country, it starts to distort the market forces that we think deserve their time to work.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. colleague whose passion for the environment I applaud and I share.

However, I would like to talk about insurance just for a minute. Insurance is all about risk assessment. If I do something stupid with my car, my insurance company will pay someone $2 million. If the person does not think that is enough, there are ways the person can get more out of me.

I wonder if my hon. colleague believes that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a credible organization. It has said that the maximum foreseeable liability for a worst case scenario is anywhere from $1 million to $100 million. Risk assessment for insurance, of course, is based on standards, on history and on many things that are factored into that assessment. That is what insurance is all about. All insurance has a limited liability, regardless of whether it is for my car or for a situation like this.

Does my colleague believe that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a credible body? If the answer is no, fine, he can disregard the question. However, if the answer is yes, then why not give some credence to its assessment of this situation?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we think the folks at the agency do good work. They attempt to mitigate the inherent risks that exist within this industry.

Part of the intention of my speech earlier was to highlight and acknowledge those risks. I think it is specious to present to Canadians what some elements of the nuclear industry have done, which is to present little puffy white clouds on a blue background with words like “clear” and “giving assurance”. The reason we need to give assurance is that the nuclear industry had a bit of a rough ride through the eighties and nineties in terms of liability.

I have a question for the government, which remains unanswered. We are very well aware of the concept of limited liability for insurance. If claims go beyond the cap that is set under the bill--and other industries have put caps of $1 billion and more, by the way, for contextual reasons, higher density populations and the rest--we simply want to know who picks up the tab. I think it is a fair question. We have yet to hear an answer from any member on the government benches.

If the answer to that question is no, that this will not be levelled on the taxpayers, this will not be spread across every federal taxpaying person in Canada, that this will be concentrated back to the industry and the industry will then need to somehow grab those costs, then we look forward to the answer. However, we are yet to hear it. That is a straightforward and simple question and it deserves a straightforward and simple answer.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley certainly has insights into this issue of liability. I would like to expand on one point that he made with respect to the appetite that the public has for taking on high risk public interest related responsibilities.

He has indicated that across the country there is not a case where one would go out and ask whether someone would like to have a nuclear waste facility. I would like to point out that there have been examples where referendums have been taken and, in the higher public interest when risk has been minimized, the public has said that it will take certain responsibilities with respect to solid waste.

Therefore, it is not totally out of keeping with the public. Given that the risks are explained to them and every check and balance has been put in place, they will accept that risk.

In terms of unlimited liability as it relates to mining, subsidiary processing activities and so on, and particularly from a northern perspective, is the member satisfied that the bill covers that kind of liability that people would have confidence in this kind of legislation and support the industry?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the communities' representation in taking on the risk of containing and holding nuclear waste for generations, the record is certainly mixed.

When the Nuclear Waste Management Organization was asked how many of the couple of hundred communities it visited came forward with interest in proceeding with the investigation into taking in this waste, the answer from that organization was none. I know its agenda was different.

The important thing for communities to consider is who gets to make the decision at the end of the day, and whether the people making that decision have the necessary information in order to make a decision that will have long-lasting implications far beyond their tenure, far beyond their lives on this earth.

The promotion of false promises is a very dangerous thing when it comes to the environment. I think Canadians are at a point of discouragement right now when considering the government's ability to deal with environmental issues that are facing it, whether it is species at risk or climate change, which is directly connected to this questions of the energy mix that we use.

All we suggest and all we encourage is that the debate become as transparent and as open as possible when talking about unlimited or limited liability as to who picks up the tab.

In terms of the mining sector, I will be honest with my colleague that the mining associations I deal with in British Columbia do not mine any of these materials. We have not yet seen an implication of unlimited liability apply to mining for uranium. We would be interested in and look forward to the debate in committee.

However, we know that the bonding scheme that has been encouraged through the mining associations has much improved over the last 15 years but it needs a lot more work.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his very good presentation on some of the key issues here. I also want to acknowledge the fact that he is really talking about deferring liability to future generations.

I want to ask him specifically why he should trust this current Conservative government or, in the past, Liberal governments when they left legacies in communities where the governments have failed to clean up. Although it is not nuclear, we have former DEW line sites in northern Ontario and in other parts of the north where communities, decades later, are still facing serious cleanup issues and they cannot get any results from government to help them out. Certainly there are the tar ponds in the east.

We have a government that is currently looking at converting freshwater lakes to tailing ponds. We know that future generations will need to deal with that cleanup. A cap on liability, which will then be passed on to taxpayers, why would any community have any faith that it would actually be able to get money out of the taxpayer system?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is the issue of legacy, and liability is significant in her part of the world where there have been a number of near experimentations tried when it comes to energy mix and some more proposed liquefied natural gas and the rest.

I think Canadians can be forgiven for having a great deal of suspicion and doubt when government speaks about the environment. I actually feel a small amount of sympathy for the Conservatives on various days when I watch them try to wrestle their ideology with what the current polling trends in Canada are showing them, which is that there is a deep and heartfelt concern for the environment, particularly around the issue of climate change, but it extends to other issues such as water quality and species at risk.

The suspicion is well warranted, frankly, because I have watched the government and the previous government up close, a little too closely many days, trying to wrestle with the various choices that they have had available to them. Members all remember the initial thrust of the current government coming into office when it had virtually no interest in the environment whatsoever. It has struggled and stumbled. Canadians can be forgiven for suspecting the government all the more.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the question that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had about why this bill has been introduced. It is actually quite simple.

The reason the bill has been introduced and tabled in the House and why we believe it should pass is that sometimes litigation, in our increasingly litigious society, outweighs the public good. If we look at the experience in the United States with litigation on many issues in the past number of decades, often what happens is that private interests trump the public interest.

We have seen, time and time again, south of the border and sometimes here in Canada where civil suits brought against public or private companies or against governments end up hurting the public interest. That is why there have been caps on litigation and why there have been caps placed on liability. That is the purpose of the bill.

I also would say that nuclear power is an important part of the energy mix and Ontario accounts for 50% of our power output. Many of these reactors will need to be replaced in the coming years and this legislation would assist in that regard.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is now straight into the realm of law reform and potentially limiting liability and lawsuit claimants in other jurisdictions. There has been much research on this and I claim no expertise, but oftentimes people point to south of the border and what happens there, where someone sues for $6 million and the net benefit to society diminishes through this structure of law and the ability to seek compensation. If that is the proposal of the government, I have yet to see it. It has not been suggested as a priority if that is where it is headed.

On this issue though, all we have asked is if the Conservatives are going to limit liability that they be up front with Canadians because we will be on the hook collectively for any accidents that go beyond the limit.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity today to comment on Bill C-5 and the modifications of Canada's nuclear liability framework.

Canada was, and if I may say so, is a pioneer in the development of atomic energy. We were at the creation, so to speak, in the 1940s at Chalk River and Montreal. During that period nuclear energy was developed through the cooperation of scientists in a few countries. We continue in that mode today but in a much wider circle.

I would like to centre my remarks on the international aspects in comparison of Bill C-5. I want to put the changes proposed by this piece of legislation into a broader global context. They relate to modifications in international conventions that were first influenced by events abroad. I would like to comment on these conventions and their relationship to Canadian interests, both domestic and international.

Let me begin with the proposal that Canada's nuclear compensation and liability legislation should be consistent with international nuclear liability regimes. This requirement goes beyond mere financial issues related to liability and compensation. It extends to definitions of what constitutes a nuclear industry, what is compensable damage and so forth.

Consistency brings Canada broader national benefits. It makes possible for us to subscribe to international conventions we do not already belong to and makes it easier should we wish to subscribe to them in the future.

There are two such conventions which are important and relate to this legislation, both of which date back to the early 1960s. The first is the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. Adopted under the auspices of the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is very much a European accord. It was reinforced by the Brussels Supplementary Convention. The second accord is the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. This is a product of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body. It is modelled after the Paris Convention but is open to all members of the UN and is not merely concentrated on Europe.

Canada is not a party to either of these conventions. However, the Nuclear Liability Act is a sensible step in the direction of these conventions. It is important for our liability framework to remain consistent with these conventions as they evolve with our international partners.

The two conventions establish compensation limits. In the case of the Paris-Brussels regime the maximum compensation is approximately $500 million Canadian--but may I say that with our rising dollar, who knows where that number will be--and is available through a three tier combination of operator, public and member state funds.

At the time it was adopted, the Vienna Convention set the minimum liability limit at $5 million U.S., based upon the gold standard, the common international exchange mechanism at that time. Today the value is approximately $75 million Canadian. However, in 1997 the signatories revised the convention to establish significantly higher limits for operators. It is now approximately $500 million. The operators' liability can be set at $250 million by national legislation provided public funds make up the difference to $500 million.

At the time of these revisions, a new nuclear liability regime called the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage was adopted under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN. This convention guarantees the availability of approximately $1 billion to compensate for nuclear damage. Half of this amount will be available under the national law of signatory nations and half through contributions made collectively by states that are party to the convention on the basis of their nuclear capacity and a United Nations assessment rate.

This convention is open to all countries regardless of whether they are parties to any existing nuclear liability accord. As a matter of interest, the United States ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage in 2006.

Although Canada is not a party to either of these conventions, we participated in their review. We did so in order to monitor international third party liability trends and other issues of interest, such as definitions of nuclear incidents and the extension of time limits for death and injury claims.

For Canada the net result of these changes is a widening gap between Canada's regime and international standards. This makes it increasingly important to update and modernize our own liability arrangements. As a result, the changes in these conventions have influenced Canada's revision of the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act and many of the changes proposed in the new act bear their imprint.

International consistency in these areas benefits Canada at many levels and in many ways. It encourages investment in Canada. It also levels the playing field for Canadian nuclear companies interested in contracts abroad. These companies may be inhibited from bidding because of uncertainty about liability and compensation issues.

Consistency is important for a more fundamental reason. It demonstrates Canadian solidarity with other nations on issues of safety and liability. As a major user and exporter of nuclear power technology, Canada must uphold its reputation for uncompromising excellence, responsibility and accountability.

Bill C-5 is the culmination of a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Liability Act of 1976, which included an examination of its relationship to international standards. This examination led to the proposal of several improvements.

The current $75 million limit has been increased because it would likely not be sufficient in the event of a major nuclear incident. The $650 million that the new legislation proposes reflects the requirements as we understand them today.

Bill C-5 would also extend from 10 years to 30 years the period for a victim to claim compensation, a proposal which increases flexibility for ordinary citizens who may not immediately understand what may have affected them.

The proposed changes also include a redefinition of compensable damages to include environmental damage, preventive measures and also economic loss.

Bill C-5 is important to Canadians, the strength of our nuclear industry and our international stature. It deserves the support of the House.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out earlier that so far no member of the government had talked about what would happen if claims should exceed the cap that is outlined in the bill. I wonder if the member could comment specifically on that since, as I pointed out in an earlier question, we currently have any number of situations in this country where people who are residing in areas who have had other kinds of contamination are still waiting for some sort of movement from the government. The former DEW Line sites would be a classic example.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on that question.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will put my hon. colleague's comments and question into context on a few things.

First, as the bill provides, should the damages on a potential low risk incident rise above $650 million, Parliament would be brought together to discuss it. I want to put that $650 million into context.

Studies have been done on whether or not there would be liability in the event of a major incident and what that liability would be. The incident at Three Mile Island in the United States was looked at. Translated into Canadian dollars, real dollar value now, the liability from that incident, which was viewed as a major incident, was about $100 million.

I would like to add to the basic background to give some sort of an idea of what sort of damages we may be potentially looking at.

In 2003 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission contracted an independent firm to study what the economic loss, the personal loss, et cetera would be from a major incident. It went through the criteria, looked at a possible major incident in a plant, and I believe that Darlington was the plant that was used as the model, and it came to the conclusion that as a worst case scenario, it was looking at $100 million with what we have in Canada.

While I am very open to hon. members thinking that $650 million would not compensate, independent studies in 2003 indicated it would be well below that level. There are other aspects available for other funds, and also, there is a provision in the bill where every five years the minister would be required to review it. I believe the $650 million figure could rise, which is something that has not been noted in the bill yet, and if in the future it was felt this amount was insufficient protection for taxpayers, the limit could be raised.

Looking at the numbers, $100 million is what the amount has been in the past and what has been estimated would happen. I think that $650 million, with the potential for that amount to be raised, is sufficient before the issue would be brought to Parliament to be looked at further.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

This is an important debate in this Chamber today, because the issue of nuclear energy will occupy a greater place in our discussions in the years to come. There are three important issues that I would like to point out before heading directly into the debate on Bill C-5. First, this government decided in recent weeks to join the nuclear club and to use all international forums to promote an energy source which, according to the federal government, is considered clean.

I was in Kyoto in 1997, when the international community decided to exclude nuclear energy as an energy source that could benefit from emission credits under the Kyoto protocol. I remember the debates we had in Japan about this energy source. Of course it can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but it creates other important external factors including, among others, radioactive waste. No one can promote this form of energy and this alternative without having a plan for better ways of managing the resulting waste.

A major conference called Climate 2050 was held in Montreal last week. A leading researcher, Thomas Cochran, appeared before the international community and said that, in the view of American environmentalists, the nuclear industry must play a more active role in dealing with the problems related to the underground storage of nuclear waste.

These problems are extremely important in Canada, where some provinces have decided in favour of nuclear energy. I could mention Ontario, which, among other things, has just decided to modernize its nuclear facilities. I could also mention New Brunswick, which recently decided to favour this approach.

The controversy surrounding nuclear power will therefore only intensify in the years to come. We will have to remain very cognizant of the technologies that are developed and the approaches that the government recommends in the years to come.

We will have to be vigilant because we know as well that Quebec has only one nuclear power plant on its soil. This facility is responsible for barely 10% of the nuclear waste produced in Canada. Nevertheless, among the storage sites and possible sites that the federal government has recommended so far, we find the Lower North Shore. We certainly would not want Quebec to become the nuclear garbage bin of Canada when we account for barely 5% of Canada’s nuclear waste.

I therefore call upon the government to be very careful with the decisions it makes in the next few years. The liability regime in case of nuclear accidents is very important. This is the issue addressed in Bill C-5. Its stated purpose is to establish a liability regime applicable in the event of a nuclear incident that makes operators of nuclear installations absolutely and exclusively liable for damages up to a maximum of $650 million.

Back in 1976, Canada passed the Nuclear Liability Act, which made the operators of nuclear installations liable for damages in the event of nuclear incidents and set the amount of coverage required at $75 million. Part II of the act enabled the Governor in Council to establish a nuclear damage claims commission to deal with claims for compensation in the event that the federal government concluded that the cost of the damages resulting from a nuclear accident could exceed $75 million.

Since the operator’s liability was limited to the amount of its insurance, the federal government would therefore probably have to absorb the difference.

We can hardly oppose a proposal to increase the amount of coverage to $650 million. I will come back later to the question of whether this increase to $650 million is enough. There will certainly be a debate in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on which my friend from Brome—Missisquoi sits, because there is good reason to think that this is not sufficient at the present time.

In Chapter 8 of the 2005 annual report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, she dealt with this issue of the insurance required of operators of nuclear installations. What did she conclude? She said that the accident insurance requirements for nuclear facilities did not meet the international standards. This meant, among others, the Paris convention and the Vienna convention. The coverage would therefore inevitably have to be increased.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources studied this issue, as we recall, in June 2002. It concluded that the $75 million of coverage required under the act was terribly inadequate. I repeat that, in the committee’s view, this coverage was inadequate in light of the prevailing international standards. The committee set the stage, therefore, for the conclusion that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would reach in 2005.

The committee added that when the senior officials from Natural Resources Canada appeared they even said that, taking inflation into account, $250 million in today’s dollars would be equivalent to what the act provided for when it was passed, and that to come up to the international standard, that would have to be increased to about $650 million.

As a result, despite the changes and the increase in the number of facilities that can be anticipated as a result of the decision by some provinces to encourage the construction and modernization of some of their nuclear installations, the bill simply brings the coverage up to standard in terms of the international conventions. Given the decisions that will be made in Ontario and New Brunswick, we might even doubt that $650 million will be considered to be an adequate coverage level, since taking inflation alone into account would call for coverage of $650 million to comply with the international conventions.

We should also note that in the United States, as my colleague in the NDP was saying earlier, the Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of commercial nuclear plant operators to $9.4 billion U.S. nation-wide. For each reactor, the operators have to take out private insurance for $200 million U.S. plus a second-level policy for $88 million U.S. South of the border, the operators’ coverage and liability requirements are already higher than what we have here in Canada.

An American study done in 1982 showed that the worst-case scenario for an accident in a nuclear plant would result in costs on the order of $24.8 billion U.S. and $590 billion U.S. Coverage is therefore needed. In a few weeks, members will be able to consider in committee if our coverage is sufficient.

What is even more deplorable is the slack approach taken by the government since 1976, especially since the worst nuclear catastrophe the world has seen, Chernobyl, happened in 1988. How is it that the federal government has waited all this time before acting and proposing an increase in the coverage level?

Today, I would make it clear that we support Bill C-5 in principle. However, as parliamentarians, we will have to focus on the entire issue, both the question of nuclear power and the question of nuclear waste. We will also have to consider those questions with a view to the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation in the world in future.

In my opinion, this issue must be examined in its entirety. Naturally, we support Bill C-5, as my colleague has said. Of course, an in-depth discussion must be held about both the question of radioactive waste and the advisability of encouraging this type of power. Most importantly, we will have to examine the level of coverage and liability for nuclear energy promoters in Canada.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech, which was very clear.

I would like to ask him a question about the life cycle of a nuclear plant. A life cycle includes all costs: research and development, construction, operation, insurance, police surveillance around the plant, security, decommissioning, demolition, decontamination and the monitoring of waste for one or several thousand years.

I would like my colleague to tell me one thing. If all these resources were invested and the government was not involved, would the private sector still be interested in operating nuclear plants, for which the costs are very high? I would like him to tell me if he thinks that the costs are enormous.

If the project was truly evaluated, given its life cycle and including the externalities which are not usually covered by the private sector, would a nuclear plant be feasible and profitable?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one environmental concern that must always be examined when considering such a question is the life cycle of a product. That is crucial. Issues linked to the transportation of waste must also be examined. Basically, someone has to ensure the necessary investments are made, from the research and development stage to the waste treatment stage.

We can see very clearly where the nuclear industry is headed in Canada. For example, certain areas of Quebec and Canada will be asked to bury nuclear waste in their land, with the promise of astronomical payments. In reality, that waste must be treated.

I am very concerned about the scenario being presented by the federal government, where three sites are the focus. I am thinking specifically about the Labrador site, but also about the North Shore site. An attempt is being made to convince certain mayors that taking on this kind of waste will enrich their region.

One thing must be considered, and that is the Seaborn commission report. My colleague from Sherbrooke, who is present here today, was our natural resources critic at the time. What is needed is a solution that is technologically acceptable. Yet the Seaborn report indicated that social acceptability is just as important in any proposed solution.

As my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi said, this assessment must take into consideration the entire life cycle of the product, and not be conducted only by sector or by niche. The problem is comprehensive and the solution must be equally comprehensive.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his speech about the nuclear industry and nuclear waste management. These days, as we all know, when it comes to disposing of any kind of waste, people almost always say, “Not in my backyard”. That is currently the biggest problem we have with household waste.

In terms of nuclear waste, apparently they have figured out a way to treat it or bury it, but deciding where to bury it is a big problem. Earlier, they said it might be in Labrador or on the North Shore, and they promised astronomical compensation and fees.

When I was a member of the natural resources committee, I was worried that once they found a so-called acceptable method, Canada would open its doors to nuclear waste from other countries because nobody on this planet wants to worry about managing it. It also looks like locations have been selected. Nearly all of the locations where the government wants to bury nuclear waste are in Quebec, even though Quebec is home to just one of Canada's 22 nuclear plants and accounts for a very small proportion of the country's nuclear production.

I would like my colleague to comment on the possibility that countries that are currently producing nuclear power will be looking for places to bury nuclear waste that are not on their own soil.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Quebec has only one nuclear power plant, and the preferred waste disposal site is on the lower North Shore. For the information of the Conservative member from Quebec, there is only one nuclear plant in Quebec: Gentilly.

The federal government needs to keep in mind that Quebec is responsible for about 5% of the nuclear waste produced here in Canada. Yet the government has included three sites, including the site on the lower North Shore. My colleague is right. We also have to look at how we will move this waste. Will we use the St. Lawrence Seaway, which our friends opposite claim could be a terrorist target? There is a very real risk associated with the government's decision to choose the lower North Shore site for the treatment and disposal of nuclear waste in Canada. There is the question of responsibility.

Let me give the House some background. In the 1960s, we had the choice between nuclear and hydroelectric power. We chose hydroelectricity. In Quebec, 95% of our electricity is hydroelectricity and comes from renewable sources. And today, we are being told by the members opposite that Quebec would be responsible for 95% of Canada's nuclear waste? I do not believe that Quebeckers will be very happy to make that choice. That is why I do not believe this waste should be treated in Quebec.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

From the outset, we will have to make changes in committee. The Bloc Québécois will have to make improvements to the bill, as it always does to protect the interests of Quebeckers as well as Canadians. I must say that just because we are tackling Bill C-5 to increase compensation for damage, does not mean we support the Conservative government's whole plan for developing nuclear energy.

I find it very inconsistent of the government to introduce a bill in this House to increase compensation for damage while the Prime Minister is currently prohibiting his ministers from discussing the entire nuclear energy plan. It is being discussed in secret, behind closed doors, with the United States among others, in the framework of the global nuclear energy partnership.

Those who follow the news in print media understand quite well that the Prime Minister's Office issued an order banning his ministers—and his members of Parliament—from talking. It is clear that the Conservative Party intends to move forward with developing nuclear energy. It is not for nothing that it is introducing Bill C-5 to increase compensation for damage. Since 1990, the government has been very lax and has not increased the amount of compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

Today, the government is introducing a bill as a precursor. It is increasing compensation for damage. It seems that the Conservative government intends to push the development of nuclear energy and invest time and money on the side, in secret, while preventing its members of Parliament and its ministers from talking about it.

This is very difficult for us, as Quebeckers, in the Bloc Québécois. Earlier my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explained quite well that there is only a single nuclear power plant in Quebec. Roughly 95% of our energy comes from hydroelectricity, without a cent from the federal government. I want to remind my colleagues from all the parties that Quebec developed hydroelectricity without any federal money by using the hydroelectricity fees and the taxes paid by Quebeckers.

So, you will understand our hesitation when we see the federal government using public funds to invest in nuclear energy or any other kind of energy while we in Quebec have developed hydroelectricity using our own tax revenues. Yet we pay one quarter of the bill when the government decides to invest in nuclear or other, fossil fuel energy. It is difficult to accept, especially because the wrong message is being sent. The Conservatives have become the master impressionists. They are trying to give the impression that they will solve our energy problems.

Witness the news release issued in June by the Minister of Natural Resources. The title was “Canada's Nuclear Future: Clean, Safe, Responsible”. The minister wanted to spread the message that it is clean energy. However, in responding to a journalist’s question about what would be done with radioactive waste, if nuclear energy were developed, he said that he did not know. They do not know where they will bury radioactive waste. They have not yet decided.

As my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, there is one part of Quebec where they hope to offer significant royalties to Quebec for burying radioactive waste produced in other parts of Canada. Surely, you will understand our hesitation. They are trying to make us believe that nuclear energy is clean, even though there is a large and serious problem concerning nuclear waste. This Conservative government, just like the Liberal government before it, has not been able to solve this problem.

Nuclear energy creates considerable waste. Where and how is that waste going to be buried? What will be the result of all that, especially, in terms of transport? Absolutely nothing has been settled but the federal government decided to go ahead and participate, under the table, as I have explained, in discussion with other partners, including the United States, as part of a global nuclear energy partnership. They want to develop a nuclear network. They do not know where the radioactive waste will be disposed. Obviously, they hope that Quebec will accept it. You should understand that we produce only about five percent of all the nuclear waste produced in Canada.

Some people want Quebec to accept all the nuclear waste. You must know that the people of Quebec will not be fooled. This bill, which is in three parts, covers the operator’s responsibilities, the conditions and financial limitations of responsibility and the establishment of a nuclear claims tribunal.

The fact that the amount of damages jumps from $75 million to $650 million reveals the laxity of the federal government over the past 31 years because there have been no amendments in all that time. This is the first time that a major amendment has been introduced.

Clearly, one must ask a serious question. Is the amount of $650 million sufficient, considering that, in our opinion, the federal government should not be investing any money in nuclear development?

We should leave the responsibility of paying the full amount of the bill to those who want to develop this kind of energy. You must understand that in Quebec, it was Quebeckers themselves who paid for hydroelectric development. Therefore, it would be perfectly normal that those who want to develop the nuclear option should pay the whole cost.

Quebeckers do not need to be obliged to pay one-quarter of this bill because they already provide between 23% and 25% of all the money that Canada spends. We would like to say something about the fines. If there is a violation some day, will $650 million be enough? We will study this in committee. Witnesses will be called and we will place our trust in the committee responsible for improving this bill.

At first glance—and from reading articles by people who are knowledgeable and expert in the field—we are inclined to say that the fines will have to be substantial because the damages from nuclear catastrophes can be incredibly large. In view of what happened at Chernobyl, the last great nuclear catastrophe, I do not think that $650 million will suffice. The bill should be very clear on the levying of fines and the way in which the nuclear industry should be allowed to develop so that funds can be created that are sufficient to deal with nuclear incidents or catastrophes.

If Canada wants to go in this direction and the Conservatives intend to continue what they have started over the last few weeks and months, that is to say, international negotiations or discussions on the development of the nuclear industry, it will be very important for them to be able to impose rules on the people involved in this form of energy. In our view, it should not be up to the federal government to provide any money at all for the development of nuclear power.

The provinces and people who want to have this kind of power should do it, but they should also create a compensation fund so that it is not the taxpayers, including those from Quebec, who are summoned once again to cover some of the bill.

I will never be able to say it enough, but it is very important for my colleagues to understand that the federal government did not contribute any money at all toward the development of the entire hydroelectric system in Quebec. It was Quebeckers who did it. The federal government never contributed. This was not the case, however, of the development of fossil fuels, including oil, and more than $40 billion has been invested since 1990 in the development of other kinds of energy, including nuclear.

We would therefore like it to end. We have to stop making Quebec pay for developing other people’s energy, while we ourselves are paying, with no federal assistance, to develop our own energy. It bears repeating: hydroelectricity is clean energy and we are proud of it. This is a choice that Quebeckers made in the 1960s. We could have chosen nuclear power, but we decided to invest in hydroelectricity, and it has paid off for us. It is what has made Quebec the first province to be able to meet the Kyoto objectives.

If Quebec were a country, we would have ratified the Kyoto protocol. We would be taking part in discussions about the carbon exchange and we could be benefiting our businesses, which have clearly made efforts, in both the manufacturing sector and the aluminum industry, and which have succeeded in reducing their emissions based on the objectives set in the 1992 Kyoto protocol.

Quebec companies have thus done far better than the Kyoto objectives set in 1992. As of today, we would be able to sell credits on the carbon exchange. That is not the case, because obviously we are part of Canada, which will never ratify the Kyoto protocol, regardless of what the federal government’s environment ministers may say, particularly the Conservatives, who are trying to negotiate agreements with other countries that would run flatly counter to the Kyoto protocol and try to create their own system for doing things.

All the while, the icebergs are melting in the North and we are talking about a navigable passage in the North. This is a direct consequence of the greenhouse gases that are destroying the most beautiful ice fields on the planet, on which a large part of our ecosystem depends. This is a choice made by the Conservatives. We see it again today, with bills to oversee nuclear development, with a Prime Minister who stops his ministers from even talking to journalists about the nuclear option. We see where this government wants to go: against the Kyoto protocol, pro-nuclear, pro-war, everything to destroy our wonderful planet. This is the choice made by the Conservatives.

It is clear that the purpose of my speech is to state that although the Bloc Québécois does support this bill to increase liabilities and fines for those who could cause damage through a nuclear catastrophe, it is not because we support the development of nuclear energy. Quite the contrary, we will completely defend only the development of clean energy that does not produce radioactive waste.

Once again this government is making a mistake by trying to sell nuclear energy as a clean energy source. No, it does not emit greenhouse gases, but it does produce radioactive waste that takes tens of millions of years to break down. The exact figure has not yet been calculated. We should be able to decontaminate this waste. We must stop trying to bury it. Given that the technology has not yet been developed, Canadian regions, including Quebec's North Shore among others, are offered large sums. There is a wish to bury the waste from other Canadian provinces in Quebec, despite the fact that Quebeckers decided to develop a clean energy, hydroelectricity, using their own money.

It is clear now that the Bloc Québécois will support bill C-5, but it will make improvements to it in committee. As for the $650 million in damages, we find that a very low figure given that a nuclear catastrophe would cost a great deal more. Witnesses will be called in order to adjust this amount. This does not mean that, while we support Bill C-5, we support the way in which this Conservative government has decided to develop nuclear energy, behind closed doors, in secret negotiations with other countries.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He will have seven minutes for his comments after oral question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)