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.

[Murray Elston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to be here with my colleague Pierre Guimond, who is the association's director of regulatory affairs. I have a brief statement and will obviously be pleased to take questions afterwards.

The Canadian Nuclear Association is a non-profit organization established in 1960 to represent the nuclear industry in Canada and promote the development and growth of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. One of the things we do most is to provide information for public policy consideration. As an example of that, I've provided to the clerk today in English and in French a document that we prepared analyzing a report drawn up by Greenpeace on tritium. And the analysis of that report that we had conducted under the auspices of an internationally recognized authority on the subject, Dr. Osborne, is in fact an analysis of where the Greenpeace study came up short in its analysis of the effects of tritium.

That is an example of what we do to try to make sure that the information is all available for public consideration. It makes this particularly valuable at this time when the whole world is considering the expansion of nuclear industry assets for the purposes of generating electricity for solving medical problems and for dealing with other interesting issues.

We use that just as a piece of information for you. Please read it, because we want the record to be straight and we spent a lot of our resources and assets in a fashion to make sure that material is available to you.

Nuclear energy in Canada generates about 15% of Canada's electricity and over half of the electricity generated in Ontario, without polluting air. There are 22 reactors in Canada, with two undergoing refurbishment and 18 presently operating. Two units at Pickering A nuclear generating station are in safe storage mode at the moment.

The industry directly employs about 21,000 people and another 10,000 indirectly in other industries, government, and other organizations involved in the nuclear field, including uranium mining, mining and processing, developers and operators of nuclear plants and facilities, electrical utilities, nuclear medicine, and all the way to aerospace and automotive research, manufacturing, engineering, consulting, and education institutions. We're much more broadly spread than just the generation of electricity, which is at the moment probably the most spoken about part of our industry.

As Canada and in particular Ontario embark on making urgent and important decisions on our future electricity generation supply, it becomes even more important that the contributions of nuclear energy are well understood. Our society is grappling with the challenges of supplying its citizens with reliable, affordable electricity without harming the environment. Nuclear energy will be even more important in the future in helping us reach our economic and environmental goals. It has, for 45 years in Canada, enjoyed an excellent safety record, and we're proud of our accomplishments.

The industry is committed to continued better performance, more efficient and safe operation of its units, and an increased contribution to Canada's economic well-being. The commitment to a culture of safety throughout the industry is total. Quite frankly, we will not operate reactors, mine uranium, process nuclear fuel, develop medical isotopes, and manage used nuclear fuel without a full and total commitment to a culture of safety.

Statute law and the regulatory process help the industry fully implement what we are already committed to do on safety. Regulatory oversight is one of the vehicles by which we demonstrate to the public the extent of our safety-first commitment and actions. We do this day in and day out.

The members of the CNA have reviewed Bill C-5, the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, presently before the standing committee. The CNA is generally supportive of the act and the improved and coherent liability regime that it brings about. The nuclear liability framework established under the 1976 legislation in Canada is based on principles of absolute and exclusive liability of the operator, mandatory financial security, and liability limitations in time and amount. These principles are standard features of nuclear legislation in the United States, as well as in Europe and other parts of the world. Bill C-5 upholds these important principles, while bringing the existing legislation up to date in some important respects.

Several of our member companies have written to the chair through the clerk and indicated their support of the bill, with a few changes. We have identified the need for a broader range of options in providing financial security. The small changes we wish to propose for Bill C-5 are consistent with this view. In short, more flexibility and options in providing financial security can be achieved by deleting clause 25 and subclause 24(3), and paragraph 66(a).

We are asking the committee to consider deleting clause 25, subclause 24(3), and paragraph 66(a) for the following reasons:

Concerning approved insurers in clause 25, it is not clear to us why the minister needs to designate as an approved insurer “any insurer or association of insurers”, given that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions already provides such approvals. The basic insurance functions—offering the right policies and providing a claims adjustment service—are now widely available under contractual arrangements, the same way that the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, or NIAC, contracts to secure them. We therefore see this clause as unnecessary and propose that it be deleted from the bill.

Concerning the “Maximum amount of financial security” in subclause 24(3) and in paragraph (a) of clause 66, the CNA believes there ought to be more flexibility permitted in providing the financial security referred to in subclause 24(1). We believe that the portion of such financial security that may be provided in the form of an “alternate financial security” should not be limited. It should be determined by the minister on a case-by-case basis, as provided in subclauses 24(2) and 24(4), after considering the adequacy of the financial instruments proposed by each operator.

Similar flexibility already exists in the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The 50% limitation specified in subclause 24(3) is confusing and unnecessary, and we ask that it be deleted from the bill, along with paragraph (a) of clause 66, which would then be redundant.

Further, as presently drafted this subclause will limit market flexibility and may also have a negative effect on the range of options operators can employ. For operators, subclause 24(3) may result in unjustifiable cost passed through to shareholders or to customers in the price of electricity. Nuclear operators want full access to these products and to the full range of options available in what is now a mature market.

Members of the CNA are of the view that on the whole the bill responds to society's needs and represents a balanced approach. The bill provides for protection of the public under a coherent, explicit, and stable framework, in which all liability is channelled through the operator and the operator's liability is absolute. These principles also give assurance to the public, the government, and contractors working alongside operators, and as a result, we support those elements.

The CNA would underscore the following considerations. While the CNA members support the increase in liability to $650 million, our support is given on the basis that there be adequate insurance available at competitive rates. The minister ought to have more flexibility to approve forms of alternative financial security on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to that, the members of CNA wish to urge the members of the committee to see these changes in the act as a prelude to the adoption of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. In order to ensure capacity for conducting nuclear new build and to meet the supply chain needs, this is a priority for us at the CNA and is not to be seen as a “next step with priority” by this committee.

Finally, we are pleased to note Minister Lunn's commitment to consultation during the second reading debate of October 30. CNA members appreciate the minister's comment, because we believe that the regulations are an important component of the framework. Consultation with our industry on drafting the regulations will help to ensure that they are workable and resilient. The CNA wishes to offer technical expertise as appropriate. Similarly, we also hope to see the government's reinsurance agreement to ensure it covers any gaps.

We are pleased to be here this morning and pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Welcome, everyone. It's good to be back here.

I'm a little leery of giving up my chair to the Liberal vice-chair, because since I've been back, he's found this beautiful room for us in Centre Block.

Thank you very much for filling in when I was gone. I appreciate that.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2007, we are dealing with Bill C-5, an act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, whose short title is the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act.

Today, for the first hour, we have as witnesses, from the Canadian Nuclear Association, Murray Elston, president and chief executive officer, and Pierre Guimond, director, regulatory affairs; from the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, Dermot Murphy, manager, and Colleen DeMerchant, assistant manager; and from Walker Sorenson LLP, John Walker, legal counsel.

Each group will be allowed up to ten minutes for their presentation. We will take the witnesses in the order they are on the agenda. It's up to each group to decide who speaks for them.

We will start with the Canadian Nuclear Association. Go ahead, Mr. Elston, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, thank you for coming here this morning to answer our questions. I'm somewhat taking advantage of the comments made by my Liberal colleague to tell you that the Bloc québécois does not really share your opinion that nuclear energy is clean energy. You also referred to the advantages, but you completely disregard the disadvantages. When you present an idea that you believe in, you should be frank and inform the Quebec and Canadian public of the advantages and disadvantages it entails.

As you know, the entire question of waste management is one of the disadvantages. We've had discussions, but you told me that we would be debating this for another 30 years. The fact remains that the debate on this subject is not over. Among other things, we have to see where the waste would be buried. The idea of promoting a form of energy that will spread around the world and the quantity of waste from which will consequently increase, when we don't yet know where it will be buried, is quite surprising.

I agree with you that choosing nuclear energy is a decision for the provinces. However, the effect of that choice by the provinces is that the federal government will have work to do on waste management and safety. I believe it can be said that, by making that choice, a province would be choosing to share responsibilities with the federal government and thus with Canadian taxpayers as a whole.

I believe we will have opportunities to debate this, minister. The matter is not over. It is somewhat unfortunate that we have to use a forum such as the study of this bill to address the subject with you. I agree with the Liberal member that it would be more appropriate, before accepting the invitation sent to you, to take part in the negotiations in the context of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, to clearly debate the conditions of that agreement and the implications for Canada of belonging to it. Among other things, if waste must be recovered from around the world to be buried in Canada, on the ground that we are the primary producers and exporters of uranium, I can tell you that we will not agree. There is a kind of lack of transparency and debate in this matter.

Furthermore, you are quite silent these days about nuclear energy. I don't know whether you've been kindly asked to be discreet on the topic, but we hear less from you. There must be a reason for that. That concludes what I had to tell you about nuclear energy, minister.

Now I'm going to move on the Bill C-5. For the questions that are somewhat more specific, your deputy ministers may perhaps be able to help you.

Could you explain to me what the premium is for an operator that must carry coverage of $650 million? I'm particularly interested in that because, back home in Quebec, the Gentilly station belongs to Hydro-Quebec, thus to Quebec taxpayers. Does increasing insurance, and thus premiums, mean that, as a taxpayer, I'm going to receive a bill for the cost of that premium?

I'd also really like you to clarify the principle of reciprocity between countries. In the context of a negotiation with a country, what does this concept included in the bill mean for Canada in concrete terms? I find it hard to understand. I also want to know why you're limiting the guarantees to 50%? From what I understand, Hydro-Quebec will have to guarantee premiums up to $325 million, which represents 50% of the $650 million.

My last question concerns the claims tribunal. Will it operate only in the event of accidents, or will it be a permanent structure for which we will have to pay operating costs, and make appointments and so on?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to be back before committee.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your understanding when I had to provide you with an extra two hours free time in your schedule on Tuesday. I actually had an unscheduled cabinet committee hearing. Again, I thank you for being so gracious, not only to have cancelled at the last moment on Tuesday, but I'm glad we're able to actually be here to devote time to Bill C-5 and the estimates this morning.

With that, let me introduce my staff, as you did, Mr. Chair. Sue Kirby is the ADM of the energy policy sector. She's new at the department, has been there about three weeks, but has a wealth of experience. If she digresses and talks about fish today, it's because she just came from DFO. We'll try to keep her focused. So if you have some good fish questions, we can probably take those too.

Dave McCauley comes from the energy policy sector, specifically in the nuclear shop, so he has some expertise there.

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. Again, my appreciation for the all-party cooperation on Bill C-15. That was very appreciated. I think it's great for the people in Nova Scotia, to move that legislation through the House so quickly.

We're here this morning to focus on Bill C-5, the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. This proposed legislation is about protecting the interests of Canadians by modernizing Canada's nuclear compensation and civil liability framework. It does so to address damages as effectively and efficiently and fairly as possible in the unlikely event of a radioactive release from any nuclear facility in Canada.

As members of the committee will know, the current legislation dates back to the 1970s. So this legislation has been introduced for a number of reasons. First, it will ensure that Canada's laws governing nuclear liability are meeting the international standards. We want to not only ensure the highest standards for nuclear power in Canada, but also align our liability with that of international standards.

Secondly, it will increase the liability of nuclear operators for damages and injury. It will also increase the amount of compensation that will be available to address civil damages.

Third, Bill C-5 will broaden the number of categories for which compensation may be sought and improve the procedures for delivering that compensation.

It could be argued that Canada's current legislation, the Nuclear Liability Act, more or less accomplishes the objectives, a certainty regarding insurance and legal liability. So why do we need new legislation when we already have a serviceable act in place already? The simple answer, as I've said earlier, is that the current act is outdated. It was passed in 1970. Remarkable. I was not even in high school then, Mr. Chair, so it's going back quite a way. My notes say this was a period of ancient history, but I don't think I'll go there. But Bill Gates just turned 15. In any event, it's some time in the past.

Again, we need to ensure that the Nuclear Liability Act reflects the technology and science thinking as we move forward. In the interim, it's not only the technology of nuclear energy that has advanced considerably but the evolution of jurisprudence has contributed to substantial increases in the potential liability for nuclear incidents. Accordingly, we have to upgrade our legislation.

So what are we doing? Well, there are certain fundamentals of this current act that must be retained: number one, absolute liability; two, exclusive liability; and three, mandatory insurance.

Basically, absolute liability means that the operator will be held liable for compensating victims, if there were ever a nuclear incident, without the recourse of traditional defences available under the common law. This means that victims would not be faced with proving that the operator was at fault.

Secondly, in the related principle, exclusive liability means that there is no question who is responsible. No other party than the operator, no supplier, no subcontractor, nobody else can be held liable except for the operator. Again, it means the victims would not have to prove who was at fault, especially in such a highly complex industry, and there'd be no question about where they'd take their claim for compensation.

Nevertheless, to modernize our liability scheme, we must have legislation that goes further. For example, we must increase liability amounts, increase the mandatory insurance requirements, add new definitions of damage, and provide a more effective compensation process. We must do this to meet the practical needs and realities of today.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed legislation makes significant changes in the matter of compensation. In financial terms, it increases the liability for nuclear operators. The 1970 act sets the amount at $75 million, an amount that presently is one of the lowest within the G-8.

The international norm is just below $500 million, but in Bill C-5 we believe the standard that's been suggested as an appropriate amount will raise it to $650 million. This balances a need for operators to provide adequate compensation without burdening them with huge costs for unrealistic insurance amounts. Again it's striking that right balance. It's what is the right balance for the appropriate amount of compensation, while ensuring that we're providing realistic insurance amounts. This increase will put Canada on par with most of the western nuclear countries. The proposed legislation also increases the mandatory insurance operators must carry by almost ninefold.

As I've said, Bill C-5 makes Canada's legislation more consistent with international conventions. It does so not only with respect to financial matters, but also with clearer definitions of crucial matters such as what constitutes a nuclear incident, what damages do or do not qualify for compensation, and so on. These enhancements will place the Canadian nuclear firms on a level playing field with competitors in other countries. This is important if Canada is to maintain its international presence in matters of nuclear energy. Canadian companies welcome the certainty of operating in accordance with the accepted international norms.

Mr. Chair, both the current liability framework and Bill C-5 contain limitation periods restricting the time for making claims. Under the act passed in the 1970s, claims must be brought within ten years of an incident. However, since the passage of that earlier liability legislation, we have come to understand that for some related injuries obviously that's not adequate. Accordingly, the limitation period for claims has been extended to thirty years under Bill C-5.

Both the earlier Nuclear Liability Act and Bill C-5 provide for an administrative process that will operate faster than the courts in an adjudication of claims arising from a large nuclear incident. However, the proposed legislation clarifies the arrangements for a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear those claims. These new processes will ensure that claims are handled both equitably and efficiently.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to underscore that Bill C-5 is about being prepared for the events that are unlikely to ever happen in this country. Our nuclear fleet is arguably one of the safest of any of the fleets in the entire world with an extraordinary safety record. Canada's experience goes back some 75 years. For the past 30 years nuclear power has been a regular part of Canada's energy mix. In all of this time, safety has been the watchword of Canada's nuclear industry. Moreover, the reactor for which we are known elsewhere is the CANDU, and as I said, it is one of the safest and cleanest reactors in the world. With the progress of nuclear technology, our reputation for safety will become even more secure.

Nevertheless, we must be realistic and we must be responsible. Although it is extremely unlikely that Canada will see a nuclear incident, we must be prepared. That is the principal reason we have proposed to modernize Canada's nuclear liability and compensation legislation by tabling the bill you are considering at this time.

Those are my opening comments, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the members' questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Thank you very much.

Principally, we're here this morning graced with the presence of the Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn, and two individuals from the department. Good morning, Ms. Kirby and Mr. McCauley.

The first hour of the meeting will be devoted to a study of Bill C-5. I'm wondering, Minister Lunn, if without further ado I could turn it over to you for your ten-minute presentation on Bill C-5.

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

We'd like to start off on the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, Bill C-5, which has been referred to the committee. We feel it would be in the interest of the committee to study Bill C-5 and to take a look at it over the next few weeks, or however long the committee decides it needs to spend on that issue.

There are a number of other areas and directions we'd also suggest that we'd like to go, but the priority is to get the minister here to discuss with him the issue of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act and then to spend some time working through that bill and hearing witnesses on that.

We have other suggestions as well in terms of some things to do with mapping, emergency response—the natural resources role in that—and some regulatory processes, those kinds of things, but I'd certainly love to hear from the other committee members.

I also understand you had a report you were working on last spring that was not finalized. There may be some interest in finalizing that as well.

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.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.