Run.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
In Germany, Japan, Austria and Switzerland, there would be no limit to liability. This means that the companies are financially liable.
What will happen in these countries if these companies go bankrupt? Do you have an answer?
9:35 a.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I'm not sure I fully understood you, but I think you're asking about other countries. I don't know the situation in other countries; I do know the origins of the problem.
The origins of the problem date back to 1953, when Eisenhower made his “Atoms for Peace” speech at the UN. This led to a study in 1957 in the United States called the Brookhaven report. The report said that a small reactor of 200 megawatts, 20 miles from the city, could cause over $7 billion in off-site damages—back then.
Now, when the insurance industry was called to a congressional committee to testify about providing coverage for that, the insurance people said, “You must be crazy, we cannot possibly cover that liability.” That's what led to the original Price-Anderson Act. It's also what led to the situation where every insurance policy in the world, to my knowledge, contains the nuclear exclusion clause saying that homeowners are not covered in the event of radioactive contamination. That's a direct result of the studies carried out by the nuclear industry in 1957.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
In addition to the guarantees provided here, would home owners subscribe an insurance policy covering nuclear damage? Do you think this would be possible?
9:35 a.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
No insurance company—in North America, certainly, and to the best of my knowledge, in the world—will offer any protection whatsoever in the event of your property being damaged by a nuclear accident.
That's why Bill C-5 is before us, so the Government of Canada will take the place of an insurance company. The private financial investors, who will insure almost everything in the world, will not insure against a nuclear accident.
9:35 a.m.
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Université Laval
May I add something?
What's even more dangerous here is the concept of cross-border liability. If there's an accident at Pickering that dumps a lot of radioactivity on the United States, what do you think will happen? There are lots of lawyers in the U.S. Congress, and lots of lawyers everywhere in the States, and they love to sue. There are companies in Canada that refuse to do business in the States because they're afraid of being sued.
So if you had radioactive waste being deposited from Bécancour onto Maine, or from Toronto onto New York state, or wherever, there would be tremendous lawsuits from the States. I lived for 26 years in the States. I think one can say that very few Americans would hesitate taking whatever measures were necessary to acquire compensation for damages.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Monsieur Ouellet.
We now go to the New Democrats.
Ms. Bell, you have up to seven minutes.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for appearing. I found it very interesting. Thanks for your explanation of how a meltdown occurs. Being from B.C. and nowhere near a nuclear facility, I had never had that explained before. I've read things, but the technical stuff can be a little hard to understand.
I also really want to thank you for your comments on our responsibility. The members of Parliament were elected to protect the public interest—the environment, the social interests, and economic interests of our communities, and so on. I think that's very important in the consideration of this bill.
I asked the question of a previous witness from Port Hope who talked about the amount—I think per person or household, I can't remember—being around $8,000 out of the $650 million. You talked about $200 per household in Toronto, of course a much bigger city. Really, when you think of the value of property in those areas, it's nothing. So it's understandable that the liability should be increased tremendously.
The other thing you said that I think is important is that we're not asking an honest question here. I felt that. This bill, if passed, would enable the expansion of nuclear facilities in Canada, and I believe that's what this bill is all about. So I thank you for that comment.
I just want to know if there is any way to amend this bill that would improve it so that we are looking after the public interest in a better way, and without it being a carte blanche for the industry to just build nuclear reactors as they want to in the oil sands, and things like that.
9:40 a.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
In an ideal world, I would think, any bill that is going to give such a benefit to the nuclear industry in limiting the burden of liability on their shoulders....
It is in fact a piddling amount. I mean, $650 million is not even the cost of a modest retubing of a nuclear reactor. So this is a relatively small amount.
If we're going to give them this enormous benefit on behalf of the people of Canada, then surely we can strike a bargain and say, “If you're going to build new reactors, you darn well better build them in such a way as to limit the liability to the Canadian population and to Canada.”
For example, why not build them underground? Why not build them in remote areas far from cities? Why are there not considerations in this bill to limit the damage rather than to just limit the financial responsibilities of certain corporations? Why is it the public purse is considered to be bottomless?
There's no consideration given to how much money might have to be paid out of the public purse as a result of an accident that was none of the government's or public's doing.
I think it would be the responsibility of serious legislators to ensure that a piece of legislation was designed to do what the elected representatives of the people are primarily there to do, which is to protect the best interests of the people and not of the nuclear industry. I am concerned about this governance issue. I do believe that while this committee is asked to basically rubber-stamp a technical document, Bill C-5, which is going to allow them to meet certain conventions internationally, it's going to be interpreted as more or less a rubber stamp of the nuclear industry also.
It basically is a green light that says, “Go ahead, build them wherever you want. We'll limit your liability, and you don't have to worry about it.” I think that's a very sad state of affairs in a country as proud and democratic as Canada, and such a leader on the world stage in terms of our institutions. It's a sad comment on the state of Canadian politics that the House of Commons and the elected representatives of the people do not have a more important say on matters of much greater import than protecting the liability of the operators of nuclear reactors.
Just recently, for example, within the last year, we've had the government, without consulting Parliament at all, approve a plan by the nuclear industry, under which it is going to cost $25 billion minimum to centralize nuclear waste at some central location in Canada. Why was this not brought in the form of a bill to the House of Commons to be debated and to be considered and deliberated upon? Those decisions are made without any deliberation, and you are asked as a committee to simply rubber-stamp this relatively insignificant bill.
Believe me, if such an accident were to happen, a Chernobyl-type accident, it would be very small comfort to know that the Government of Canada was going to establish a tribunal to adjudicate claims.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
I'd also like to hear from Mr. Duguay basically on the same question, because he talked about alternative energy solutions, which I think are contrary to what my colleague from the Liberal Party said. He said we're years away from wind and solar power and that alternative. I think we are actually there and we have the capacity to expand on that.
9:40 a.m.
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Université Laval
Perhaps I may reply with two aspects.
One, to improve the bill there was a suggestion by a deputy to prohibit the retubing. That would be a great step forward. You would find lots of people at AECL who would be very much in favour of this. Just read their documentation.
Secondly, I commend B.C. for its initiative with the Nai Kun project near Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think those islands have a new name, which I've forgotten....
9:40 a.m.
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Université Laval
Haida Gwaii—well, almost “hideaway”.
At any rate, west of Prince Rupert it's a 350-megawatt wind farm that will be in construction next year, expanding to 15,000 megawatts. It's really great.
The fact is that right now the increases in solar power and wind power are far more than the increases in nuclear power. Nuclear power has reached a plateau. All of these people, if you read their documentation, are trying to get a much better reactor. They think they have one, and I believe they do have one on the drawing board.
To design and build a nuclear reactor, it's a good 10 years. If you read the last UN report, you see that the obligation is upon us to do something important before 10 years is over. In 10 years, if we have business as usual, then we're going to have climate catastrophes.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Duguay.
Thank you, Ms. Bell, your time is up.
We go now to the government, to Mr. Trost, for up to seven minutes.
November 29th, 2007 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the perspective that the witnesses have brought today.
To summarize—and if I make an incorrect summary, would the witnesses please tell me—Mr. Edwards' position is basically that we should move to close down, as soon as possible, the nuclear industry in Canada because it is too dangerous for Canada in its entirety.
That was the impression I got. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
9:45 a.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I said no such thing. I said that if this industry requires extraordinary assistance from the Government of Canada in order to protect itself from financial liability for off-site damages, then they should, in turn, be held to account.
For example, I was thinking about the previous question. It seems to me that it would be a fair thing to say that in the future siting of any new nuclear reactors, the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada should be involved in determining ahead of time whether this is a good site in terms of the risk to the Canadian population and the risk to the crown, the financial risks, and the other risks. It seems to me this is just simply a question of fairness.
I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth about shutting down the nuclear industry. I said no such thing.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Edwards, there's no need for hostility here. Mr. Trost, in his preface, actually said he was asking you whether it was an accurate assessment.
9:45 a.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Okay, I apologize.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
No, no, this is the sort of clarification that helps me to understand better where you're coming from.
I had understood Mr. Duguay's concerns, while for the totality of the industry, were about certain specific designs that were of considerably more concern. If it's done right—and you don't think it has been done right, the nuclear industry in Canada, or for that matter around the entire world—and let's say we put these in the Canadian Shield, put them somewhat underground, partially underground, portions underground, etc., this could then be a useful functioning.... I mean, it is functioning now , but it could actually be something that would fulfill some of the Atoms for Peace goals that Eisenhower and people in the 1950s had envisioned with this sort of utopian fuel source.
If it were done right.... Again, I'm asking: could it be done right, in your opinion?
9:45 a.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
If it were done right, this bill would be unnecessary. I think the private insurance companies would be happy to insure such reactors, and I think that's the route to go.
I think the route to go is to tell the industry, look, you're not babies any more, it's time to grow up. You convince the insurance industry that your reactors are safe, and therefore that they can safely insure them. You convince the insurance companies that they are perfectly within the guidelines of insurance policies and insurance guidelines to provide insurance to individual homeowners and property owners against radioactive contamination.
Why should the Government of Canada have to be in the business of providing insurance?