Bill C-4 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his question.

When Parliament was prorogued, many of us were naive enough to believe that the Speech from the Throne would be innovative, that there would be some consistency. We are forced to say that, once again, consistency is not part of the Liberals' vocabulary and that what they are serving us is inconsistency. Indeed, as my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has correctly pointed out, delaying discussion of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, holding a thoughtful, common sense, intelligent debate such as we are capable of having sometimes, delaying this and introducing Bill C-4 clearly demonstrates a kind of paradox that everyone is aware of: nuclear energy is dangerous. Even if we had absolutely safe nuclear plants, the fact still remains that nuclear waste has a life span that is obviously terrifying for everyone.

For the government to consider storing in the Canadian Shield very fine, very compact bricks that will stay there until the end of time, it is a sign of arrogance, of believing that humanity, in its great competence, is capable of being stronger than nature. I think that nature is strong; we must work with it and not against it. It is the objective of the Kyoto protocol: protecting the environment to give nature the opportunity to serve all living creatures on Earth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my colleague from Laval Centre.

This afternoon, in the House, a Liberal member rose to tell us not to discuss Bill C-4 in combination with the Kyoto protocol. Discussing nuclear energy without referring to the Kyoto protocol does not make any sense. This is the object of my question to my colleague from Laval Centre.

The government should, as soon as possible, have a debate on the Kyoto protocol, especially before passage of Bill C-4, whose purpose is to facilitate the development of the highly polluting nuclear industry, one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Is it not the time for the government to put that front and centre, table all relevant information and immediately hold a debate on Kyoto?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

You know, Mr. Speaker, if there is one quality that is important in everyday life, that quality is curiosity. It promotes debate.

It will therefore be a pleasure to answer this question. I have already said this, but I will read my document slowly. With Bill C-4, the Canadian government is choosing investors over Canadians.

Freeing financial syndicates from their moral obligations while leaving untouched their profits, which are not negligible, I am sure, can only be a cause for concern about the future of both the Canadian and the Quebec societies. The government is relinquishing its responsibility to protect public health and the environment.

You will have understood that the Bloc Québécois is fiercely opposed to Bill C-4, and I think my colleague will agree with me.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, all these changes in the industrial organization can arouse fear and raise the spectre of unemployment. It is quite normal.

But we should be able to consider what will happen in the long term to our beautiful planet, a planet that appears to be blue from outer space, if we do not change our ways radically.

I think the reflections of the labour movement will not be a hindrance, but will bring new solutions. I am sure my colleague will agree that, if we invested in renewable energies and if we had started doing so years ago, the problem would be far less serious today.

The danger with Bill C-4 is that, by protecting big investors in the nuclear industry, we are inviting big donations for political parties. This is what we are doing, instead of clearly considering the development of a society with a sound environment, or promoting better health for us, our children and future generations, or promoting good vegetable gardening that will keep us in good health.

I sincerely hope that groups in our society, unions included, will be able to come up and provide us with concepts that will help us, as parliamentarians, but also for the whole population, meet the challenge of dangerous and polluting industries while providing a good quality of life and the means to face our financial obligations. These concepts should make Canada, of which we are still a part, and Quebec a place that is dynamic and prosperous, where people feel good.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here I am again, the luck of the draw. So now I have the opportunity of pointing out that you are in the chair as I prepare for my first speech of the new session. This is a speech that is very particular in that it was prepared by a young man from Alberta. His name is Lee Wheeler and he is a parliamentary intern. So yesterday I announced to him “Dear, you are going to write me a speech“ and he paled. He did not get a wink of sleep but he turned up with a speech and I would ask you to listen because it really is the product of his reflection.

My first speech of this new session will address nuclear safety. It is a very clear illustration of my concerns, as well as one of the major concerns of the Bloc Quebecois, and of Quebec society, and I am pleased to think of Canadian society as well: environmental quality and its preservation.

If energy has revolutionized the industrialized world, but with disastrous consequences, alas, for the environment , needless to say this debate cannot ignore the very real dangers of nuclear energy. This debate ought instead to give us an opportunity to look at all of its aspects.

Who among us does not recall Chernobyl or, closer to home, Three Mile Island. As we know, energy is fundamental to the development of modern society. The world's energy comes in large part from fossil fuels, coal and other petroleum products. Although new industries have developed in recent decades, nuclear energy in particular—which had much promise but has turned out very different from expectations—the environmentally friendly alternatives such as wind and solar power, continue to be ignored, neglected by the federal government.

Despite the dangers and risks clearly associated with nuclear energy, the federal government has chosen to amend the Nuclear Safety Act in order to—imagine—make it less strict, and consequently less effective, as well as consequently more sympathetic to the major financiers. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 are unacceptable on a number of grounds, and should not be adopted by this chamber.

The government claims it is presenting a simple and minor change. This is true, two and a half lines could not be simpler. However, this bill will most certainly have serious repercussions not only in Quebec, but also throughout the rest of Canada. The Nuclear Safety Act is supposed to protect Canadians from the environmental and financial risks involved in a potential nuclear disaster. Currently, the wording of the bill gives the Atomic Energy Control Board the power to order site owners or occupants or “any other person who has the management and control of , the affected land or place [to] take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

This wording covers a wide range of parties who are considered liable, since it ensures that all those who are involved in the industry are responsible for the burden of decontamination, in the event that an accident were to occur.

Through Bill C-4, the government is attempting to eliminate the decontamination obligation for a whole group of individuals involved. Instead of including “any other person with a right to, or interest in”, the Liberals are proposing that only those who have “the management and control of” the land must “take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”.

This is a major change; it is a change that is completely unacceptable for the Bloc Quebecois, for Quebec and for Canada.

I have a few questions. What on earth could have pushed the Minister of Natural Resources to propose such changes? Why is he being a party to the federal government's scheme in proposing such a change? Why is he choosing to threaten the health, even the lives of our fellow citizens? The answer is quite simple, even “elementary my dear Watson,” as some would say.

According to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I quote him, “The Act's current wording has been interpreted to extend site remediation liabilities beyond the owners and managers to also include lenders”. This is terrible. This cannot be the minister speaking.

He continued by saying that lenders would therefore be confronted with “financial obligations that may exceed by far their commercial interest”. Who is ignoring the fact that the potential dangers of the nuclear industry are immense? What lender would commit to such projects without assessing the risks involved? That is why the Nuclear Safety and Control Act was adopted in the first place.

A simple cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that the investment is not worth the risk. Why then should we, as a society, take on these risks and these responsibilities and pay the price if there is contamination? There is only one answer to that question: we should put on our biggest smile and take on those risks for the benefit of those who invest in polluting industries.

We do not and will never agree with the government. Nevertheless, the status quo is not the solution here. In the wake of Kyoto, we need to promote and support alternative energy sources. This will not only create thousands of new jobs, but it will also prove that our societal choices are based on developing environmentally friendly industries.

What the Bloc Quebecois is proposing is a federal investment program to support the efforts of a strong alternative energy industry in Quebec, something that would benefit Quebec and the rest of Canada.

We are talking about a $700 million investment--not a lot of money compared to what is spent on health, the economy and the environment--over a five-year period to encourage the development of the wind industry in Quebec, especially in the Gaspé area. This would reflect Canada's commitment to the protection of the environment.

We have heard several times the federal minister responsible for regional development regret the hardship facing outlying areas, and not only in Quebec. The way to help outlying areas is to have the fortitude to bring forward measures to foster the development of these areas, like promoting the wind industry.

Quebec has always been a leader in the production of green energy in Canada. While several other provinces continue to depend on coal and other oil products to heat their homes and light their buildings, and are not unhappy about it, Quebec relies mainly on hydroelectricity for its energy needs. For Quebec and Quebeckers, this is a legitimate source of pride. Incidentally, Quebec produces more that half of all wind-generated electricity produced in Canada, and this production is well short of its real capacity.

The development of alternative energies is a priority not only in Quebec, but also in all developed societies. The ratification of the Kyoto accord has long been advocated by the Bloc Quebecois. In April 2001, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous motion in favour of this position. For many years now, Quebec has been working on the international stage to promote the fight against climate change with tools like the U.N. framework convention on climate change.

Two action plans have been implemented in Quebec since 1996 to ensure Quebec's formal adherence to the convention's goals. Presently, in Quebec, electricity is 95% green. Unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to favour polluting industries, to use fossil fuels and to ignore the need to look for green alternatives. Even if natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government, with its encroachments, its hemming and hawing and its lack of vision, is not only impeding the national success of these businesses, but also undermining Quebec's environmental leadership on the international stage.

But members will admit that this is not the first time this government has tried to undermine Quebec. The most recent statements concerning Quebec's delegations abroad are perfect examples of what I just said; I must however congratulate the Liberal members who dared challenge those statements.

It would appear that how to finance these new energies is also a problem. If we look carefully at the government's decisions over the 1990s—it was almost yesterday—we see that over $450 million went directly to the oil industry and the nuclear industry, whereas a paltry $8 million went to the renewable energy industries. One dollar to green energies, and fifty to the nuclear and oil industries. Honestly, the difference is striking and everyone would have to agree that the government's priority is certainly not the quality of the environment, regardless of its announced intention of ratifying the Kyoto protocol in the coming weeks. Or the inconsistency is systematic.

This disparity is unacceptable. Rather than committing to the promotion of green energy, the federal government shamelessly continues to subsidize the polluting industries. With Bill C-4, its choice seems clear: pollution at all costs.

In Newfoundland the Hibernia project alone—which was good for Newfoundland, I agree—received over $3.8 billion in subsidies, loans guarantees and interest advances. This amounts 65% of the total cost of the project. This is not bad.

The benefit for Newfoundland was obvious since it resulted in an economic growth of over 6.5% a year—which Newfoundland really needed—and as a result of this economic growth the province is posting the lowest unemployment rate in 12 years.

The economic benefits of a wind energy project in Quebec will not be any less positive; they will be even better since they will not be polluting.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy—they know how to count, they are big guys--wind energy creates more jobs than any kind of thermal energy, over five times more than thermal energies and nuclear energy.

For its part, the European Association of Wind Energy believes that for each megawatt of wind energy produced, around 60 year-round jobs are created. The association is forecasting that by the year 2020—neither you nor I will be here by then, Mr. Speaker—over 2.4 million people will be employed by this industry in the European Union. This should be food for thought for the opponents of Kyoto.

The positive impacts of the development of a wind energy industry in Quebec and in Canada are obvious. I would even add that this is an inevitable change. The only problem is the lack of will on the part of the federal government. Although they claim to be ready to ratify Kyoto, the Liberals are obviously hesitant to push for the development of renewable energy industries, as you will see in the following example.

The December 2001 budget—it was a Christmas present—introduced an extraordinary indicator to show its interest in wind energy projects: 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of production for projects commissioned in 2002; 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2003, and so on, down to 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2007. Had it been 2008, it would have rhymed.

The federal government is far from the 2.7 cents per kilowatt-hour subsidies provided in the U.S. It is even a bit ridiculous. It is obvious that ridicule has never killed anyone yet, but it could happen one day.

The Bloc Quebecois is proposing a program that could set an example for all of Canada. Quebec is responsible for the majority of the green production in Canada. It is very well positioned to promote and develop these industries. The impact of such a development will contribute to the creation of more than 15,000 jobs. The growth of these industries will facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, not to mention the fact that the wind energy industry in Quebec will prove to be a financial success.

By maintaining the fiscal imbalance between Canada and the provinces, the federal government will once again miss a golden opportunity to develop a strong clean energy industry in Quebec and in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if I still have time because I have to decide on what is important here. I hope that questions will be asked to—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on his speech. As I mentioned earlier, having had him as a student, I hope that I contributed, even if only in a small way, to his eloquence and erudition. It is always heart-warming to have the opportunity to see one of one's former students do such an impressive job in this House.

I would like to ask him a question pertaining to a small excerpt from a press release issued by the Minister of Natural Resources, which I would like to read to the House. It is only two short paragraphs.

These companies—companies that own and operate nuclear facilities—must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise.

This amendment--the one proposed in Bill C-4--will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The Act's current wording has been interpreted to extend site remediation liabilities beyond the owners and managers to also include lenders, creating for them unknown financial obligations that may far exceed their commercial interest. The result has been to discourage private sector interest in lending to the nuclear industry.

The Minister of Natural Resources tells us that the proposed amendment is purely administrative in nature. Given the wording of the press release, does the member share the minister's opinion?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question.

It is clear that we must discuss Kyoto as soon as possible. I hope that, at least, we will do so before adopting Bill C-4. Let us never forget that the nuclear industry is an industry that pollutes and that increases greenhouse gas emissions. Our objective with the Kyoto protocol is to reduce such emissions.

Today, we are discussing a problem that will increase pollution, and the purpose of the debates on Kyoto is precisely to ensure that, together, we reduce the pollution we create, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, I hope that we will have this debate on Kyoto as soon as possible, and I also hope that it will be before Bill C-4 is passed. If we ever manage to convince the Liberal government, the official opposition and the Progressive Conservative Party that Kyoto must be urgently ratified, as we hope to do, then Bill C-4 will surely have to be reviewed.

Also, instead of helping lobbyists from the nuclear industry, the government should perhaps tell them that they should invest in another type of energy, such as wind energy. This would surely be a possibility and it could, among other things, benefit from a transfer of funds.

As I explained earlier, the federal government is investing a lot of money in the development of oil and nuclear energy. But now it is time to invest in wind energy. So, my advice to bankers and friends of the Liberal Party is to invest in renewable energy. It is not fully developed, there is still potential, and there is money to be made.

To answer the hon. member's question, it is very important that we soon discuss Kyoto.

As for Quebec, it made a brilliant choice by opting for hydroelectricity even though, as the hon. member for Joliette explained, it was a very difficult choice to make. Electricity was nationalized and that was not an easy decision to make. There were dozens of companies in Quebec. We decided to turn this into a major operation and it was a true success.

Of course, Quebec made societal choices, and Quebeckers decided to get results and, among others, to ensure that our province is the closest to achieving the Kyoto goals. This is why the Quebec government was quick to announce that it was prepared to ratify Kyoto at the earliest opportunity. If Quebec were not part of Canada, it would have ratified the accord a long time ago.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-4. This is a simple bill. Its intent is, with just a few lines, to change the responsibility of those who finance and operate nuclear plants.

Our listeners may sometimes, too often, think—because they just read newspaper headlines or watch the major news stories on television—that the government is there to defend the citizens' interests and they should therefore trust it.

What we have before us is a bill that is far from defending the interests of our listeners. In fact, it is a bill that has been presented by the Liberal government to aid the nuclear industry. This bill has the support of the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. It is not a bill to help the public and defend its interests. It is a bill specifically to help one type of industry, the nuclear industry. This is a type of energy that is criticized all over the world. In most of the industrialized nations, the situation has gone beyond that, and it has been abandoned.

Perhaps this bill seems innocuous because of its lack of bulk, but it is all the more important because of its impact on the quality of life of our listeners.

I will try to give a brief legislative summary. This bill is, obviously, not very complex and not very thick. I will try to share my experience with the House. We all bring another profession to politics. I am a notary by profession. For the benefit our listeners in English speaking Canada, I will explain that this is a lawyer specialized in drawing up contracts. I will give my legal opinion, in a mild-mannered way, on the text we have before us. In connection with those responsible for site cleanup, the wording on responsibility was as follows:

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

This was replaced with the following:

--any other person who has the management and control of--

Clearly, the terminology of “right to or interest in” has been replaced by the words “management and control of” in order to exempt banks, bankers and lending institutions from this responsibility. They would no longer have responsibility.

Actually, this would be the only industry where the liability of bankers would be limited. Business people who are listening know this: when they ask for money from a financial institution, they must comply with all of the environmental clauses. For the past ten years, this has been unavoidable. In larger businesses, there is the environmental stage that covers the preliminary impact study. Often, stage two is required, which is a complete impact study, and phase three, which is decontamination.

This means that bankers would no longer be responsible in the nuclear industry for requiring these three phases. This is how it can be interpreted. Given that they would no longer be liable, they do not have to worry about it. Why do people who run businesses have environmental clauses in their contracts that they have to abide by? Because the banks feel liable. Therefore, they require clauses in lending contracts that force the borrower to comply with those clauses. The banks also require stages one and two, the appropriate environmental studies, and even require the inclusion of relevant updates at predetermined deadlines in the contracts.

This simple provision is being amended. This is a simple paragraph being amended in a legal text, as the Liberal member said earlier. Some might ask why there should be a lengthy debate in the House, given that the act is only a few pages long. However, these few pages are very important, because now financiers will no longer be liable and will no longer require that borrowers meet environmental standards. This may allow the nuclear industry to survive.

I hope that all those listening to us understand, based on the comments made by my learned colleague, the member for Joliette, and by my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair, that nuclear energy is on its way out. It is losing steam and it is destined to be phased out.

Canada is alone in its decision to support nuclear energy. Why? Likely because the Prime Minister has travelled around offering Candu reactors all over the place and tried to promote the industry by selling nuclear reactors, when this is going in the opposite direction of evolution of global society. It is often the smallest bills that have the greatest impact on human health. That is what we are debating today.

There is a reason why only the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party are opposed to this bill. These are parties that are there to defend the interests of citizens and not to defend the interests of big business. This is the game that the Liberal government is playing. It is proposing an amendment that would help the nuclear industry. It is supported by the official opposition, represented by the Canadian Alliance, and by the Progressive Conservative Party, which hopes to get back in power.

Finally, all these people have decided to get together and to help the nuclear industry, which goes against the whole evolution of energy throughout the world.

I will repeat this argument, because a Liberal member rose in the House this afternoon to tell us, “We do not have to have a debate on Kyoto with Bill C-4”.

On the contrary, everything is connected. If we allow the nuclear industry to develop even more in Canada, while this goes against everything that is being discussed throughout the world, we will once again delay reaching our objectives and signing the Kyoto protocol.

It is inconceivable that we should be discussing Bill C-4, as the Prime Minister told us that we would have a vote in the House, before Christmas, on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Once again, this bill is rammed through the House to help the nuclear industry before a real debate can be held in Canada. This bill is not in the best interests of our listeners, but rather in the best interests of the nuclear industry, which is slowly dying, as it should be. It is only appropriate for this kind of energy, which is outdated and a health hazard, to disappear. We should not let Bill C-4 be passed. It only has a few lines and a few pages. The Liberals, the Alliance and the Conservatives have decided not to debate this legislation, because it is a short bill. In fact, it helps their friends in the nuclear industry.

Why has the Bloc Quebecois decided today to fight Bill C-4? Because we have the best interests of all Quebeckers and of all Canadians at heart. We are glad to stand up for their interests, since their members of Parliament will not do it.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois have taken a stand on energy development. Our position is clear: wind energy is the way to go. The Bloc proposed to the House the creation of a federal program to invest $700 million in the wind industry. The program could have helped the Gaspé area, a region of Quebec that is going through some very tough times. It could have recovered much of the money invested in wind energy, which is a renewable energy source, the energy of the future. Some people found our proposal very funny. However, the figures mentioned today by my hon. colleague from Joliette and many others spoke for themselves.

The wind power capacity in Germany is of 8,753 megawatts, which accounts for 35.8% of all the energy the Germans use. Those are the facts. In the United States, 4,235 megawatts were wind-generated, which represents 17.3% of all their energy production, compared to 0.08% in Canada. Those are the facts.

Canada generates only 207 megawatts from wind energy. This debate today does not deal with renewable energies that are in tune with the Kyoto protocol. Those listening should know that we are talking now about nuclear energy. The government wants to relieve investors and bankers of their responsibilities for investments in nuclear energy. This is the Liberal government's proposal, and it is supported by the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, and by the Progressive Conservative Party. This is typical of Canada.

It is not true that the Canadian government defends the public's interest. It defends the industry's interest. I could list many examples that show it does not look after our interests, but those of its friends. The two are not the same for the Liberal government. I am somewhat surprised that the Canadian Alliance is jumping on this bandwagon. If it were in power, it would probably do the same as the Liberal government. It is the only conclusion to be drawn here.

This is the tough reality, but the whole debate on Kyoto should not end. Despite what a Liberal member said this afternoon during the debate on this nuclear energy bill, we should not avoid discussing Kyoto.

This is what I will explain during my time remaining. In Canada, we should promote wind energy. The present government should take seriously the plan put forward by the Bloc Quebecois for an investment of $700 million over the next five years. The federal government does invest in the energy industry. Since 1970, it has invested more than $66 billion in oil energy, more than $6 billion in nuclear energy, and just $327 million in renewable energies, including wind energy. This is the tough reality of lobbies controlling this Parliament.

The oil and nuclear lobbies are controlling this Parliament. They control the governing Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Progressive Conservative Party. None of these parties take the interest of ordinary citizens to heart. They care more for their own power than for those they represent, even though they were elected to defend the interests of their fellow citizens.

I hope that the citizens who are listening will have a chance in the weeks to come to ask their MPs why they did not stand up in the House to say how much more important it was to discuss the Kyoto protocol rather than reducing the liability of those who operate the nuclear energy industry. This is an industry which is losing steam and which in any event is doomed to disappear—or so I hope—for the simple reason that the health of the men and women we represent is at stake.

It was a pleasure to debate Bill C-4 and to reiterate that the proposed legislation is a real legal setback. I will, if I may, read it again so that those who are watching understand clearly. Under the existing legislation, the Commission may order that, and I quote:

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

Therefore, under the existing legislation, all other persons with a right to or interest in had to participate in the decontamination of the land or place or to resolve any nuclear energy problem.

The government is replacing this simple phrase with this:

—any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures—

Only the administrators and those who have a management responsibility, that is those who have something to do with the operation of the plant, will be responsible for the decontamination of the site. The financial sector is completely excluded.

I have heard colleagues tell us that there were problems with this nuclear energy industry and that there were lending difficulties. My colleague from Windsor—St. Clair is right. This will speed up the privatization process. The nuclear plants are often owned by public corporations because the private sector has no financial interest in them and because these plants would be too risky for them. This will help the privatization process. However, when we talk about privatization, we are not necessarily talking about corporations rich enough to decontaminate a site. Once again, things are not getting any better. They are even getting worse when we think that this regulatory change could allow the privatization of those nuclear plants by taking all responsibilities away from the bankers. We are certainly going backward rather than forward.

It is completely unthinkable that we could go in that direction. We are taking all responsibilities away not only from those who will grant new loans, but also from those who have already granted them or provided financial support. This bill will take all responsibility away from those who have financed nuclear energy in Canada.

It is not enough to say that it could encourage investments in the nuclear industry. On the contrary. This will once again help the friends of the Liberal Party, including the bank lobby, which has financed a part of the nuclear energy industry. These people are no doubt anxiously looking forward to the passing of Bill C-4 that will rid them of the risk that they are now facing.

I hope that my brief submission will have helped to convince the people who are listening, and you, Madam Speaker, that Bill C-4 should never, never be passed in the House. The Liberal Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party would do well to protect the interests of the men and women who elected them rather than the interests of the multinationals or other companies controlling their party coffers.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make. It is rather ironical that such a short bill is generating so much discussion. It is important that we discuss the issues because in the present century energy is probably one of the greatest concerns of Canadians and most people in the western world.

Last June when the bill was first introduced I also made a few brief comments. Today members have talked about energy, the environment, Kyoto and finances. Bill C-4 is basically about finances and financial responsibilities. Those who invest in an energy source, whatever it is, must take responsibility for what may happen as a result of that investment and that activity.

The hon. member mentioned what happened in the province of Ontario with regard to electricity. It is probably the same situation in Quebec and across the United States. Energy has become a very difficult financial situation for many people.

One morning this week one of our bus drivers who lives across the river mentioned how his household would be faced with additional costs this winter. Those of us who have homes in Ontario know that the bills we get now have about 10 different parts. We are paying for debt, transmission, generation and other types of expenses that various investment companies are putting toward energy uses.

In terms of energy used in Canada we go back to water power or hydroelectricity which had some dangers associated with it. For those who lived along rivers with dams there was always a concern that a dam may wash out. In Germany during the war the Mohesee reservoir on the Mohne River was bombed and thousands of people lost their lives as a result of rushing waters.

We have to recognize that our own government has paid considerable attention to wind energy. Our last budget talked about special considerations for people who invest in wind energy. The Royal Bank of Canada has taken certain concerns with that and has offered special considerations for companies that may want to develop wind turbines. Then there is solar energy which is used for specific purposes to a lesser extent by people with homes.

In the last 30 to 40 years nuclear energy has been a great concern to people around the world in terms of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. No new nuclear plant has been built in the United States of America since the 1970s. We have to take notice of that important issue.

The member alluded to the province of New Brunswick and the Point Lepreau plant which requires considerable upgrading at a cost of nearly $1 billion. In terms of nuclear energy and in terms of the liability of companies that may become involved with it, the liability never ends. He also mentioned that nuclear rods used in those plants have a never-ending life cycle.

I would agree with many of the comments made today. As a Liberal member I too have great concerns with the bill. Will it only give special consideration to companies outside our country that are coming here to buy our energy generating plants? Or, does it have other purposes we may want to consider?

I hope we will hear further information so that all of us in the House could vote in a wise manner to know what is in the best interest of various companies, provinces, and especially the users of electricity.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his eloquent speech. I only want to ask him a question about a statement made by a Liberal member this afternoon. The member stated that debate on Bill C-4 should make any reference to the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to ask the following question to my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair. Would it not have been wiser to have a debate on the Kyoto protocol before introducing Bill C-4 to the House?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, whom I have known for a long time. I like to remind this House that he was my student at the Collège Maisonneuve a few years ago. If there is anyone in this House who can say whether or not my courses were good, he can. I will start with his last question.

Indeed, I think that this bill should be withdrawn. It is totally irresponsible for the government to introduce such a bill. It even goes against the recent historical trends. What are we going to look like internationally if we take away the responsibilities of lenders who invest in projects related to the nuclear industry, an industry that everyone is abandoning? We will look like dinosaurs. Unfortunately, we know what happened to dinosaurs; they disappeared.

If the government were paying attention to what is going on in the world, it would withdraw this bill and put more energy into the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead of introducing legislation like Bill C-4, which is somewhat of a waste of time since it is dealing with something which will no longer be an option a few years from now—I am not talking in terms of decades, I clearly said that nuclear energy is being abandoned in all industrialized countries—we should take more time to discuss the Kyoto protocol. The Prime Minister told us there would be a vote on this issue before the Christmas recess. This protocol is extremely important. Some members in this House, including some Liberals, still have reservations about the importance of the protocol. We know that some members of the Canadian Alliance also have reservations about it.

We could have used this time to explore the implications of the Kyoto protocol and such things as how to share the costs. Indeed, there will be costs but let us be clear; there will also be benefits. I mentioned wind energy but the same can be said about some other soft renewable energies. Those kind of energies generate many more jobs than non-renewable energies such as oil, or renewable energies which present a serious safety threat, such as nuclear energy.

We should ratify the Kyoto protocol and agree that cost sharing be done on a territorial basis, taking into account the choices made by various provinces. As a Quebecker, I am not responsible for the fact that, in the 1970s, under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the federal government promoted nuclear power and oil. As I said, this was not an easy debate. The Government of Quebec could have taken the easy way out and refused to convince Quebeckers of the relevancy of hydro-electric power. By the way, René Lévesque played an extremely important role in this choice made by Quebec.

Furthermore, the federal government did not invest a single penny in the development of hydro-electricity in Quebec. Quebeckers footed the entire bill.

As I said before, as consumers, with the Borden Line, we paid for the development of the oil industry in western Canada. We also paid for our energy choice, hydroelectricity, and we should pay for the costs that it has created in the rest of Canada. We need to be extremely clear. We must ratify the Kyoto protocol and quickly agree on the sharing of costs and benefits at the jurisdictional level and certainly not at the sectorial level.

I could go on and on about oil refinery closures in Montreal in the 1970s because of the choices made by the federal government, particularly with regard to the national energy policy. However, I will stop here because I would not want to offend certain people by raising issues that may be a bit too far removed from Bill C-4.

Now, regarding the deterioration in the terms of trade, it is an extremely broad question. I mentioned earlier how the oil price shock produced what became known as petrodollars. These petrodollars were reinvested by large western banks, which made loans to third world countries without much regard for the consequences. Some of these third world countries did not make good use of this money. For example, some bought nuclear weapons or other kinds of weapons from certain western countries.

These countries found themselves in debt—and I think that we must be very clear here—at a time where, with new technologies and new economic developments, we are moving toward an economy that will rely less and less on natural resources. We are talking about the dematerialization of economic activity.

This explains why the terms of trade have deteriorated while the debt of third-world countries has increased. Canada is also a victim of that. We must realize that the decline in the Canadian dollar is due in large part to the fact that our natural resources—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think he has put his finger on the fundamental issue in Bill C-4, which is designed to relieve some of the groups involved in a nuclear energy project of their responsibilities. Bill C-4 proposes to relieve these groups of their responsibilities when we know that these responsibilities are in fact quite limited. In the case of a nuclear catastrophe, some of those groups would simply declare bankruptcy, leaving society to deal with the aftermath.

We all know how strong the major Canadian banks investing in those projects are and it seems to me that society would be well served if those financial backers could be forced to meet their obligations under the current legislation.

In general, this bill sends a very bad signal to all investors, indicating that there could be a future for nuclear energy in Canada and in Quebec. I think that we have to be very clear. The nuclear approach has no future. This holds true in Canada as well as in Europe and we hope to be able to help the developing countries to get rid of this calamity. Generation after generation of people will have to live with the consequences of the irresponsible energy choices made.

I think that we share with the New Democratic Party the wish that Parliament will vote against Bill C-4.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the legislation before the House is Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

In dealing with nuclear energy and every aspect of its regulation, we also deal with the choices we make as a society in terms of the energy sources we use as fuel to carry out our economic activities. When we talk about energy resources, we are talking not only nuclear energy, but also about hydro power. We are talking about renewable energy sources, like coal. We are talking about energy resources of all kinds. So, of course, we have to talk about the need to ratify Kyoto. It would be the first step to take.

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

As I mentioned earlier, when putting a question to a member, the bill stipulates that the commission may, and I quote:

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

The wording, “any other person with a right to or interest in the affected land or place”, is quite broad. This is the situation at this time and thus funders could be held responsible, should the owner or the person in control of a place become insolvent, for decontaminating a place contaminated by nuclear activity, whether by waste or by the activity as such.

We believe this is appropriate, not only for the owners and persons in control of a place who use this form of energy, but also for all those who take the risk of investing in that form of energy. We believe the amendments proposed in the bill are not relevant. The bill would replace the words:

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

by the following words:

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

Under the bill, a whole category of corporations and persons who, at this time, have obligations under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, would no longer have those obligations. As I said earlier, as matters now stand, the commission could compel a bank that has loaned money to a business that is unable, by reason of insolvency, to decontaminate its site, to do so. With Bill C-4, the bank would not have to bear that responsibility, and we do not believe this is appropriate.

We support the intent of the bill, namely that nuclear energy involves an extremely high risk. The natural resources minister recognized it himself when he introduced his proposal. He said that it is intended to exclude funders from the categories of persons who could be asked by the commission to decontaminate a place or a land, because those people would probably not want to take the risk of investing in businesses that own or operate nuclear plants, considering the high risks involved in nuclear energy. We do not see why those investors, who are aware of the risk, should be exempted from their responsibilities in terms of decontamination.

It bears repeating that nuclear energy should be dropped. Obviously, that cannot be done overnight. In Ontario, for example, it is an extremely important source of energy. Quebec has long stopped building nuclear plants. We realized that it was not only dangerous, but that it also produced an enormous amount of waste. Besides, there are other much more attractive alternatives. More on that later.

The minister is aware that nuclear energy involves great risks and wants to exempt some investors from their responsibilities so that they protect their assets.

The minister himself admits that nuclear energy is dangerous. Instead of turning to other less dangerous energy sources, the only solution he can think of is to let the investors walk away from their responsibilities. It is totally unconscionable.

The dangers of nuclear energy are well known. I do not need to remind the House all the disasters of the last few decades. As the minister himself said, investors would end up with an unknown financial risk that could be way out of proportion with their business interest.

If that is the case, they should not invest in nuclear projects. Why do I say that? If investors do not pay for decontamination, and if the company or owner cannot do it either because he has gone bankrupt or absconded, as has occured, why should society pick up the tab for a private investment?

We are in a situation where the profits would be private, but the costs would be public. It is not appropriate for a responsible government to take away the responsibility of private investors with regard to a source of energy that presents unknown risks, to use the words of the minister. Therefore, we cannot support the passage of this bill. We think that the rules governing nuclear safety should be tightened, which is certainly not what Bill C-4 does.

I repeat, if this kind of investment is too risky for the private sector, why would society have to take that risk? If potential investors, having assessed the costs and the benefits from a financial and an economical point of view, believe that the investment is too risky for them and decide not to invest, maybe certain projects will not get off the ground because they are just not financially viable. Everyone will be better off in terms of safety and in terms of energy choices.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill. However, we do think that the debate on Bill C-4 is an ideal opportunity to reflect on development and on the energy choices that were made by the federal government in the past. It is clear that the decision to go nuclear was made around the 1970s, when we went through two successive oil crises.

Members will remember that in 1973 and 1974, we saw a first hike in oil prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, had been created a few years earlier, but it understood that, by acting as a cartel, it could get much higher prices for this non-renewable resource. That is what became known as the oil rent, which led to the creation of what became known as petrodollars, which are also the cause of the huge debts of third world countries.

At some point, these countries, and particularly a number of extremely small Arab countries, found themselves with this financial windfall and tried to reinvest this money. This is where we saw western banks reinvesting these dollars from oil production—which have been called petrodollars—by lending them to developing countries, which, unfortunately, were not able to meet their financial obligations. The crisis that we are currently in, the foreign debt of a number of developing countries, is due in large part to this first sharp rise in oil prices in 1973.

This is a first concern, especially because Quebec had been forced, with the Borden line, to pay western prices for its oil, to make the Leduc oil fields economically viable.

Also, because of this first oil crisis, the federal government realized that we were not independent enough in this regard. So it started to do some research on oil sands. And in order to be able to create an environment that would make these projects viable, it forced eastern Canada, Quebec in particular, to pay far more for its oil than it would have paid if it had gone directly to the international market. So, Quebec paid in large part for the development of the oil industry in western Canada, and the same is also true, I must say, for the Atlantic provinces.

So, there was a first oil crisis in 1973. The government realized that oil was a non renewable resource. At that time, there were all kinds of scenarios. Some said that there would be an oil shortage in 2001, that prices would be around $90 per barrel. So alternatives were developed, as well as the nuclear energy alternative, which spread in Europe and in some parts of North America.

Quebec made different choices and, among others, it opted for hydroelectricity, following some heated debates. The James Bay project was not a minor venture. Some very important debates took place regarding this choice, because it was obviously going to inconvenience people living in northern Quebec.

I clearly remember the days when people wore T-shirts saying “Stop à la Baie James”—that was before Bill 101; now they would probably read “Arrêt à la Baie James” with a red hand—to protest against the development of a hydroelectric project that is now seen as a bonanza for Quebec.

So, the first oil crisis occurred in 1973, and it triggered an interest in nuclear energy. The second oil crisis came in 1979. That was during the Islamic revolution in Iran, which provided another opportunity for the OPEC cartel to jack up the price of this non-renewable product. It was then that choices were made all over the world regarding nuclear energy.

As we know, the price of oil has now gone down and it is compatible with the economic activity. Currently, we are talking about $23, $24 or $25 a barrel. It goes without saying that should the United States do something irresponsible in Iraq, there would be a sudden albeit temporary increase in the price of oil. However, because of all the efforts that were made to promote energy conservation, we now know that there is a future for this non-renewable resource, which allows us to work, not be careless and do nothing, but to work on energy alternatives.

Almost every country has agreed that nuclear energy is not the solution. We know that Germany, which is one of the countries that currently makes the greatest use of nuclear energy, has commited to completely eliminate the use of that form of energy in the coming decades. This shows that it can be done. Hopefully, France will follow Germany's example.

As for Canada, it seems to me that, given all our natural resources, we have the capacity to develop alternative energies and that we should completely rule out the development of the nuclear industry.

In this regard, Bill C-4 is not clear, because it sends the wrong message. It hints that nuclear energy, or the use of nuclear energy for production and economic activities, may be a worthwhile option for Canadians and Quebeckers.

I for one think that the government should state very clearly that the nuclear industry is something we will try to drop, and, if some people still want to experiment with nuclear energy, let them do so at their own risk, financially speaking, provided they do not endanger people and communities in the areas where they build their plants.

Bill C-4 goes directly against the present trend in the west, which is to drop nuclear energy for alternative energies.

Canada still has good oil reserves. Clearly, using them is a problem, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. And we have the Kyoto accord, which Canada cannot afford not to ratify. It is also obvious that we have hydroelectricity in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, like Labrador and other places, where this source of energy should be the preferred option.

We have to wonder what the federal government has done. Since the early 1970s—members will recall Pierre Elliott Trudeau's energy policy, which was not very popular in western Canada, but that was nevertheless the choice made by this House at the time—efforts have been made to develop energy self-sufficiency. Oddly enough, when we take stock of the situation nearly 30 years after starting to look into our energy self-sufficiency, we realize that the federal government has consistently made the wrong choices.

It did so because it concentrated more on its political interests than on the interests of the people of Canada and of Quebec. With Bill C-4, I believe it is still on the wrong track.

Let me quote figures that should be thought provoking. For instance, between 1970 and 2000, the federal government invested $66 billion in oil production. It has now been established that oil burning is largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, $6 billion was invested in nuclear energy, and $329 million in renewable energies. This shows the disproportionate choices made by the federal government.

At first, oil development in western Canada was given greater importance. Also, it must be recognized that the Hibernia project alone, in Newfoundland, cost the federal government $3.8 billion in all sorts of subsidies, loan guarantees and interest assistance loans. Hibernia was the last megaproject to be implemented. It was completed just a few years ago.

Since 1970, $66 billion has gone to the oil industry, nothing to hydroelectricity, and nothing or nearly nothing to wind power, even though it is an extremely promising energy source. I mentioned Germany earlier. Not only did Germany ban the operation of nuclear plants in the next few decades—it has put a plan in place—but it is the first western country to rely on wind power. Approximately 35.8% of the energy produced in Germany is produced using wind generators.

Using wind to produce energy is definitely not some fad borrowed from some recycled 1970s hippies. Thought should also be given to solar energy, as a matter of fact.

Even in the United States, not a country to be held up as a model in terms of energy choices--as we all know--17.3% of the energy is wind-generated. It is not that hard to see in all of this a very promising way to generate energy and ensure safety. All members would agree that it is not as dangerous as a nuclear plant. Environmentally, it also creates fewer problems than a nuclear plant. The Americans currently use wind power to generate 17.3% of their energy.

Spain, a country not known as a leader in many areas, uses the wind to generate 13.6% of its energy.

In Canada, only 0.8% of our energy is wind-generated. In this area, we have fallen way behind. Not only can wind power be safe and meet a lot of our energy needs, but it can also create jobs. I will come back to these issues some other time.

Because of all these reasons and because of the risks associated with nuclear energy, we believe that, if private investments are made, the risks should be taken on by the private backers. Measures found in the current Nuclear Safety and Control Act should not only be maintained, but they should be strengthened.

The federal government should focus on clean energy sources, like hydro power, wind power, and even solar energy, instead of disproportionately investing in the nuclear industry and the oil industry as it is currently doing. I am not saying that the government should drop the oil industry, because the battery-powered car is still not ready, but it should not invest in it as much as it is doing right now.

The first step to solve all of our energy problems would be to ratify Kyoto.

[The Speaker]

I appreciate the contributions of all members to this issue. Of course, when we are debating a bill, our comments should refer to that bill and not to anything else. Some may argue that a debate on the Kyoto protocol has something to do with Bill C-4.

However I am not going to engage in that argument. We have heard the submissions of hon. members. I know that in their debates members will want to discuss the merits or otherwise of Bill C-4 which is before the House today and try to make their remarks relevant to that bill, as I am sure the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is about to do.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention through the projected order of business and the notification that we all have on our desks that the House is debating Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, put forward by the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am quite happy to have a debate on Kyoto, but we are supposed to be having a debate on the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. I am not sure how that relates to farm issues and Kyoto, although I certainly get the relationship between extreme weather and drought and the implications of Kyoto. Could get the House back on topic?