Bill C-5 (Historical)

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

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

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

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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