In an ideal world, I would think, any bill that is going to give such a benefit to the nuclear industry in limiting the burden of liability on their shoulders....
It is in fact a piddling amount. I mean, $650 million is not even the cost of a modest retubing of a nuclear reactor. So this is a relatively small amount.
If we're going to give them this enormous benefit on behalf of the people of Canada, then surely we can strike a bargain and say, “If you're going to build new reactors, you darn well better build them in such a way as to limit the liability to the Canadian population and to Canada.”
For example, why not build them underground? Why not build them in remote areas far from cities? Why are there not considerations in this bill to limit the damage rather than to just limit the financial responsibilities of certain corporations? Why is it the public purse is considered to be bottomless?
There's no consideration given to how much money might have to be paid out of the public purse as a result of an accident that was none of the government's or public's doing.
I think it would be the responsibility of serious legislators to ensure that a piece of legislation was designed to do what the elected representatives of the people are primarily there to do, which is to protect the best interests of the people and not of the nuclear industry. I am concerned about this governance issue. I do believe that while this committee is asked to basically rubber-stamp a technical document, Bill C-5, which is going to allow them to meet certain conventions internationally, it's going to be interpreted as more or less a rubber stamp of the nuclear industry also.
It basically is a green light that says, “Go ahead, build them wherever you want. We'll limit your liability, and you don't have to worry about it.” I think that's a very sad state of affairs in a country as proud and democratic as Canada, and such a leader on the world stage in terms of our institutions. It's a sad comment on the state of Canadian politics that the House of Commons and the elected representatives of the people do not have a more important say on matters of much greater import than protecting the liability of the operators of nuclear reactors.
Just recently, for example, within the last year, we've had the government, without consulting Parliament at all, approve a plan by the nuclear industry, under which it is going to cost $25 billion minimum to centralize nuclear waste at some central location in Canada. Why was this not brought in the form of a bill to the House of Commons to be debated and to be considered and deliberated upon? Those decisions are made without any deliberation, and you are asked as a committee to simply rubber-stamp this relatively insignificant bill.
Believe me, if such an accident were to happen, a Chernobyl-type accident, it would be very small comfort to know that the Government of Canada was going to establish a tribunal to adjudicate claims.