House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government is at fault for not clearly explaining the positive aspects of Kyoto or even, as some people may say, the negative aspects of Kyoto. This deal was done five years ago. The government had five years to get the information out to all Canadians so they could make informed decisions on what this deal would mean to the long term future of Canada and its economy. The Alliance Party and Canadians are correct to raise concerns about that.

After looking at the Kyoto agreement myself, I firmly believe it is minimum at best as to what we should do as a country. I am very encouraged that many individuals and businesses have taken it upon themselves to retrofit their buildings, to reduce their greenhouse gasses and to reduce their energy export.

It is imperative that Canadians be informed. This has to happen. I agree with a full and open debate prior to Kyoto being ratified. That is why we would like get that debate going now, so we can move on this issue and move toward a much better society in terms of a cleaner and healthier Canada, as well as a cleaner and healthier environment.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for his presentation, even though it was interrupted several times. As we know, Bill C-4 seeks to amend one particular section.

Previously, subsection 46(3) read, 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.

That is a place that might be contaminated.

The bill would replace this excerpt by the following:

--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.

This change would exempt a whole group from its obligation to decontaminate. For instance, under the proposed new wording of the act, a bank that had granted a loan to a firm could not be taken to court.

Does the member think it is appropriate to amend the existing act with this bill?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, a couple of lines above that it says the commission may or may not. In reality the commission may not do anything but just let it happen. It should say the commission shall impose that. However, when it says may, then it is up to the commission to decide whether it wants to do anything. I am not a lawyer, but I have it on sound advice from my colleague from Windsor, who is a lawyer, that the word shall would strengthen the bill completely.

Again it boils down to a matter of trust and confidence. Do we in the opposition, and for that matter many Canadians, have the trust and confidence in the Liberal government to do the right thing when it comes to the situation of a catastrophic problem with a nuclear power plant, or contamination of surrounding grounds or the downsizing or removal of a power plant?

We know that it is extremely expensive to get involved in this type of discussion. Who will pay for it? Who will be ultimately responsible for the clean up in the event something happens?

We saw other examples where a business had a serious problem and left its responsibility. Who was left to clean it up and take control of it? The government. Then that falls upon the taxpayer, and their dollars are expended to remedy the situation. That is simply unacceptable.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked if we could trust the government and I would suggest that we cannot. This is the same government that intends to jail Canadian farmers in less than three weeks for trying to market their own grain.

I want to come back to a point that he made earlier. He said that workers were supporting this agreement. The reason they are supporting it is that they do not know what the agreement holds. The more people find out about it, the more concerned they are.

My concern is mainly over agricultural issues. I want to refer to one of the only studies on Kyoto and agriculture that we could find. It was conducted by the American Farm Bureau Federation. We had to go to the United States to find any information. Absolutely nothing has been done in Canada on the effects of Kyoto on agriculture. It suggests that Kyoto would increase farm expenses by up to 32%, depress annual farm income by 24% to 48%, diminish agricultural exports and put many farmers out of business. In fact, this study called the Kyoto protocol the single biggest public policy threat to the agricultural community today.

The members represent a party that calls itself democratic. I am unsure as to why they would be in favour of an agreement that would be so devastating to agriculture. These questions need to be answered. What will be the impact of higher energy prices? How many farmers will that put out of business? What will be the impact of non-implementing countries that we have to compete against? How will the protocol mechanism affect farmers?

I am a little uncertain as to why his party would take a position that is so aggressively against agriculture and farmers?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

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?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that our colleague is wrong in thinking that we should not talk about Kyoto while debating the bill before us.

The bill before us deals with energy as a whole. Energy is linked to Kyoto. Why is it linked to Kyoto? Because in Kyoto there is a firm commitment on the part of Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, we must talk about Kyoto and the House should reaffirm the due diligence the government should exercise in order to ratify Kyoto as quickly as possible. We sense a lack of resolve on the government side. However, I want to convince you that the links between the bill before us and Kyoto are not only relevant but unavoidable.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

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.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, let me make it nuclear clear to the member from the Alliance party. It was his party that voted against the Crow rate subsidization. It was his party that voted against every assistance package to farmers between 1993 and 1997. One of those people is now the leader of the Saskatchewan party. That is the Alliance record when it comes to help for agriculture and farmers.

Having said that, I know the member is very concerned about his farmers and agricultural producers. He has every right to be, and good for him. However the member for Palliser, our agriculture critic, has also done yeoman's work in bringing the issues of farmers and farm families to the attention of the country.

The broader question is whether we trust this government, and that is a very good question. The government has had five years to discuss the Kyoto plan. It has had many years to deal with nuclear safety and it simply has not done that. When people who are either for it or against it ask questions or if they are ask questions just to find out more information, they are stonewalled.

It is unfortunate that the member had to go to the United States to get his information. He quoted a bunch of statistics but we would have to question from where those statistics came. What kind of study was done? What did they base it upon? That is something we need to discuss even further. He is absolutely correct that the government is derelict in its responsibility of explaining what we would consider the benefits of the package.

He also mentioned the fact that many workers in organizations through unions, such as the CEP, have ratified the proposal for Kyoto. The member said the reason why they did was because they did not understand it. Fifteen hundred CEP members recently held their convention. There are some pretty intelligent people who are part of that organization. To say to them that they did not understand what they were voting on would be naive at best.

The CEP is a very good organization and union and it has done an awful lot of good in representing its workers and in working with business and government to look after the benefits for workers and their families in communities across the country, and I support that. I know under careful reflection my great colleague from the Alliance party would do the same as well.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

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.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Bloc for an excellent speech on the issues that are confronting us around this bill and more generally around the use of energy in this country. I am not sure if the House is aware of this but the issue is about limiting the liability to financiers of nuclear power plants, which is what the bill would do.

At least a dozen years ago we had the Vienna convention. In that period of time the international community came together and determined that if there were a nuclear meltdown and contamination, which generally would go out into the surrounding communities, it would cost a minimum of $600 million.

As I think we have heard a couple times through the debate today, Canada has set the maximum liability that managers and operators of nuclear power plants have at $75 million. That is the most insurance that they have to carry.

The other point I want to make is that the $600 million was set some time ago. The estimates I am hearing now from the international community is that the amount could be more like $1 billion to $5 billion if there were a nuclear accident.

Does my friend from the Bloc think that it is sensible for the government to limit the liability that operators, owners and financiers of nuclear power plants have as opposed to perhaps extending that liability so they, as operators, would be more responsible for the cost should an accident ever occur?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

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.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague three short questions.

He is very knowledgeable in economic matters. Can he remind us of the deterioration of terms of trade theory? I think this is very pertinent to the whole reality of the reinvesting of petrodollars and of the debt taken on by third world countries.

Second, can he tell us why it is so important for Canada to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to provide for territorial objectives so that each province can do its share?

Third, does he share my opinion that the best thing that could happen to this Parliament would be for this bill to be withdrawn?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

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—

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Unfortunately, 10 minutes go by fast. The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, I must say that I was enjoying the comments of my friend from Joliette so much that I would not mind letting him go on, but I know that we are all limited to time.

It was interesting to listen to the minister as he introduced the bill this morning. As we saw in its previous incarnation, he continued with the suggestion and the spin that this is not much of a bill, that it is a very minor amendment, that it is no big deal; let us just get it done, get it through the House and committee, and get it passed. That is being quite disingenuous to the House because the bill has some very significant ramifications.

It is really about the Liberal government getting into bed with the Ontario Conservative government because of a big mistake that both levels of government, and I suppose the nuclear industry, made a year and one-half to two years ago. This was all about the Ontario Conservative government deciding to privatize nuclear power. It had already been working extensively on privatizing energy across the province from a number of different sources in advance of this.

They entered into a very favourable contract with Bruce Power and British Energy which would allow that company to operate the Bruce nuclear power plant up near Kincardine on Lake Huron. They started this by that contract and British Energy took over the operation of the plant.

The plant has eight nuclear reactors, four of which are operational and four of which are not and which are in a mothballed state. When they began to look at reopening the four mothballed nuclear reactors, which is what they want to do, they had a substantial need for new financing. They entered into some agreements with regard to that new financing. Only when the tentative contract was placed before their lawyers was it drawn to their attention that the Nuclear Liability Act exposed the financiers to the potential of liability should an incident take place at that plant.

The existing section which the bill proposes to amend talks about a number of categories of persons who would be responsible. The part that catches them is where it says “any person with a right to or interest in”. As far as the law is concerned, that would include someone who is financing one of the plants. The bill proposes to remove that verbiage which I just read and replace it with a reference to only those people who have the management and control of the plant.

When they discovered that verbiage, the financial interests backed off. They said they would not go ahead as it exposed them to too much liability. Given the power the nuclear industry has in this country, a number of governments, the federal government in particular and the Prime Minister, are the salespeople for the Candu reactor around the world. They have been pushing that type of energy. The nuclear industry immediately went to its friends and said the government had to get the section changed.

Last spring we were faced with a big push by the government to respond to the government's friends in the nuclear industry to get this amendment through the House. To the credit of my party and the Bloc Québécois, we blocked it at that point but it is now before us once again.

It would be interesting to take another quick look at what has happened to privatization in Ontario because we could learn some lessons. What happened specifically with Bruce Power is that in late August or early September it came to the government's attention that Bruce Power may not be in a position to meet the regulatory requirements regarding posting a bond to continue to maintain its responsibility should there be a nuclear incident, or that it does not meet the regulatory requirements of safety, et cetera.

Only after the government in England bailed out the British company was the British company able to continue its guarantees to the Ontario company. That is the type of tentative and soft arrangements that protect citizens of this province and country in terms of proper regulations and safety mechanisms. It was that tentative. It almost collapsed in late August.

We have heard a number of speakers say that we have to do this, that it is not fair to the nuclear industry if we impose this liability. It is important to appreciate that this liability has been in existence since the 1970s when the legislation was first passed and became law.

A number of examples could be given to show that this is no different in its practical application than what would happen if a person bought a piece of property. In fact one of the parliamentary secretaries used that as an example. He was about to buy a piece of property and found out on the closing day that the property had an oil tank or gas tank on it, and that he would have been responsible had he bought the property. It is interesting to note that his mortgage company would also have been responsible. That is the existing law at least in Ontario.

What we would be doing here if we passed this amendment would be to shelter the nuclear industry with the same type of practical responsibility that all other financiers have with regard to properties that are contaminated with toxic material. In this case it is probably the greatest type of toxic material that is available on this planet in terms of its radioactivity.

The other point I want to make is with regard to not treating them fairly. Whenever I hear that, it ignores the sentiment behind those comments and ignores the fact that this is an extremely dangerous operation. If there is a leak or a reaction that is not controlled, the consequences to the country and to the planet more generally are extremely grave. Probably the most clear examples of this are Chernobyl, and to a lesser degree, Three Mile Island.

The House of Commons has a responsibility to send the message to the operators of these plants and to the people who might finance them that this is a very high risk industry. Being high risk has to be taken into account when one is lending money.

Before I was elected, I sat on a credit union board. With respect to the loans that we made, it was no different from how the nuclear industry should be treated. Ultimately we would be responsible for the cleanup of the property because we would take back ownership of the property.

It is no different for a small financial institution or a major national or international lender. They also have to take into account the risk. We as a government should not be limiting that risk. We should be very clear what it is. We should be pointing that out, as I believe the existing legislation does. Anybody who is considering lending money should be required to take that into account before they advance funds.

I want to make one final point around the issue of lending funds. We have heard and in fact had some objection to the discussion we have had about Kyoto and how it is relevant to this amendment.

One of the things that will occur under Kyoto is that there will be a large need for new financing of new technology, particularly in the area of wind and solar because those are fairly immediate. In the longer term, we will require financial institutions and financiers generally to come forward and assist in the development of new technology.

If we continue down this road with this bill, then we will be draining a chunk of that financing out of the market here in Canada and internationally. Less financing will be available to deal with alternative energy and the development of those technologies. I believe we have to take that matter into account.

The government would have us believe that the bill has nothing to do with privatization. A number of people from that side of the House have said that to me, including the minister, but they are wrong. The legislation would in fact facilitate the privatization of the nuclear industry. If it goes through, it will allow British Energy to get its financing.

There is another nuclear plant, the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in New Brunswick. The Government of New Brunswick, as recently as in the last few weeks, said that it will not put in the $875 million that plant needs to be safe in its operation. That plant will be on the block for new operators and perhaps new owners if the bill goes through. I have to say that we have been proven right so often that $875 million is probably a light figure. It will probably cost as much as double that amount.

There are corporate interests, as we have seen British Energy from England and some of the companies in the United States, which in fact, if the bill goes through, would be interested in either managing and operating Lepreau or perhaps even purchasing it if the government of that province were prepared to sell it.

The bill is very much about privatization and facilitating the privatization of the nuclear industry. Based on the experience of privatization that we have seen in other energy sectors, the privatization of this industry causes my party great concern and it should cause great concern in the country generally. We should not be going down that road for a number of reasons.

Let me deal with safety first. If we are looking at maximizing the safety history of these plants, privatization is not the route we should be going down. It is simply too easy for the managers and operators of the plant to look at the bottom line, say that is what they are concerned about, but that if they do make the improvement or the repair it will cost millions of dollars, hundreds of millions in most cases. They will just let it go a little bit longer.

We have had all sorts of examples where our regulatory authorities were not well enough equipped to keep on top of that and make sure those repairs were done in a timely fashion.

The second feature we need to take into account is the cost factor of privatization. In every case that I am aware of where privatization has taken place in the energy sector across the continent and across the globe it has cost the consumers of that energy more money than it would have cost if the privatization had not occurred. The legislation is about privatization and there are serious consequences if privatization goes ahead.

Inevitably when we take part in this debate we need to know the alternatives. Let us say we do not go down this road and that we hold the liability as it is now, that would mean the nuclear power plants would remain in public hands and the private sector would not move in and provide the financing to take over these operations. We would then be facing, as have a number of countries in Europe, Germany probably being the best example, of what to do with the industry.

I treat the nuclear industry as a sunset industry. It is one that eventually will be phased out. The cost of disposing nuclear waste is simply so high and so risky that we cannot afford nuclear power.

A bill went through the House this past year where we were trying to deal with the disposal of nuclear waste. All sorts of suggestions were made on how to do that. The proposal that ended up in the bill was in my opinion totally unsatisfactory but it is one we will follow through on.

The scary part is that right now Canada is producing on a per capita basis more nuclear waste than any country in the world. We produce more than the United States in spite of the size of that country. By 2010 we will be outstripping the United States by a very large margin. The United States started earlier than Canada and have more plants, but by 2010 we will actually have more nuclear waste on our soil than the United States will have on its soil.

There is no methodology on this planet to deal with this issue. As I said earlier, we heard a number of suggestions. We did hear some silly ones, such as put it in a rocket and shoot it at the sun.

There is no way of disposing of this. Quite frankly, there is no way of putting a dollar cost on what it will ultimately cost the planet to dispose of the waste. We heard an Alliance member earlier today talk about the costs of operating a nuclear plant and saying that it was clean and cheap. However, as my friend from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore pointed out, she was dead wrong on that. It is not clean because of the waste and it is not cheap because of the waste. If we factored in those costs it would be by far the most expensive type of energy on this planet. We ultimately do not know what the costs could be for the next generation, on down to thousands of years if we look at how long that radioactivity will continue.

When we look at a bill such this and we are told go ahead and pass it, that it is not very important, that it is a minor thing and that the nuclear industry needs the break, that is the wrong attitude. We should not be treating the financiers in the nuclear industry any differently or, in fact, as the bill would, more favourably than financiers in the rest of the field.

We should not be passing a bill that would allow the privatization of the industry. We should not be sending a message to the country that we will attempt either the privatization of the industry and allowing it to continue that way or to facilitate it as a government operation. We should be sending a very clear message to the industry and to the country that this is a sunset industry, that we will be phasing it out and that we will be dealing with the problems of phasing it out, both in terms of the waste and in terms of the training and retraining that will be necessary for the workers in those industries and for the communities that will be negatively impacted as we phase this industry out. That is the approach we should be taking. It is a much more logical and sensible approach and one that the country requires.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

That is a good question, Madam Speaker. I have not thought about it, but it would be a good to hear what all members of Parliament have to say about Kyoto before discussing the nuclear industry.

It is not a situation where we can isolate ourselves off as the government would suggest that we can. When we are talking about energy in this day and age, we have to look at the whole gamut with which the country is confronted.

To suggest that we can parcel it off in little pieces here and there is to demean the significance of climate change and global warming. The necessity of us shifting as a society from dependency on aged technology, and I classify both fossil fuel burning and the nuclear industry in those categories, is apparent. It would make a lot more sense to deal with Kyoto and the implementation of Kyoto and all its parameters than to deal with the bill in isolation.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment of my friend from Miramichi who has obviously thought about the consequences of the bill, but I take exception with his comments when he tries to paint the government as assisting in the development of wind and solar energy. The reality is that we produce less than 1%. Some .06% of all our energy is from wind.

The United States and Germany are ahead of us. Denmark is the leading country in the world right now. It is at 18%. It will be at somewhere between 25% and 30% by 2010. We are way behind.

Let us talk about our solar energy development. Canada lost its priority that it had begun to develop after the oil crisis of the late seventies. We lost that as recently as the last few years to Japan. Its development of cells to facilitate the use of solar energy is now significantly ahead of where we are.

The Europeans are way ahead of us on wind which is a shame because we were at least competitive with them at the start of the nineties. We were way ahead of a number of countries in the world and we have lost that in solar energy to the Japanese. It is not a proud history. It is absolutely nothing to brag about. The unfortunate part is that the country will have to buy at great expense some of this technology

Through the summer I happened to be in Calgary. Great kudos to that city. It insisted that its entire rapid transit system be operated off wind power. I was talking to the owners of the wind farm who indicated they had to buy their turbines at an expense of between 5% and 10% more from Denmark.

If they were built in Canada they would see a savings of 5% to 10%. Of course that would create jobs and the new technologies that the country needs. Because of inaction on the part of the government we are in that kind of situation. That story is repeated in many ways across the country and will continue to be for a number of years until we play catch-up.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for my hon. colleague. In light of the concerns and everyone's conversion into making sure that we have a clean environment in the future, does the hon. member think that the federal government should be encouraging wind power in certain parts of the country?

Specifically Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous hydro resources. There has been very little encouragement or backing from the federal government in relation to development or any concern about making sure that power is kept for our Canadian use.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree that we have to be very careful about keeping the energy we create here for Canadian use. Just last week in the Maritimes there was a decision by the National Energy Board to allow for the sale of natural gas, which is at least a cleaner burning fossil fuel. It will continue to be exported in a very unfair manner to the United States, depriving New Brunswick of being able to access that gas. That will be very important for New Brunswick as it looks at how it will meet its Kyoto targets.

A number of decisions have to be made not only in the hydroelectric area but in other areas in terms of how we protect our energy sources so that we can have access to them and use them most efficiently in Canada.