Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2002

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière. The purpose of the amendment is to put this bill on hold, and get us to redo our homework, and consult both the public and the industry further, as my colleague from the NDP has said. Given that it favours development of the nuclear industry, this bill is a source of concern and is inconsistent with ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the hazards associated with nuclear energy require tighter regulations than for any other type of energy. The Bloc Quebecois also believes that if financial backers find this too risky an investment, there is no reason for society to react differently.

The purpose of the bill is to amend 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.

According to the current wording of the legislation, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission can:

—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 phrase “any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place” is quite broad. It means that any person with an interest may be made to pay in case of a spill or any other kind of problem.

We are dealing with a bill introduced by the Minister of the Environment which is very dangerous. It would, for instance, relieve of liability a bank that lends money to a nuclear power plant. Until now, banks too could be sued and would inevitably have incurred heavy costs.

It is mainly to spare third parties, especially those able to finance the nuclear sector, that the bill was put forward. The desire is therefore to replace the following wording in the act:

—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:

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 amendment would spare a whole group the obligation to decontaminate. The Bloc Quebecois believes this change in the legislation is not appropriate. The Bloc believes that the risks relating to nuclear energy require tighter regulations than for any other type of energy. The Bloc also believes that the government should focus its efforts on developing clean energy such as wind power. The Bloc demands first and foremost an energy plan to ratify Kyoto.

If the risks are too high for those who support and contribute to the development of nuclear energy, why should it be otherwise for society as a whole? We are sending the wrong signal to society.

Instead the Bloc Quebecois is advocating a $700 million investment plan over five years to promote the emergence of a wind energy industry in Quebec. It could contribute to the creation of 15,000 jobs in Quebec, most of them in the Gaspe peninsula.

I went to the Arctic Council with the minister of Foreign Affairs and I know that the government seems to be saying it is going to ratify Kyoto. However, when we see this kind of bill, we have to wonder how sincere the government is in its intention to support Kyoto.

Ratifying Kyoto provides the government and every parliamentarian in this House with a golden opportunity to prove how keen they are to contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

In 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, Canada made a commitment to reduce, by 2008-2010, its green house gas emissions to 6% below the 1986 level. Reversing the trend of increasing green house gas emissions will limit extreme weather occurrences like the ice storm and other environmental impacts like the low water level in the St. Lawrence River.

This is why the Minister of Foreign Affairs took part in the meeting of the Arctic council, which brought together eight countries, to limit environmental impacts and to prevent global warming. We know that there are all kinds of consequences, whether it be for the quality of life of the people living in the Arctic, or for the reduction in pack ice, which allows for easier travel in Arctic waters. The ministers from the eight countries concerned signed a memorandum of understanding to reduce the environmental impacts of global warming.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions goes hand in hand with energy efficiency, producing more with less. This is an excellent opportunity for all parliamentarians. Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing a large-scale federal program for wind energy in the Gaspé Peninsula. We know that many other countries are doing more than Canada, even though it wants to look proactive in this area internationally.

The federal government has a long history of providing financial assistance to the fossil fuel industry. Since 1966, it has contributed $66 billion in direct grants to the oil and gas industry. By comparison, it has contributed 200 times less to businesses in the renewable energy sector. This means that there has been no funding whatsoever for hydroelectricity. And yet, on the international stage, Canada claims that it is being very proactive when it comes to finding other, greener sources of energy.

To give an idea of how much money is involved, $66 billion is more than four times the health care budget in Quebec. If Quebec were to receive its proportional share, which would be 24% of this amount, it would be the equivalent of the entire annual budget for the ministry of health and social services.

Nuclear energy alone received $6 billion. The Hibernia project alone, in Newfoundland, received federal assistance to the tune of $3.8 billion: $1.22 billion in direct grants, $1.66 billion in loan guarantees and $300 million in interest advances. Ottawa funded 65% of the total project costs. This project enabled Newfoundland to post an average growth rate of 6% per year, one of the highest growth rates in Canada, and to reduce its unemployment rate of 16.2%, the lowest rate in 12 years.

What about the wind power industry which is expanding around the world? As I said earlier, over the last six years, the average annual growth of this industry was 30%. With 40 times the installed power capacity of Canada, Germany is the biggest user of this form of energy. Europe alone owns close to 75% of all wind generators in the world. We know that Denmark, which I visited last week with the minister, is very proactive in promoting wind energy. We wonder why the government is proposing measures in this bill that go in the opposite direction.

The member for Jonquière has brought forward a well-thought-out amendment urging the government to go back to the drawing board and go back to the Kyoto agreement. We have to realize how this bill will prevent us from upholding our commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

The environmental impacts of climate change will be huge in Canada and in Quebec. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, these impacts will include floods, more and more droughts, natural spaces that will be irreversibly damaged and an increasing incidence of many infectious diseases.

Our colleague from the New Democratic Party mentioned diseases such as cancer, caused by close proximity to mines which produce the uranium used in nuclear power plants. I find it quite dangerous to go in the direction the government wants to take us.

So, if we want to play a significant role at the international level and be a leader in protecting our planet, if we want better quality of life and if we want to leave behind a healthier country for future generations, we are going to have to bite the bullet. We cannot be all things to all people and we cannot provide any support, financial or otherwise, to a type of energy that is extremely harmful to the public.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Maybe it is because there are so many people packed into the gallery but man it is hot in here this afternoon. I realize we are between the heating and cooling and that it is fall and all that stuff, but it is about as warm as it has ever been in here. As the Speaker in charge of this building, I wonder if there is an explanation for it?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I should resist the temptation but I notice we have a colleague from the Vancouver area who is seeking the floor which reminds me of a previous era when I was refereeing. We were in Vancouver and someone said that they thought the face-off should be outside. I said “Hell, no, it is raining outside.” I was not able to do anything about that one but let me see if I can look into this matter with a little bit more success.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to contribute too much hot air to the environment here.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to indicate our very strong opposition to the legislation.

We join our Bloc Quebecois colleagues in opposing this bill.

Nuclear power is an extremely important issue for Canada given that it is our major power source but it is also the power source that poses a number of very serious threats in terms of the environment, both in terms of workers health and safety and in terms of security.

I want to put it clearly on the record that I strongly believe we should be phasing out the use of nuclear power in Canada sooner rather than later. I believe Canada could join with countries like Sweden, Germany and a number of others that have made the landmark decision to say that in the longer term, and I hope not too distant future, that they will have alternate sources of energy. We would then be able to say to the nuclear industry that it is, in many respects, a dinosaur that has no place in Canada.

Obviously we have to make sure we have proper transition programs in place to support and assist the workers and communities that will be affected by this decision, but at the end of the day I believe a very compelling case can be made that we should be phasing out the nuclear power industry in Canada at the earliest possible opportunity.

The purpose of the bill seems simple enough. It would amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to clarify who is liable in case of a nuclear accident. As the Minister of Natural Resources has explained already, under the current wording the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the authority to order the owner or occupant or any other person with a right to or an interest in it to take measures to reduce radioactive contamination.

However the proposed amendment replaces the words “person with a right or interest in” with the words “person who has the management and control” which would limit the scope of liability. We should certainly not be limiting the scope of liability in those circumstances.

The minister further said that the amendment served to clarify the risk for institutions lending to companies in the nuclear industry. What this really means is that banks can freely lend money to the nuclear industry without having to worry about any kind of liability. Once again, a gift to the big Canadian banks, which we know already bankroll that government party to the extent of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I am very proud to say that my party, the New Democratic Party, alone among all members in the House, is the only party that does not accept that kind of funding from the banks in Canada. We are a democratically financed party.

I think that, unfortunately, even the Bloc Quebecois decided, two or three years ago, to accept contributions from large businesses such as banks. I found that sad. I know that several Bloc members were opposed. Unfortunately, however, they were not successful. In future, there may be public financing. I support such financing, and I commend the Quebec government, the Parti québécois, which effectively said no to contributions from businesses and unions. I hope that, nationally, there will be public financing.

Banks can now invest in nuclear power plants without having to worry about any consequences like contaminated air, water and land. If we need any evidence of some of the concerns around nuclear contamination, all we have to do is look at some of the very grave concerns around the uranium mining industry in Canada.

My colleague from Saskatchewan is well aware of the horrors of the situation up near, I believe, Uranium City in northern Saskatchewan. We know all too well of the risks not only to communities and workers in those areas, but we know that the government has been absolutely and shamefully negligent in its responsibility to help clean up the toxic waste from these communities. In the case of nuclear waste, this is an issue that could last for literally hundreds of years.

The bottom line is that with nuclear power we still do not have any confirmed safe technology to deal with nuclear waste. That alone is reason enough to say no more.

The government and this legislation are telling banks to pony up all the money that the nuclear industry needs and they will be absolved of any serious risk. They do not have to worry about possible melt downs like what happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and elsewhere. They do not have to worry about seepage into the land that grows our food or into the water that we drink. It must be nice to make money without worrying about how this might affect other people or the environment.

Even without this amendment, the liability that banks and any other lending institution faces under the Nuclear Liability Act is a maximum of $75 million. Imagine the consequences of a serious nuclear accident, and under current legislation the maximum liability on the nuclear industry is $75 million. That is unbelievable when in fact the impact could run into billions of dollars, yet the nuclear industry gets off scot free.

We have seen the tragedy and the horror of the situation arising in the aftermath of the melt down in Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, in Belarus and elsewhere which took many lives and resulted in a huge increase in the number of congenital birth defects. The lives of each of those children suffering from a congenital birth defect are worth millions of dollars, yet under the bill the government will be limiting even further the liability of the nuclear industry.

Why is the government prepared to step backward as is being done in this case? Why are there only two parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québecois and the New Democratic Party, that are prepared to stand up and oppose this regressive and destructive legislation, legislation that will have an adverse impact on workers and on communities? I know the member for Fredericton deep in his soul must be asking the same question as to why his government is bringing this piece of regressive legislation before the House.

Considering the dangers and expenses associated with nuclear power, the only amendments that should be made should be to widen and expand the scope of liability for the nuclear industry, certainly not to narrow it as Bill C-4 would do.

The government has said that this legislation is only a piece of housekeeping. In fact, there are many serious issues that arise from the bill.

The bill makes it easier for banks to give loans to nuclear power plants because banks no longer have to worry about liability issues. The Minister of Natural Resources has said that the bill is not and should not be misconstrued as a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. This is frankly absurd. When banks finance virtually anything else, such as a house or a building, they take on a measure of liability. Why in this dangerous industry, an industry which has the capacity to create an accident which could have an absolutely catastrophic impact, are banks being let off the hook? How can this not be considered favourable treatment?

This Liberal government and, I am sorry to say, the Conservative government before it have long favoured the nuclear industry, giving it billions of dollars in subsidies. When we add up the subsidies to this dinosaur industry, the nuclear industry, we have to ask ourselves why Canadian taxpayers are prepared to put up with this.

I want to pay tribute to the various groups across the country, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, and individuals such as my former colleague Lynne McDonald, who has been working very hard, Gordon Edwards and others who have really been making a difference in trying to educate Canadians as to the destructive impact of this industry in Canadian society and elsewhere.

There have been massive accidents such as the horrendous ones in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the various “smaller” problems. Nuclear plants in Ontario and New Brunswick have not deterred the government from continuing to support this dying nuclear industry. In fact, the minister has made it clear that the amendment is designed to make it easier for the industry to gain capital and therefore to expand.

You are signalling me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only one minute left. I am prepared to speak for many more hours on the legislation. I am not sure if I would have the consent of the House to continue, but I would ask for that consent so I can continue to share with Canadians my concerns about this very destructive industry and this bill which is so regressive. I am prepared to continue certainly for the next couple of hours at least.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this afternoon to speak to the amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière. This amendment says, and I quote:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

I think this is very wise. People have mixed views about nuclear control regulations.

If I refer to the bill introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources, it seeks to amend subsection 46(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act by replacing it by the following, and I quote:

Where, after conducting a hearing, the Commission is satisfied that there is contamination referred to in subsection (1), the Commission may, in addition to filing a notice under subsection (2), 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 enactment 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.

At first, there was no agreement as to who should be responsible for cleaning up. Public opinion is divided on the issue. As we will see later on, this is not the only problem; there is also the fact that the government does not think other forms of energy could be developed to replace nuclear energy, and I will get back to that later on in my speech.

As it is presently drafted, the legislation says that the Canadian Nuclear Safety 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.

Currently it says “any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place”, which is very broad.

This means that any person with an interest may be made to pay in case of a spill or any other kind of problem. A bank that loaned money to a plant could thus be sued and incur what would inevitably be very high costs should the land have to be decontaminated.

Already there are people saying “Wait a minute”. Banks cannot be allowed to shirk their obligations. For instance, a bank that sells a house with a hidden flaw has an obligation just as would any private citizen selling a house. It is the same here. People with a financial interest in a project would not have to face up to their obligations. I think this is an element worth thinking about and taking into account.

Already, public opinion is not very favourable. Right from the start the Bloc Quebecois has believed this amendment not to be appropriate.

The reason why I support the amendment aimed at postponing consideration of the bill for six months or ten years, or putting off indefinitely making decisions regarding the deregulation of the nuclear industry is simply that, on the one hand, nuclear energy comes with too many risks and, on the other, that other so-called renewable energies could be used.

At the international level, there are a number of countries that are no longer interested in nuclear energy. These states are turning to something safer, cleaner and cheaper.

I could mention the case of Germany, which just made the historic decision to gradually stop using nuclear energy. In so doing, Germany is following the example of many other countries that have also concluded that this type of energy is not good. These countries include the United States, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Austria and Sweden. It is rumoured that Canada is considering doing without nuclear energy.

As a consumer, as an ordinary citizen, I believe that Canada is thinking about doing without nuclear energy. However, the government wants to amend the legislation to make it more flexible, because otherwise no bank will want to invest in nuclear energy. This is fishy. This smells of privatization and of leaving this sector to foreign interests. I have no guarantee that these interests will act with caution, as I would with the government.

I want to get back to those countries that want to drop nuclear energy. The “Sortir du Nucléaire” network is a federation of close to 250 French associations that have been fighting for years against the use of nuclear energy. This network hopes that the example of Germany will make investors think, particularly certain large businesses and banks. The power to make decisions belongs to politicians, but they cannot ignore the public's determination to drop nuclear energy for safety reasons.

In western Europe, Finland, Great Britain, France and Switzerland, as I mentioned earlier, also expect to soon opt out of nuclear energy.

What could replace nuclear energy? The Bloc Quebecois has made proposals, including using wind energy. In Quebec alone, the wind industry could help create over 15,000 jobs. Wind energy could also be used elsewhere. All across Canada there are provinces where it is windy and where such jobs could be created. Even here in the House, where it is very warm, we could use wind energy.

Canada could sign the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That would be a step against nuclear energy.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to have a federal investment program in the wind energy industry because it could create at least 15,000 jobs in Quebec, as well as jobs in other provinces.

In my last few minutes, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a fundamental development. In New Brunswick, a Canadian commission has recommended against any investment in the Point Lepreau nuclear plant, saying it would be too expensive. There is no justification for investing $845 million in this operation. Ultimately, the very existence of the plant may have to be reconsidered. Private investors are not interested because they have no guarantee that the government will let them use the plant without assuming the liabilities.

My time is up, but I can tell you it is not easy to make a ten minute speech when it is so hot.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Terrebonne on her speech. Mine will, of course, be along the same lines as hers. I shall, however, try to bring in some new elements in order to enable this assembly to be in a position to make an informed decision.

Bill C-4 may seem somewhat innocuous, given the relatively few changes it makes, but when placed in a historical context, looking into both the past and the future, it can be seen that its scope is far greater than it may seem.

It has already been said, but I think it bears repeating, that the purpose of the bill is to amend 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 levels of contamination of a place.

As it stands, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act states that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission:

--may 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.

It can be seen that the terminology used here, that is “or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place” is far broader than what the new formulation proposes, which is simply:

--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.

Obviously, reference has been made to the banks in the debate, but there are many other funding bodies that might be affected by this amendment, might be relieved of responsibility for their investments. We are not talking of just any investment. It is not an investment in seal-packed potatoes or some kind of sweet snack, it is an investment in an extremely controversial industry. It is the nuclear industry.

Looking at our society here in the year 2002, it is somewhat of an anachronism to be amending existing legislation, although it has been around for some time, at the very moment that it is generally agreed that there is no future in developing the nuclear industry.

Why then relieve lenders of responsibility when they have until now been responsible for their investments in the nuclear industry—a very particular industry—at the very moment that it is generally agreed that nuclear industry is an energy source that is uncertain, to say the least?

Like the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois is also calling on this House to act responsibly by not amending this legislation at this time. The amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière is to that effect. It seems to me that it would make sense to adopt the amendment, so that the matter can be examined further.

We must bear in mind that the legislation, in fact these energy options, date back to the early and late 1970s. In the early 1970s, in 1973-74, there was a first oil crisis. This crisis caused the first major global crisis since World War II. I clearly recall reading about it in December 1974, in Le Monde diplomatique , which I read at the time. We experienced a crisis, the first major one since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

This had an incredible impact on the collective psyche, particularly in the western world, which had enjoyed phenomenal growth since 1945. The skyrocketing oil prices were immediately linked to very serious financial and structural problems. It will go down in anecdotal history, for instance, that the then Minister of Finance, John Turner, ran his first deficit in 1975, following the recession caused by this oil shock.

Unemployment grew substantially, and continued to grow until the mid-1990s. So, the danger of this oil shock was linked to a more serious danger, namely global economic instability.

The situation quickly got back to normal following the 1974-75 recession. However, we were hit by another oil shock in 1979, with the revolution in Iran.

The shah was overthrown and Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran. There was another jump in oil prices, which reached $42 a barrel.

At the time, I was at the Université de Montréal and I was studying this issue. In fact, my masters thesis was on the cost of energy resources. I can unequivocally state that all the forecasts made by experts, both in Quebec and around the world, including in the rest of Canada, were to the effect that, by the year 2000, the price of oil would be around $90 a barrel.

We therefore turned to alternate sources of energy. For example, in Canada, the Alberta tar sands were developed to ensure that our country would be self-sufficient from an energy point of view. This initiative proved extremely costly for Quebec. All over the world, people looked at new sources of energy, and particularly nuclear energy. This did not occur exclusively in Canada.

In Quebec, we had the great debate on the vast hydroelectric projects around James Bay. These projects were initiated by Robert Bourassa, following the initial work done by René Lévesque as minister of natural resources, in the early or mid-sixties. So, it is in this context that nuclear energy became an option. This context no longer exists.

A barrel of oil currently costs around $23. Instead of being at $90, as was anticipated 25 years ago, the price of a barrel of oil has gone down significantly. Why? Because during the 1970s and 1980s, huge efforts were made in almost all western countries to conserve energy. Our cars now use less gas than they used to. We now have much more energy efficient systems. Our homes are better protected from the cold.

The result of this is that demand for energy resources has dropped worldwide, in spite of the tremendous economic growth experienced after the crisis of the early 1980s. We now find ourselves in a situation where nuclear fission has been ruled out not only from an environmental and safety point of view, but also from an economic point of view.

It seems to me that Bill C-4 is sending out a very wrong message to the population and to industry in general in Canada and in Quebec, but also to the entire international community. As we are debating ratification of the Kyoto accord, the Canadian government is proposing to this Parliament that we relieve financial backers of their responsibility as far as nuclear development is concerned. This is totally contrary to common sense.

I would also remind hon. members that these choices were made, as I have already pointed out, in the wake of recessions, first of all the recession of 1974-75 and then particularly the major one of 1981-82. It must be kept in mind that the latter was far more serious than the one in 1974-75, and was in part a result of the rapid rise in prices due to the Iranian revolution. It created an awareness of the fact that the model of development on which we had based economic development ever since World War II was in crisis. It was a major crisis, but not strictly caused by oil prices. On the contrary, it was caused by a general dysfunction, that is successive government deficits, very heavy inflation, disputes between businesses and workers on how the gain in productivity would be shared. It is, therefore, a far more complex matter and has taken just about 15 years to get over.

Remember that throughout the 1980s, the unemployment rate was extremely high, not just in Canada and Quebec, but all over the western world. For the most part, the situation has improved since 1995. Quebec, like Canada, is experiencing considerable growth. Parliament must not therefore pass legislation that is not only a step backwards, but that is no longer relevant in terms of the economy, the environment or safety.

For this reason, we propose looking into developing other sources of energy that are much more promising both in the short term and the long term. For example, setting up certain types of wind energy would create considerable employment.

We must remember that the government, as I just explained, has spent tremendous amounts of money, not only on nuclear energy, but more importantly on the oil industry. Every Quebecker has paid $27,000 out of his or her own pocket to develop the oil industry in western Canada. I would not want the House to make a decision today that would lead to the same type of problem.

Given the context, I think we must adopt an approach with vision, we must learn from past mistakes, and look to the future. In the context of the debate on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, we must pursue the only position that is consistent: maintaining the legislation as is, and putting off the debate until after the debate on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol is over.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Jonquière, seconded by our colleague from Joliette who has just spoken, and I congratulate him on his speech.

What both my colleagues are proposing is a six month hoist, so that people can be consulted and have the opportunity to express their views on the bill in question.

I would remind hon. members that Bill C-4 is a carbon copy of a bill from the last session. I recall at the time expressing my great surprise that the present government would want to ram through such a bill at any cost. I am equally surprised today.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to totally absolve financial backers of responsibility vis-à-vis the nuclear industry. What this amendment would do is exempt backers from liability in the nuclear sector. This means that corporations which make loans to nuclear facilities will no longer be liable. They will be able to make loans without subsequently assuming liability if there is contamination when these sites are abandoned. One day or other, they will be abandoned, and they will have to be decontaminated in any event. We know that this will have to be done at most sites.

What does Bill C-4 say? That backers will not be held liable. A corporation could declare bankruptcy tomorrow morning, disappear, and responsibility for decontaminating the sites in question would revert to the government.

There have already been many problems with contaminated sites in the past, including in the oil industry. Companies disappeared, and today the government has to take over responsibility for these sites. When companies disappear and leave contaminated sites, in the end it is the taxpayers who are responsible. They are the ones who have to pay to decontaminate the sites in question.

There is a good example in my region, with which my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is very familiar. It is a recent and very obvious example. It does not involve nuclear contamination, but a large company, Noranda, in Murdochville.

Over its 50 years in Murdochville, if my memory is correct, I believe it is 50 years, Noranda contaminated one site and two ports, Mont-Louis and Gaspé. Today the company is leaving the sites and it is completely exonerated of its responsibility to decontaminate them. The Government of Canada is being asked to clean up the Mont-Louis and Gaspé ports because they belong to Transport Canada and are managed by Transport Canada.

Really, it is the responsibility of the company; it is the company that contaminated the site and the ports. Today, the company is leaving to set up shop in South America. As a result, it will be up to taxpayers to cover the cost of the cleanup.

Are we going to do the same thing with the nuclear industry? That is my question. It seems clear to me that with Bill C-4, as my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke mentioned, the lenders no longer have any responsibility. We are saying to them, “you can lend money for nuclear energy”, even though it is an obsolete energy, as far as I am concerned and despite the fact that many countries around the world would like to replace it.

We are telling them, “You can lend them money; you will not be held responsible”. That is what the bill being considered says. To paraphrase, it says, “Go ahead, lend them money. Regardless of their responsibilities, regardless of what they do, in the end, if the company disappears, the state, we the taxpayers, will have to take on the responsibility”. Obviously, I cannot support such a proposal. I find it dangerous and risky.

The banks and the lenders that are asking for this legislation are doing so because they simply do not have faith in nuclear energy or because they do not want to take on the responsibilities that they have to clean up the sites. There are also responsibilities in cases of accidents, but I am speaking for the most part of responsibilities regarding the cleanup of sites.

One does not deal with nuclear energy the same way as with copper, in Murdochville for instance, or oil. In fact, when talking about nuclear contamination, we are not talking of hundreds of years, but rather of thousands of years before the sites in question can be completely decontaminated.

It is much simpler with oil, of course. Let us be clear, however. Oil spills in oceans are not simple to deal with. Cleanup is possible nonetheless, whereas it is a totally different ball game with nuclear energy.

For years, in society at large, businesses have been asked to assume their responsibilities. The will is expressed to adopt a principle, and the principle is adopted with respect to certain businesses in the pulp and paper sector or other sectors, namely the polluter pays principle. I have a hard time understanding why nuclear industry backers should be given the significant advantage of being relieved of responsibility when any other industry is required to assume its responsibilities.

Let us take a look at how things are done, for example, in agriculture. Farmers are held responsible when there is pollution. In any other area, be it transportation or manufacturing—I mentioned pulp and paper earlier, but I could list many other examples—the polluter pays principle is widely accepted.

If you invest in a business as a lender, if you agree to lend money to any business and this business is not, or is no longer, creditworthy, naturally, the lender has a responsibility.

Looking at the bill before us, which, I repeat, is a repetition of the legislation that was put before us in the last session, one wonders why such a privilege should be given to the nuclear industry.

I cannot agree with giving such a privilege to the nuclear industry.

We in the Bloc Quebecois hope that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified and that it will even go a little further. If we adopt Kyoto, some companies will have to make adjustments. They will have to progressively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. I am referring to nuclear energy, but if we want to force companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they will say “Why do you grant such a privilege to the nuclear industry while we are forced to be clean?”

This is a double standard. The government is basically saying “We are granting privileges to the nuclear industry, but we refuse to grant privileges to those who produce greenhouse gases”. It is basically saying “You are responsible, but the other industry, which produces nuclear energy, cannot be held responsible. We cannot hold his lender, or the bank that lends money to him, accountable”.

I cannot agree with such an attitude. When this bill was first introduced, the current Minister of Natural Resources clearly said, and I quote:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise. This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

I have a bit of a problem with that. The minister is basically saying “No one wants to lend them money, but we will open a door by taking away their liability”. We cannot agree with that. That is totally unacceptable. As a member representing the Gaspe region I refuse to support this bill, particularly since we in the Bloc Quebecois have proposed alternative energies that could be developed, that would create more jobs and that would allow my region, among others, to develop new technologies, including wind energy.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

It is not just wind.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just wind, as pointed out the hon. member for Sherbrooke. It is a concrete reality. We must give up this idea of investing more in nuclear energy when people and countries around the world that are affected by nuclear energy are hoping to reduce its use as much as possible.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to this bill. It might be useful to remind those who are following that we are studying Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The purpose of this bill is to relieve lenders dealing with the nuclear industry in particular, of the responsibilities of decontaminating sites. This means that if ever there are spills, problems or sites that are contaminated as a result of the development of the nuclear industry, the people who agreed to lend money for these projects will not be held accountable for the results and cannot be prosecuted. This refers to banks, but it could also include any other stakeholders.

For this reason, the member for Jonquière, seconded by the member for Joliette, has proposed the following amendment, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

This would allow the proposal to be studied again, to make it more specific, more concrete. As it is currently worded, it is unacceptable to us. I will read the wording that the government wants to modify. In the current legislation, it says:

—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 amended text reads:

—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.

We can see that every word counts. We start with a text in which any person who had a right to or interest in, any person who was involved in making the decision about setting up this type of industry, had to ensure that they were not investing in something that could, in the end, harm society, quality of life or the environment.

With this bill, the federal government is attempting to exempt these people from the application of this act. In the area of nuclear energy, I believe that we must obviously be very specific and very cautious when it comes to decisions being made to ensure that we will in no way allow anything that could have irreversible effects in the future.

Nuclear energy development initiatives also address issues such as waste storage and recovery, which may be very expensive to put in place but even more expensive in terms of what consequences an error would have.

If we accept that the lender, the financial institution lending money for mechanical things, equipment, and the investments required to ensure a waste burial project can be carried out, no longer has any moral responsibility concerning the consequences of the decisions it makes, this takes an enormous weight off its shoulders. This opens the door to overly liberal decisions and, at the end of the day, everyone will wash their hands of any responsibility and we will find ourselves with an unacceptable situation. There is no area where we do not have to ensure that we are not dealing with charlatans. In the nuclear energy field as in any other field, there have been instances where equipment or radioactive material was stolen.

In this respect, in today's world where attempts are made to regulate the use of nuclear energy, we must make sure that greed does not lead major lenders to stop taking their responsibilities.

We need only look at the financial scandals, in the U.S. in particular, in the past year or so. They involve individuals who seemed above all suspicion initially, but who, out of greed, did things which, ultimately, have jeopardized many jobs and undermined economic stability, all because there were no safeguards tough enough to prevent reckless action.

Try to imagine the consequences for the management of nuclear waste and the whole nuclear energy issue if such action had been taken in the area of new technologies.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois believes that, in this respect, the federal government is moving a little hastily. It seems to me that it is just trying to make political hay, regardless of all the consequences its action may have. It would be in our best interest to review this bill.

It also strikes me as a bit odd that, at a time when many questions are being asked in Canada about energy choices, we would still be involved in making development easier by lightening up the regulatory framework on the whole matter of the use of nuclear energy. This at a time when everyone is calling for the development of soft energies such as wind energy, which I would like to see this government devote more attention to.

In my opinion, implementation of the Kyoto protocol requires initiative, innovation and government programs conducive to the development of renewable energies. I am thinking of such things as wind power. As we know, 50% of the Canadian potential for this type of energy is in Quebec, and 80% of that potential is in eastern Quebec.

There is talk of using windmills to capture the energy produced by air displacement, but the energy of tides and currents can also be captured. That seemed futuristic a few years ago, but today there is a possibility of developing this industry. It would be a matter of killing two birds with one stone. On the one hand, improved environmental quality, and on the other economic development in regions that need it. The regions in question are a kind of tourist haven, with potential for ecotourism, and the development of a cleaner and greener economy based on the use of a source of energy that has been with us since day one and has been underestimated and undervalued.

It seems rather odd that we are today debating a question like allowing nuclear energy to develop within a less stringent safety framework, when we have the possibility of developing a whole range of softer energies. The federal government does not seem all that anxious to allow this kind of industry to develop and to come up with plans that will yield concrete results in terms of new energy use within 10, 20 or 30 years.

Let us look at both scenarios. What this bill does is to liberalize the creation of infrastructures using nuclear energy, with all the risks and nuclear waste management that are involved. The other scenario would allow us to develop all the new energies without any risks and without any dangerous implications in the short, medium and long term.

Why not provide the same funding opportunities for new energies? What would have been the impact of creating a level playing field from the outset and providing the same opportunities for everyone? We must all live with the choices that we make, and that includes lenders and other stakeholders. The change proposed by the government would give it too much leeway.

In the current context, and considering the specific interests at stake, I hope that the government will be receptive to our arguments and will agree to withdraw this bill and review it again in six months.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote is deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 23, at the beginning of government orders.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, be now read the second time and referred to a committee.