Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep you company for the next 40 minutes. I hope that I will make my point clearly, and that the hon. members and the public will agree with me.
First, I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her Physics 101 lesson which, in my opinion, digressed somewhat from the main point, and may have even discouraged people from thinking more about the nuclear power industry. A history lesson on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island might have been better. It would have been more useful to the debate.
Nuclear energy is both a good thing and a bad thing. Everyone believes that the electricity produced by nuclear energy is good. But nobody talks about the negative aspects, such as the risks associated with nuclear energy or the waste it produces. Given the significant risks and waste involved, no one wants to enjoy this energy or the electricity generated by nuclear power today at the expense of future generations. We know that we will be dealing with nuclear waste for many years to come.
What is odd is the seeming simplicity of this bill. It could not be any simpler. This amendment has to do with decontamination and is strictly financial in nature.
As regards regulatory measures on decontamination, the legislation used to say that “the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in” could be held responsible.
This provision is not new. It existed when the act was amended in 1997, which means that it is at least five years old. Until now, no one had asked for any amendments. This begs the question: why, until now, has no one asked for amendments to eliminate the responsibility of financial institutions or lenders? Today, this provision is being replaced by one saying that it will be “the occupant of, or any other person who has the management and control of” who will be responsible for reducing the level of contamination.
For all intents and purposes, the government is telling lenders, “You can lend a lot of money to the company to manage, operate and possibly own nuclear facilities to produce electricity”. The bill refers to the nuclear industry in general terms. It includes much more than just nuclear plants. My comments today primarily relate to nuclear plants that produce electricity.
This strictly administrative amendment clarifies one aspect of the obligations regarding the decontamination of sites. At the time, this provision had the effect of deterring the private sector from lending money. No one had raised this issue in the past five years. The other nuclear operations never experienced this problem.
Not too long ago, Ontario Power Generation Inc. decided to rent out two nuclear plants to Bruce Power, or to have them operated by it. In order to facilitate financing, the need or obligation comes from a specific application from a company that wants to manage, operate and, perhaps, own nuclear plants, with the support of Ontario Power Generation. In this sense, it is Ontario Power Generation that rented out these nuclear plants and asked Bruce Power to manage them.
In concrete terms, the amendment to subsection 46(3) of the act will make it easier to get financing from banks, in this case by Bruce Power, to manage and operate the nuclear facilities owned by Ontario Power Generation. Bruce Power is a private consortium in which British Energy has a 78% interest, and which also includes Cameco Corporation, the Power Workers Union and the Society of Energy Professionals.
Bruce Power is supposed to operate the Bruce A and B facilities for the next 18 years and might have its contract renewed for another 25 years. However, we are all aware of the financial problems that are plaguing Bruce Power, and more particularly its parent company, British Energy. The corporation was planning to invest a lot of money, some $1.8 billion over three years, to upgrade and improve the facilities. Those who are listening will understand that cheap power is a pipe dream.
When we talk about $1.8 billion to reopen various facilities, we know full well that privatization and giving Ontario firms such as Ontario Power Generation responsibility for their management is part and parcel of the deregulation of the energy sector. Recently, we saw what happened when prices escalated. When this happens, the whole scheme is called into question.
On the same topic of facilitating privatization, it has been pointed out that when the time comes to retrofit the Point Lepreau facilities—plans are being made and already the costs are higher than forecasted—it could probably all be done by the private sector with the help of financial institutions.
As for the nuclear industry, it is a well-known fact that it seems unanimous in its support of the proposed change. However, those who are opposed to nuclear power are also unanimous in their statement that the amendment will only facilitate the privatization of existing nuclear plants. It will not only facilitate it, but it will lead to the proliferation of nuclear plants and, for all intent and purposes, it will put every Canadian on the hook should a disaster happen.
I would like to get back to the fact that it is the department that initiated this change. The department's position is well known. It said, “We simply want to correct an anomaly created in 1997”. The way the department is proceeding leads me to believe it is not taking the current context into consideration. I will remind members that since 1997 the situation has evolved greatly in the nuclear industry. The government's arguments are mainly that the nuclear industry was at a disadvantage compared to other forms of energy.
It stands to reason that we ought to deal differently with the nuclear industry, since the scope of cleaning up after an accident at a nuclear plant is huge both in terms of its impact on the environment and of its long-lasting effects.
The explosion at Chernobyl contaminated the land all the way to the south of France, and numerous cases of cancer resulting from this accident still surface every day and will continue to do so for decades to come. Therefore, it is normal to be much more demanding with this form of energy.
Another argument put forward is that this puts Canadian industries at a disadvantage compared to their international competitors. What industries? Nuclear power plant construction is totally under the control of the federal government, Atomic Energy of Canada being the sole Canadian supplier; as for the operation of these plants, it has been totally under the control of the provinces, and this standard also applies to a foreign private operator wanting to invest in a plant here. That foreign operator is treated the same way as any local private operator.
The government also said this was an exceptional measure. When dealing with an industry that produces extremely hazardous waste that will remain hazardous for thousands of years, for which there exists no solution that would be safe in the long term, and whose waste includes plutonium and a few other components that can be used and have been used to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction, it is normal that such an industry should be subjected to stricter rules than those that apply to an oil well or a hydroelectric dam.
The government also argued that the general power of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was sufficient. Given the commission's lack of independence, it is preferable to keep this specific power, rather than to rely solely on the regulatory power provided under section 24 of the act. I should first point out that this commission did not exist in 1997. Until 2000, it was the former Atomic Energy Control Board.
Like their predecessors, the members of this commission are appointed by the government, which also owns Atomic Energy of Canada and has an obvious business interest in the development of the nuclear industry. This explains why it has never refused or withdrawn a licence to operate a nuclear plant, despite the many dangerous incidents that occur on a regular basis. It took a report from American consultants, in 1998, to convince Ontario to shut down half of its reactors, which had become too unsafe after just some 20 years of operation.
In addition to the arguments made by the department, we must look at what has occurred in the nuclear power industry since 1997. In Canada alone, there was the shutdown in 1998 of half the reactors in Ontario, forcing Ontario Hydro to incur a loss of $10 billion, which led to a negative net worth and restructuring that divided the company in three, leaving a huge debt to be covered by the taxpayers. This shutdown was due to the premature aging of the equipment and the inability of the staff to manage an environment that had become so difficult and dangerous.
There was also the publication of the Seaborn report. Here, as everywhere else in the western world, after ten years of work, the commission found that the general public strongly opposed the solution of burying irradiated fuel and that there was no other long-term solution in sight. To avoid having to shut down the plants whose cooling pools were full to capacity, the number of temporary on-site dry storage facilities was therefore increased.
No new plant has been built in Canada in 20 years, no more are planned for several decades and none of the plants shut down in 1998 have been re-opened.
We know that the only plant in New Brunswick, which is 20 years old, is showing signs of premature aging, having had to be closed repeatedly for long periods of time in the past two years. A preliminary study estimates that $850 million will be needed to extend its life beyond 2006, if it lasts that long. The astronomical cost of operating these aging plants is very significant and yet there are choices that are somewhat more ecological and sustainable.
Take the example of the 133 wind turbines erected in Quebec; they produce more than 100 megawatts at a total cost of just over $160 million. If we invested that $850 million in wind power generation or in other renewable energy sources, then they would be more profitable.
The situation abroad has changed dramatically since 1997. In proposing this amendment, the department is totally ignoring this fact. Most western European countries using nuclear power, except France, have decided to stop doing so, mainly due to an inability to dispose of spent nuclear fuel containing 1% plutonium, even for nations quite dependent on nuclear energy, such as Belgium, where dependency is 50%, and Germany, where it is 30%.
Pressure came mainly from each nation's citizens, who refused to allow plutonium through their towns and villages on its way to or from MOX reprocessing facilities. We cannot blame them for feeling this way, given that a single microgram of this substance can kill in no time when inhaled.
Canada has been unsuccessful in all of its attempts to market Candu to other countries since the China contract. After a long process, Turkey has deferred for another 30 plus years its decision on the advisability of using atomic energy. As for Korea, having had a lot of problems with its Candu reactors, it has decided not to use Canada to supply its needs in future.
Atomic Energy of Canada therefore needs to convert to the service sector, since it does not have a single contract for new power plants. Even the completion of the long-suspended Romanian plant, which has been on hold for years due to lack of funds, has not yet been approved, and private funding is no more easily obtained.
An examination of the situation makes it clear that the purpose is to encourage private investment, intervention by the private sector, and in my opinion the proliferation of nuclear plants. Moreover, last week Atomic Energy Canada spoke of its new Candu reactor and referred to medium-term sales prospects of over 100 reactors.
There is thought being given to reactor sales, to getting the private sector involved, and thus to creating new plants, but no questions are being asked. I know there is nuclear waste management legislation, but we are not at that stage yet. It will cost billions of dollars and we do not even know what the conclusion will be. There is still thought of using nuclear power plants to produce electricity.
They have also lost sight of the accident in 1999 at a Japanese reprocessing centre under construction, which shook up the entire world nuclear industry and forced it to re-examine its standards and risk assessments for this technology. This accident, following the Chernobyl disaster, was the catalyst for a number of countries going off nuclear power. Even highly nuclear dependent Japan has re-examined its investments. As for France, it halted operations in its breeder reactor, since these were unjustified in a shrinking market context, which ought to lead in the medium term to reprocessing plants, and possibly the nuclear plants themselves, being closed down.
They are losing sight of the hazards and waste involved. It is clear that Ontario decided to hand over the ownership and management of a nuclear generating station that is currently closed to the private sector, in order to avoid having to make the major investments required and so that it could be reopened by the qualified staff of a foreign company, weaknesses among its own personnel having been a determining factor in the forced closure in 1998.
In terms of environmental risks, obviously in the event of a major contamination that bankrupted the local subsidiary, a mortgage lender that had the benefit of a guarantee from the foreign head office in addition to the mortgage guarantee, would exercise the former rather than seize the property, which would make it liable for any damage to the environment. As often happens in such cases, the head office would cut loose its subsidiary and nobody would take responsibility for the contaminated site.
There are also security risks. Again, it is clear that putting the private sector in charge of any part of the operation or decontamination of sites containing nuclear material increases the risk of nuclear proliferation through the infiltration of individuals working for terrorist states or cells.That is why, since 1980, the United States has prohibited the private reprocessing of any nuclear matter within its jurisdiction to prevent even the smallest amount of plutonium from finding its way into the hands of individuals over whom it has absolutely no control.
Obviously, this will encourage the development of nuclear energy in Canada, while facilitating privatization, reopening plants that were closed down in Ontario and increasing environmental and security risks.
I am not the only one who says this. One has only to read the documents that were given to us by the various stakeholders, including Bruce Power. Here is what Bruce Power said:
Generally, the legislation has a negative impact on the capacity of private corporations to invest in nuclear plants, and this is detrimental to the future development of the Canadian nuclear industry.
The comments from private business could not be any clearer. During committee discussions, everyone said, “No, it is not necessarily so that nuclear plants would proliferate”. However, here they said:
—to the future development of the Canadian nuclear industry.
Members may have noticed that often, the words “nuclear generating station” are not used when referring to the generation of electric power. That is the difference. Globally, the nuclear industry has several applications, one of which is nuclear power plants to generate electricity. In practical terms, this is the application that produces the most waste and that will benefit the most in terms of funding. Since 1997, no one other than those operating nuclear power plants generating electric power has ever seen any problem with the legislation, with the existing clause in the legislation.
Furthermore, I would like to quote what representatives of the Canadian Nuclear Association said in committee:
The present wording of the subsection limits investments. Under the current wording, subsection 46(3) of the act unintentionally prevents private companies in the nuclear industry from obtaining loans, since banks refuse to assume the exceptional statutory responsibility.
I draw your attention to the term “unintentionally”. I find it difficult to believe that, in 1997, when this section of the act was written down in black and white, experts were not able to easily see the significant risk related to decontamination. Everyone without exception, including financial backers, would have easily seen the risk and responsibility related to the decontamination costs, especially at the clause by clause study stage.
So, it seems very clear to me that, at the time, the lawmaker's intention was to limit the role of the private sector in the most expensive activities of the nuclear industry, in other words, in the operation of nuclear power plants, and the costs related to rebuilding or dismantling such plants. So, when I am told that this was not done intentionally in 1997, I refuse to believe it. Believe me, the lawmaker had no intention of watching the private sector get involved in operating nuclear power plants, and this was the only way to prevent the private sector from investing in this area.
There are also all the other operations, because, as we know, nuclear plants do not exist just to produce electricity. There are many other uses and I will mention some of them.
There are several nuclear plants, but there are also 22 reactors: twenty in Ontario, one in Quebec and one in New Brunswick. There are uranium mines and mills; uranium processing facilities and fuel production facilities; nuclear materials and radiation devices; packaging and transportation; non-power reactors that can be useful for research and medical applications; research and nuclear testing facilities; large irradiators; particle acceleration; radioactive waste management; decommissioning and financial security; safe operations and professional skills; and, finally, international affairs.
So, all those who were involved in other activities relating to nuclear energy never told the government or the department that subsection 46(3) prevented them from operating and getting money from financial institutions to invest and operate their industries.
Again, if we go back to the Canadian Nuclear Association, we have, for all intents and purposes, proof that the intention is to privatize. The association said:
The current wording is an anomaly. In no other Canadian act relating to the environment do we find a wording similar to the current wording of this subsection. The result is that this subsection is a major obstacle to investments in the nuclear industry, and it puts nuclear energy in an unfavourable position, in relation to the other means used to produce electricity.
We see, therefore, that it was clearly specified that they were referring to nuclear plants used to produce electricity, and most nuclear plants and reactors are located in Ontario. As we know, the energy sector was deregulated and there was a significant increase in the cost of electricity and in the retrofitting costs of plants. I will list a few examples and mention the costs involved.
Moreover, since basically it is at the request of this private firm that the department introduced this amendment, it is the key player in this file and yet it did not appear before the committee. It was asked to appear as a witness. So if the key player did not bother to appear before the committee to debate the amendment or express its views, it raises serious questions.
There is another player. We now know that this involves hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in investments. Therefore, the funding which used to be supplied by institutions and the government is now provided by the banks, which would loan money directly to private firms willing to take the risk.
As for the Canadian Bankers Association, it did not appear before us to let us know what its position was. Obviously it is not opposed; it will be able to lend phenomenal amounts of money at rates which, I imagine, will be commensurate with the potential risk, without assuming any responsibility for cleaning up. The Bankers Association could not appear due to a scheduling conflict.
Now, the department is telling us “There is no problem. The private sector will be able to invest, get involved, operate nuclear plants, and also build new ones. There is no problem”. Moreover, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is here to oversee everything, to enforce the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. There is no problem. It is obvious. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said and I quote:
Financial considerations are only taken into account by the commission if they affect its mandate. The commission is convinced that the revised version of subsection 46(3) provides sufficient ways to allow it to order the owner or occupant of, or any other person with an interest in, the affected land or place to take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination beyond the required limit. Consequently, the commission is not opposed to the bill.
Clearly, it was foreseeable that the commission would not oppose this bill because it must enforce the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Whether it deals with a private company or not, the fact remains that it must work with the existing regulations and controls, with all of the shortcomings therein. As a result, it cannot go beyond its mandate, regardless of who is providing loans or financing. The fact remains that the risks and waste associated with electricity-producing nuclear generating stations are far greater.
We also find the situation somewhat disappointing, particularly since no heed is being paid to all that has happened since 1997. The context has completely changed and this is not taken into consideration. The world nuclear industry is no longer the same. It is no longer necessary to privatize some nuclear plants and create new ones.
Back then, the Seaborn commission said that we had to explain the potential consequences and effects of nuclear power in order to get the public on board. Again, the changes to legislation would facilitate the privatization and proliferation of nuclear power plants. It also places the burden of decontamination on the public sector, rather than the private sector.
I think it would have been appropriate to have a debate on the nuclear industry before going as far as making this slight change that could have enormous consequences. Why did the government not agree to consultations? Probably because it had a good idea of what could happen during these consultations.
I have before me the results of a poll done by Léger Marketing on July 13, 2001. According to the poll, two thirds of Canadians are opposed to constructing new nuclear plants in Canada. The question was simply, “Do you support or oppose the construction of new generating stations in Canada”? Apparently, 66.1% of respondents were against the idea.
Given this situation, it was not in the interests of the government to hold consultations, because it wanted to make an amendment specifically to help the private sector. The private sector will not be satisfied with simply operating a nuclear plant by subcontracting to another company that sells the electricity directly. Instead, it will want to increase its ability to generate profits. It will no doubt try to build new nuclear reactors. We know that Atomic Energy Canada has a new product it is trying to sell.
Those who are watching us can see that what we have here is a circle, that is the nuclear industry and the electricity industry produced mainly in Ontario. It is a tight community to the point where we do not know exactly who will reap the benefits in the end, but it will always be despite the risk and despite nuclear waste.
Earlier, I mentioned that this was somewhat contrary to what we are seeing in terms of development throughout the world. Moreover, speaking of surveys and public consultations, several countries are now holding referendums or public consultations on nuclear energy.
I will remind members that, in 1978, in a referendum, Austrians voted against the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. That is why no nuclear generating station was ever built in Austria.
In 1987, Italians decided by referendum to close three nuclear reactors in their country and to prohibit the construction of any more such reactors. The three reactors were decommissioned in 1990.
As for the Swedes, they decided by referendum, in 1980, to keep their reactors in operation but to decommission them gradually as alternative production facilities became operational. All reactors should be decommissioned by 2010.
Switzerland held referendums on the gradual abandonment of nuclear energy in 1979, 1984 and 1990, but people voted against it each time. However, in the 1990 referendum, it was agreed that no new nuclear generating station would be built for at least ten years. In 2000, the ten-year moratorium was extended.
In a number of other countries, the gradual abandonment of nuclear energy was the subject of a broad political and public debate, which we have not had here, in Canada. For example, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and Germany all adopted policies or legislation providing for the gradual abandonment of nuclear energy or preventing the expansion of nuclear generating stations.
The deadline varies from one country to the next. Some countries, such as Sweden, Belgium and Germany, for instance, have already had to extend it. They have difficulty replacing nuclear electricity with electricity from other sources that will not increase greenhouse gas emissions overly, which would compromise their ability to meet the reduction objectives in the Kyoto protocol.
That leads me, with what is being read, to talk about the importance of consulting the public so that people can give their opinion on relying on the nuclear power industry for electricity production. I think this would have been the best opportunity for the government to do so before allowing privatization, and especially the proliferation of nuclear power plants.
I just explained that we are talking about Kyoto. Several people claim that, indeed, nuclear energy for producing electricity does not emit greenhouse gases, or very little, in minimal quantities. However, there are other energies that, in addition to not emitting greenhouse gases, do not create dangerous waste, as I already explained in previous speeches.
The Canadian Alliance member told us earlier that uranium 238 was less dangerous than uranium 235. However, we know that the half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. We will not be around to see the decrease in radioactivity.
I believe that it would be in the government's best interest to consult the public before voting on this bill. Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is against this bill. There are dangers to future generations. There are significant risks. Waste will likely threaten the entire planet.
