Debates of Oct. 30th, 2007

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about American regulations and laws. Is one of the objectives of the bill to encourage American companies to operate and invest in Canada's nuclear industry?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member was present a little earlier. One of the members of the NDP continually raised the issue of liability in the United States and wanted to talk about those limits.

I specifically talked about the fact that the bill would bring our compensation limits into line with those of many other countries, including the requirements in the United States. The NDP wanted to use that example so I thought it was important to respond specifically to that.

One of the concerns I have had this morning with the NDP's position is its members would oppose the bill if the liability amount is set at zero. They would oppose it if it is set at $75 million. They seem to be willing to oppose it if it is at $650 million. I believe they would oppose the bill no matter what the amount would be.

The concern of the NDP does not have to deal with a realistic situation, as the Liberal critic pointed out earlier. It can stand in opposition on almost anything. However, we need to work to find a realistic solution for the industry in order to provide insurance coverage for it that is reasonable, given any likely scenario.

We think we have done that. It appears we have the support of a couple of the other parties in the House. We think this is a reasonable amount.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position is clear. With regard to nuclear energy, the Bloc is calling for strict and effective controls at all stages: extraction, transportation, and generation of heat and electricity. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill on operator liability in the event of a nuclear incident. However, it is deplorable that the Conservative government has failed to take advantage of the recent announcement—regarding radioactive waste disposal—to launch public consultations about nuclear energy. The government is going ahead without any debate while the use of nuclear energy has far less than unanimous acceptance.

The Bloc Québécois does not want any compromises where safety is concerned. The disasters of Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, Three Mile Island in the United States, many small accidents in China and India, and all the incidents which almost became accidents and which fortunately were not very serious, underscore and must always remind us of the serious consequences of nuclear accidents and incidents and the importance of doing everything to avoid them.

By answering to the powerful nuclear lobby, the Minister of Natural Resources is becoming one of the principal promoters of nuclear energy. The minister seems to forget that nuclear energy is not, as he mistakenly claims, a clean energy. Radioactive waste is still a significant problem and very expensive to manage. The Minister of Natural Resources, who continues to be optimistic about nuclear energy—primarily with regard to tar sands extraction—should exercise caution with regard to a source of energy for which there is less than unanimous acceptance and with risks that are far from benign.

In Pickering, waste from the nuclear plant is contaminating the lake. Thus, there are dangers at all stages of nuclear generation. Without being alarmist, we must realize that nuclear energy should not be this minister's first choice and he should insist more on the development of energy sources that are truly clean such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, which could meet all of Canada's energy needs.

I would like to point out that we are currently developing wind energy in a big way. For some provinces in particular, wind energy is starting to complement hydroelectric stations. Solar energy should be developed on a much larger scale. Nonetheless, I want to mention geothermal energy in particular, not at the surface, but at medium depths. Geothermal energy at depths of 3,000 to 5,000 feet can provide enough energy to drive co-generation electricity turbines for every small community in Canada and Quebec. This type of energy does not require any legislation to protect people. This energy is available and renewable for life.

We see that promoting nuclear energy is on the agenda for the Minister of Natural Resources. He wants to call it clean energy, but we do not necessarily think it is as clean as he claims because of its waste.

It is true that we gain in terms of greenhouse gases, but not if we use nuclear energy to extract oil from the tar sands. The greenhouse gases created by extracting the oil will not be offset by the nuclear energy that does not produce greenhouse gases. It does not justify extracting more oil and creating more greenhouse gases that have an irreparable impact on climate change.

The Bloc Québécois will study Bill C-5 carefully in committee in order to ensure that there are no loopholes that will allow operators to shirk their responsibilities, that taxpayers will not unduly share part of the risk and the cost of compensation, and that the amount of insurance coverage is reviewed regularly with a view to international standards and unstated risks.

This bill includes an amount that is not what the international community considers realistic. It is therefore obvious that taxpayers, Canadians, will have to pay any cost exceeding this premium in the event of an accident.

Furthermore, it is very important to assess the real cost of the damages that could result from a nuclear accident, so that we get the right amount of insurance. Earlier the Conservative government was saying that their studies show that damages would only be as high as a few million dollars. The committee will go over these studies with a fine toothed comb because we would very surprised if they had not been conducted by proponents of nuclear energy.

By introducing this bill on safety and liability in case of incidents, the minister is acknowledging that nuclear power poses a huge potential threat. Otherwise, he would not introduce bills about solar power. Truly clean energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro, do not need bills like this one. If this bill is passed, it should include a framework that really improves safety.

The Minister of Natural Resources does not have much credibility when it comes to nuclear energy. In fact, his enthusiasm for this energy source indicates that he is merely answering to lobbyists even though a thorough debate is needed. It is hard to believe that he himself decided nuclear is a good idea.

In recent press releases, the minister alleges that nuclear energy is clean because it emits virtually no greenhouse gas. While it is true that nuclear energy produces only a small quantity of greenhouse gas, it does produce radioactive waste that is difficult and expensive to manage.

To ignore this would be to mislead Canadians and Quebeckers who are afraid of nuclear and want nothing to do with it, especially in Quebec. Why are the minister and his government failing to recognize the concerns of our nation and avoiding a broader discussion and in-depth consultation with the people?

The Minister of Natural Resources announced that he had chosen the recommended approach, adaptive phased management (APM), to ensure the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel in Canada. APM includes the isolation and containment of used nuclear fuel deep in the earth. Where? Who knows. The government has been looking for a place to put it for 40 years now. As a temporary solution, the government will be looking for shallow underground containment. That is what the minister himself said. Clearly, he has no idea what to do with nuclear waste.

The minister also said that this is a safe long-term approach. How can he be so sure of that?

In that announcement, one also reads:

APM will ensure the used nuclear fuel is monitored—

Clearly the minister is not sure that nuclear waste can be safely stored this way. It must be monitored. Who will pay for that monitoring? It is certainly not the companies that use nuclear fuel. There is no reference to that in the bill. So, taxpayers will pay for that monitoring, and for the monitoring against terrorism at nuclear reactor sites. It will always be taxpayers who pay. The bill has nothing to say on that subject.

Further on, we read:

The [Nuclear Waste Management Organization] will begin planning and designing a site-selection process collaboratively with Canadians.

The Minister of Natural Resources is laughing at us. That is exactly what they have been trying to do for 40 years, plan a site, and it still has not been done. So, there must be major problems. The moment that the location of the site is decided, there will be such a public outcry that the minister will have to change tack.

It especially unsettling to know that the Minister of Natural Resources is in favour of the use of nuclear power to increase production of oil from the tar sands. Once again, he is being irresponsible. The minister has this to say:

“As we see the potential increase in oil sands production moving from a million barrels a day up to four or five million barrels, we need to do better. I think there is great promise in the oil sands for nuclear energy”.

The more oil we produce from the tar sands, the more greenhouse gases we will produce, and nuclear energy will not prevent greenhouse gas emissions, quite the contrary.

We ask the minister how this bill will protect the health of Canadians. That is what he says he wants to do. However, we know that nuclear power stations send contaminants into the air.

How can he show us that there is no more danger? He would not need this bill if this were the case. If he does not include this in the bill, we may conclude that he does not know how to protect the health of Canadians. Bill C-5 forces nuclear power stations to insure themselves against the damage caused by an accident. It does not deal with protection of public health.

Since the accident in Russia, at Chernobyl—more specifically, in Ukraine — energy safety has become the major political priority. In Europe today, for example, all possible solutions other than nuclear are being reconsidered. In England, a parliamentary commission has warned the public about the construction of new stations. A simple sentence confirms the fears of those who accuse the British prime minister of yielding to the nuclear lobby. In 2003, the government published a white paper on energy that emphasized renewable energy and ruled out any renewal of a civilian nuclear program.

I want to come back to the accident that occurred in Chernobyl 20 years ago. Twenty years later, people have visited the site, which is still radioactive. This site is still dangerous, and the effects of the accident are still being felt.

How does the Minister of Natural Resources think that a bill can protect people against radioactive fallout for 30 or 40 years or more?

Bill C-5 provides for $75 million, the same amount as in 1976. If this amount had at least been adjusted for inflation, it would be $250 million. The Paris convention recommends $600 million, and the international agreements refer to $650 million, an amount that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development endorsed in her 2005 report. This is a far cry from the proposed figure of $75 million. Rest assured that we are going to find out why. Can the Minister of Natural Resources justify why such a low amount was proposed for liability?

In conclusion, a thorough debate is needed. The government cannot deal with the issue of nuclear energy simply by saying that everyone is in favour of it. This is not true. Some people are not in favour of it. I do not understand how a government that claims to be in touch with the people can be unaware that people are reluctant to embrace nuclear energy.

We know that radioactive waste is difficult and expensive to manage. Other sources of energy exist, as I have already mentioned. I want to stress that money should be invested in these energy sources. Every year, Canada invests about $500 million in nuclear research. This year, the government is investing an estimated $807 million in safety, research and promotion. If the government had invested such an amount for years, it could have invested in research into really clean, safe energy and it could be developing these alternate energy sources, so that nuclear energy would not be needed.

We cannot ignore this reality and overlook an important option, that of replacing nuclear energy with other kinds of energy.

It is equally important that the public not be misled into thinking that legislation alone, such as Bill C-5, will protect them. That is not true. This bill is about compensation. It is merely an insurance policy in case of an accident. We all know what an accident means. This does nothing about people's health.

Knowing that, how can the minister continue to promote nuclear energy? By introducing this bill, he has made it clear that he has only one objective, which is to really develop the nuclear sector. He is using the reduction of greenhouse gases as a springboard. However, once he wants to invest in the oil sands to produce petroleum, we see what he is up to. This simply does not make sense.

The minister and the Conservative Party must show some restraint regarding this energy source, which we think is dangerous because of the emanations and waste produced when the plants are operational. Furthermore, it is far from being unanimously accepted.

The same amount of money needs to be invested in renewable energy sources, given that the risk of accidents is minimal and the entire population is much more interested in such energy sources.

To sum up, we are in favour of this bill, because it focuses on safety. However, we will examine it very closely, because we think it falls short of what is required, and is outdated by about 30 or 40 years. We truly hope that, if the government decides to turn to nuclear energy without consulting the public, that it will at least do so as safely as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning we have talked a little about balance. As the Liberal critic mentioned earlier, there is a balance of three things, the three E's, the environment, energy and the economy. We have worked hard to protect the environment over the last year and a half. We are trying to find a balance that will work for Canadians with respect to energy, and of course we want to maintain a strong economy at the same time.

I want to ask a specific question of the member. He said that nuclear power must be replaced with other types of energy. I think that is what I heard in the translation. For a number of years now, Quebec has relied upon nuclear power, as well as other sources. Is it the position of the Bloc that the nuclear power generation in Quebec should be shut down and that Quebeckers should have no option of nuclear power as one of those energy sources that is available to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, in Quebec, we have only one nuclear power plant and it is operating at low capacity. Contrary to what my colleague has just said, I must point out that electricity production in Quebec is not based on nuclear power, given that we have only one power plant. In addition, we are currently considering the question to determine whether we should renovate that plant or instead close it completely. Nuclear energy is therefore not expanding in Quebec.

As well, the general public is much more in favour of closing that nuclear power plant than of upgrading it, because it does not comply with the safety standards that people expect of an power generating site.

In terms of the economy, as my colleague heard me say, we can perfectly well develop our economy using other sources of energy, clean energy. I reiterate this because it is of real importance: research has been done, particularly in the United States and Europe, into medium-depth geothermal energy sources—great-depth geothermal energy sources may be tapped in the future. That research shows that we could produce the same quantity of energy from those sources as is produced in nuclear power plants.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the member who just spoke. He gives us the impression that the city of Pickering is not a safe place.

I would first like to ask the member a simple question: whether he has ever in his life been in a nuclear power plant. If he has not done it, he should do it. I invite him to visit my riding. At some point, it might be a good idea for the entire committee to come to Pickering or somewhere where there are other nuclear plants. He would understand the situation clearly.

When we constructed that building in the 1960s, nearly 50 years ago now, there have been no major incidents involving people living there for a long time. The member should know that in my riding there are two million people living in the vicinity of the nuclear plant, within 25 km of that plant.

I have to say that I am not a nuclear power promoter—I have never worked in that field—but I know very well that the workers, the employees who work there, provide good management of the plant. Everyone who works there always lives in the region, they are proud of their work. We are not flooding great expanses of land or displacing people to build a hydroelectric generating station.

I invite the member, before he says any more about things that affect my riding, to come at our expense, at some point, and visit the power plant to learn the measures that are taken there. I believe that he will have a completely different opinion about our nuclear power plant.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to offend my Liberal colleague. I only wanted to say that I had read a report.

It is true that I have never been in a nuclear power plant, but I do not think that I have to go there to be aware of what is going on. I read a report that stated very clearly that the nuclear power plant was contaminating the water in the lake and that the water was actually contaminated. I did not say that it was dangerous to humans. I only said that the water in the lake was contaminated. That is undeniable because an official report has been published, dealing with the water in the lake.

It is obvious that walking about in a nuclear power plant will not prove that it is not dangerous. Nuclear radiation is invisible, and you can not feel it on your body. So, visiting a nuclear power plant is no way to determine that it is clean.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made some very good comments on the bill.

We know that in places like Alberta there is talk about putting in nuclear energy to support the tar sands. We have heard a number of people talk about nuclear energy as being clean energy. There is a mining process and a transportation process before a nuclear plant is even built. I wonder if the member thinks those factors should be included when determining whether or not nuclear energy is actually a clean energy source.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for that excellent question.

That is exactly our objective. If it is possible, without changing the meaning of the bill, our goal is to include the mining process in this bill. Indeed, there is a danger during the mining, refining and transportation of such material.

That is where we see that building and operating nuclear power plants creates a danger to human health for all of the people who work in the production of nuclear energy for heating or electricity.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has had some very specific questions from other members about the bill we are debating. I would like to ask for his comments on a much broader subject.

We learned this week that the French president has just asked the European Commission to introduce a European tax, no more, no less, on any product coming from a country that does not conform to the Kyoto protocol.

In economic terms, especially, I wonder what that means to my colleague, in the broader sense of the environment, obviously.

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

Mr. Speaker, the French president has discussed a series of actions that he is preparing to take. They are very valuable for the environment and we applaud him for that. Obviously, this is far removed from Bill C-5. We notice that the French president did not place an emphasis on the production of nuclear energy. Nor did he say that he would not use it. We know that France does rely a lot on that kind of energy; but he did not emphasize the fact that he would produce even more. Quite the contrary. He talked about a tax on products that are not produced by countries that comply with Kyoto. He added that he would build 2,000 km of very high speed train lines in France. He also spoke of introducing taxes on overloaded trucks.

Thus, the French government is proposing a very interesting series of measures for the environment. We would hope that the government has the same intentions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his speech. I would like to ask him a question.

He has done a lot of travelling and has met with many people, including a number of European parliamentarians. Could he tell me why Germany, for example, has decided to abandon nuclear energy? What are the advantages and what are Germany's reasons? That country is currently creating a lot of economic wealth by supporting and encouraging solar energy. Can he provide some arguments to inspire the Minister of Natural Resources?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has 30 seconds to answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will be hard to answer in 30 seconds. Indeed, Germany is somewhat on the leading edge. It is selling its technologies in other countries. That is how the German economy does so well in terms of clean energy.

In Germany, the entire population truly realizes that it can produce the energy it needs without using nuclear energy. The Germans find they do not really need nuclear energy and that is one of the reasons they are turning away from it. I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will realize that even though lobby groups have an appetite for nuclear energy, the global community is currently expressing reservations about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I enter the debate today. I have listened to a number of my colleagues from all sides of the House, and it is with growing concern rather than reassurance that I rise today to address the bill, simply because of my concern about the depth of knowledge of my colleagues and about whether some colleagues who have spoken to the bill have read the piece of legislation or considered its implications.

In the nuclear energy context, I think there are two central facts around which people pivot their concerns. One probably gets an undue amount of attention, and I think there is a need for greater balance, and it is around the environmental component and the fact that the off-products of nuclear are serious, long-lasting and immensely damaging not only to human health but to the planet in general. The second is financial, as to whether the nuclear industry, if left to its own devices, would be able to compete with the other forms of energy that exist within our energy mix in the country. It is a subsidized industry at various points along the process, and now we are entering the debate very specifically about the limited liability that the government is putting forward.

Allow me to say two things first before I get into the details of each of those aspects. One is that the review of this act is long overdue. The world has moved on significantly from when the act was first put together. Its application is no longer connected with any reality in regard to what is happening in the world and in the state of the nuclear industry.

Second, let me just comment that I think the Minister of Natural Resources, who spoke earlier today, did himself and the issue a disservice by not coming forward completely and transparently with what the implications are. There were several direct questions that we in my party put to him, just to simply lay the facts on the table, not one way or the other, but simply to put them on the table so that we can have a fair and honest debate in this place. At every opportunity, the minister chose to avoid answering the questions directly.

This pertains specifically to the liability question and the fact that within the bill the movement is from a $75 million cap to a $650 million cap on limited liability. The minister pretended, and in a sense stretched the point to nearly misleading the House, to say that the cap was a floor and that liability would start from $650 million and then go up.

I then took the bill itself to the minister to show him that in fact this is not a floor. As written in the bill, it is a ceiling. If he wishes to change that, then we look forward to the amendments, but presenting it as a floor as opposed to a ceiling changes the whole context. The $650 million that is noted in the bill as limited liability for the industry suggests to us and to many others who study these issues that beyond $650 million there is another question that arises: who picks up the tab in the event of a nuclear disaster or accident if the claims go beyond $650 million?

To some Canadians who are watching and following this debate, a little over half a billion dollars might seem like quite a bit, but we have to localize and contextualize the discussion. These nuclear plants do not tend to be located in far-flung places. They tend to be located in densely populated parts of our country. They tend to be located right next to much of the most significant drinking water supplies for our country and also for our neighbours to the south.

As for the implications of an accident, we certainly do not wish it and we encourage the government to take every mean and measure possible to prevent it, but an accident by its very nature is not predictable. An accident is an unknown, but it can happen, and if it never did we certainly would not need the insurance industry at all. However, the implications are extraordinary.

Of course when we get into debates on energy use and the profile of this country, the words and specific attributes of every energy source are important. The nuclear industry has gone to great lengths and measures to present itself as clear and clean. It uses a very well polled and well versed terminology to assure Canadians that it is an okay source of energy with few implications.

We do not have to be rocket scientists to understand that nuclear waste is extraordinarily dangerous. It lasts far beyond our lives and may last far beyond the existence of countries as we know them today. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of years.

There are implications for us as parliamentarians, as decision makers and leaders of this country, when dealing with issues that have implications that last many generations. There are implications that are more serious than we have seen in the debate to this point. We have a responsibility and an obligation to dig through the bill, to dig through the issue itself with the greatest scrutiny available to us, with all the information and the power we can muster, simply because the ramifications of what happens as a result of our decisions will not in all likelihood be borne by us but by generations to come.

We all care for our children, our grandchildren and our families. It is most important when dealing with issues like this one that we take the time as the parliamentarians to scrutinize those issues to the fullest extent.

So when the nuclear industry comes forward and says it is clear and clean, with all the rest of the jargon and spin it hires very competent marketing agencies to do, it flies in the face of what is actually in the bill. That is simply because to say there is no risk or no element of risk within the nuclear industry is a bit specious considering that under the list of compensatory damage are listed: “Bodily injury or damage to property; Psychological trauma; Close personal relationship; Liability for economic loss; Costs and wages; Power failure”; and “Environmental damage”. These are all conditions under which, in this piece of legislation, the supplier of nuclear energy can be taken to court and sued.

Let us take a look at that list. What is the limit for psychological trauma as a result of a nuclear accident? What is the limit on psychological trauma suffered by anyone in a close personal relationship with a person who has suffered bodily injury as a result of a nuclear accident? What about liability for economic loss? What about economic loss due to power failure or economic loss due directly to the incident itself? As for costs and wages, again, is it for those people directly affected or for anybody in an ancillary position who has been affected as well?

These are extraordinarily extensive realms and parameters in which someone could apply for compensation from the courts. As for suggesting, then, that we are going to limit the liability for this to provide what is essentially investor certainty for anyone looking to make a dollar through the nuclear industry, and then suggesting that this Parliament will then convene a special committee to pick up the tab for the rest of any damages that are forthcoming, let us be honest about the debate, folks.

Let us simply name it as it is and say that this is the ceiling. That is what is described in this bill as we have read it. The minister has said otherwise. In that case, I am not sure that he has read the legislation or if he is choosing to interpret it in a way opposite to how it is written.

There is obviously special treatment for the nuclear industry. This has been an industry that Canada has fostered for many decades. It has attempted to export it to other countries, with some success and some failure in bringing our technology to other countries. There are negotiations going on right now with some countries in the developing world to further export this technology, again with long term and serious implications in regard to the decision.

One wonders if the same application, the same treatment, is given to other industries, other industries with major investment, which the nuclear industry has had, other industries that have incurred liability. When an airline is begun in Canada or when someone brings an airline to Canada, does the government offer a limited liability insurance guarantee through the Parliament of Canada? When the auto industry got its start in Canada, was there an implication of the limited liability applied to the auto sector to say that if it had a major malfunction in any of its products, any of its cars, that the government would pick up the tab beyond a certain point?

We are aware of none. Perhaps some of my colleagues from the government can offer some points and suggest that in fact the nuclear industry is not treated as a special circumstance. That would be enlightening for us.

The nuclear debate is an extraordinarily sensitive hot topic. There is a lot of to-and-fro. There are extremes on both sides. Over the years we have seen various politicians go to the lengths of actually taking effluent from a nuclear plant and drinking it to show just how incredibly safe that effluent is. Those folks are no longer with us.

It is lamentable, but it shows that in the face of serious concern and evidence, in order to play politics, in order to assure Canadians that everything is okay despite overwhelming evidence, some politicians have gone to the extreme and have threatened and ended their own lives.

There is also the other extreme, with people presenting the case of nuclear energy in such tones of conflict as to suggest that it is the devil incarnate and brings forward all sorts of destruction by its very existence.

We think the balance point is in between. We think there is a place where we can achieve a serious and honest debate about the use of nuclear energy in our energy mix in this country. It is necessary to do that and we need to have representatives of the government come forward to present the facts as they are written in the legislation and not try to pretend they are otherwise.

There is indeed a lesson of unintended consequences when looking through legislation like this. It is very difficult for parliamentarians to imagine the various trajectories that can be taken with an issue like this. It is difficult to imagine what the energy mix, profile and demands will be in 50 or 100 years.

That brings me to the second point, which is about the environment. The financial circumstances of the nuclear industry, at least within this province in which we are debating, Ontario, have been mixed at best. There have been cost overruns. There have been liability claims. Ontario taxpayers, and through them the federal coffers as well, have picked up an enormous debt. It is for the Ontario voters to decide what they will do. Let us not kid ourselves. There have been rampant issues with and difficulties faced by the nuclear industry in making ends meet in simply operating cost-efficient electricity production.

On the environmental side, there are obviously the two main components of this. In this particular bill we are dealing with accidents. We are dealing with those times when things go wrong in a serious and significant way with implications that are far-reaching.

My colleague spoke earlier of the nature of a nuclear accident and its ability to produce a variety of contamination effects that can spread out over many thousands of hectares. The cleanup of such effects is extraordinarily expensive, never mind the cost to human health and insurance as dealt with under the bill.

The other component of the environment, of course, is the legacy of the waste. What do we do with the waste? The minister did speak truthfully earlier. It was a unique and enlightening moment when he talked about the creation of a committee that has gone around the country to talk about the issue of nuclear waste.

When those committee members came before the environment committee some time ago, the only real question I had for them about the 200 or so community visits they conducted across the country was to find out in how many communities, as I suggested at the end of their presentation, a nuclear waste facility was welcome in the municipality. Most of these presentations were done at the municipal level. If we want to talk for a moment about a legacy, the question is being put to these small regional districts and small communities in a presentation of facts by this nuclear waste committee in regard to making a decision that would last for generations to come.

It is a fascinating thing to look at the structure of municipal politics within this country, because most people enter politics for a three year term. They enter for a variety of reasons, such as making the sidewalks better or changing the tax base within their community, but rarely have I heard a municipal politician running for office say, “Vote for me because I want to make decisions about nuclear waste for our community”. Rarely have I heard municipal politicians say they want to make decisions that will have implications and effects that will last for generations to come. It is just not within the general context of what happens within municipal affairs.

I asked the committee members how many communities, mayors, councillors and presidents of chambers of commerce approached them during, afterward or before the presentation and said, “Please come and be a part of our community and form your industry here”. After four attempts at getting an answer, one was finally delivered. “None” was the response. There were no communities that said this. Of course the government has since gone ahead and is pushing the debate further in trying to find a place to put the waste. It is a serious implication.

Earlier a number of my colleagues raised the issue of climate change. We have to keep in mind that globally in the nuclear industry the amount of power provided by it is smaller than that provided by what we now call the alternatives: wind, solar, wave and tidal. There is often a perception out there that the nuclear industry and nuclear power provide this source of energy that is just absolutely irreplaceable.

This is so often trotted out as an excuse for why the energy mix is the way it is and why it will be so forevermore. Governments will come forward with self-fulfilling prophecies and say that currently we produce 13% of our energy through coal or nuclear, or whatever the case may be, and if we were to strip that out tomorrow, this is what the implications would be; therefore, they say, we need to continue with the source of energy that we find worrisome, whether it is with respect to climate change or other environmental concerns.

If we continue to point ourselves in that direction, that is the place we will end up. That has been the legacy of energy policy in Canada for the last 40 years. It is a continuance of more of the same.

Now we have questions and concerns coming out of the U.S. The energy agency is now looking at the tar sands as one of its major focuses, not simply to take energy from them but concerns around the climate change impact of what that energy delivers. This is a classic example of a government getting on a track and enjoying the gravy train so much that it cannot consider pulling in the implications of what the true cost of doing business is.

Looking at the nuclear front, we must include the true cost of doing business. If we put false ceilings on liability, if we continue to subsidize various parts of the chain, we present a false debate and a false option to Canadians. We pretend that the cost of production is only so much per kilowatt when actually it is much more because the subsidies are built in all along the way and not accounted for, as are the externalities, in this case the externality of liability, the externality that is put forward as waste management.

We can no longer consider this term “externality” as a viable economic argument. It is specious, it is wrong and it will continue to lead us in the wrong direction when it comes to caring for the planet and the implications of climate change.

If business is what the government claims to be all about, then it should allow business to do what it does, which is to find economic solutions to the problems posed by society. Subsidies are no way to solve an energy mix. Subsidies are no way to look at what it is we want our future generations to be left with. Clearly, the forces of the market can allow themselves to work and find a happier compromise.

If levelling the playing field is what the government is truly interested in doing, then I can assure it, and many Canadians will join me, that in given options, time and again Canadians will pursue the option that has the least implications and impact for the environment. We clearly see this on a number of fronts that are happening in the commercial sector and in its products.

Time and again, industries realize where the benefits may be. One of the greatest challenges the auto sector has been faced with is the continuance of the making of models that it believes Canadians want while, on the other hand, the price of gas at the pump goes up week on week and Canadians are seeking lower emission cars, higher efficiency cars and yet we stay in a rut that takes us in a different direction and then lament the fact and look for help from government, which the previous government and the current government consider somehow to be a viable economic strategy.

The truth presented in this bill is that there are serious and significant implications when dealing with a nuclear accident. If it were not so, then the government would not need to, under the advice of its lawyers and insurance consultants, list bodily injury, psychological trauma, close personal relationship and trauma to somebody affected, liability for economic loss, costs of wages, power failure and environmental damage.

If there were not strong and significant implications, we would not need to list any of those. If there were not strong and serious implications for human health, we would not list them. Of course we need to list them because they need to be considered. The consideration back to government is: Why would one limit liability within the industry? Why would one then share the liability across the entire country?

I represent people from British Columbia. They will rightly ask me, as they will ask any member from British Columbia or the other provinces that do not currently use nuclear energy, “If there is an accident and if the accident exceeds the government's cap, why is the cost then spread across all provinces and all taxpayers?” It is a reasonable question. It is a question that the government needs to answer. If the government has a viable and ready answer for us, then we are prepared to discuss it. It is only in the interests of truthfulness and looking for full disclosure as to what this debate is really about.

The final point I would like to make, which has been raised by some of my colleagues, is that in the United States no similar cap can be identified that limits the nuclear energy producers to this liability limit. Does this start to create a scenario in which there is an enhancement for creating nuclear facilities north of the border rather than south? One of the greatest costs is the cost of insurance when dealing with the nuclear industry. If one of those costs is considered more favourable in another country, it starts to distort the market forces that we think deserve their time to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. colleague whose passion for the environment I applaud and I share.

However, I would like to talk about insurance just for a minute. Insurance is all about risk assessment. If I do something stupid with my car, my insurance company will pay someone $2 million. If the person does not think that is enough, there are ways the person can get more out of me.

I wonder if my hon. colleague believes that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a credible organization. It has said that the maximum foreseeable liability for a worst case scenario is anywhere from $1 million to $100 million. Risk assessment for insurance, of course, is based on standards, on history and on many things that are factored into that assessment. That is what insurance is all about. All insurance has a limited liability, regardless of whether it is for my car or for a situation like this.

Does my colleague believe that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a credible body? If the answer is no, fine, he can disregard the question. However, if the answer is yes, then why not give some credence to its assessment of this situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we think the folks at the agency do good work. They attempt to mitigate the inherent risks that exist within this industry.

Part of the intention of my speech earlier was to highlight and acknowledge those risks. I think it is specious to present to Canadians what some elements of the nuclear industry have done, which is to present little puffy white clouds on a blue background with words like “clear” and “giving assurance”. The reason we need to give assurance is that the nuclear industry had a bit of a rough ride through the eighties and nineties in terms of liability.

I have a question for the government, which remains unanswered. We are very well aware of the concept of limited liability for insurance. If claims go beyond the cap that is set under the bill--and other industries have put caps of $1 billion and more, by the way, for contextual reasons, higher density populations and the rest--we simply want to know who picks up the tab. I think it is a fair question. We have yet to hear an answer from any member on the government benches.

If the answer to that question is no, that this will not be levelled on the taxpayers, this will not be spread across every federal taxpaying person in Canada, that this will be concentrated back to the industry and the industry will then need to somehow grab those costs, then we look forward to the answer. However, we are yet to hear it. That is a straightforward and simple question and it deserves a straightforward and simple answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley certainly has insights into this issue of liability. I would like to expand on one point that he made with respect to the appetite that the public has for taking on high risk public interest related responsibilities.

He has indicated that across the country there is not a case where one would go out and ask whether someone would like to have a nuclear waste facility. I would like to point out that there have been examples where referendums have been taken and, in the higher public interest when risk has been minimized, the public has said that it will take certain responsibilities with respect to solid waste.

Therefore, it is not totally out of keeping with the public. Given that the risks are explained to them and every check and balance has been put in place, they will accept that risk.

In terms of unlimited liability as it relates to mining, subsidiary processing activities and so on, and particularly from a northern perspective, is the member satisfied that the bill covers that kind of liability that people would have confidence in this kind of legislation and support the industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the communities' representation in taking on the risk of containing and holding nuclear waste for generations, the record is certainly mixed.

When the Nuclear Waste Management Organization was asked how many of the couple of hundred communities it visited came forward with interest in proceeding with the investigation into taking in this waste, the answer from that organization was none. I know its agenda was different.

The important thing for communities to consider is who gets to make the decision at the end of the day, and whether the people making that decision have the necessary information in order to make a decision that will have long-lasting implications far beyond their tenure, far beyond their lives on this earth.

The promotion of false promises is a very dangerous thing when it comes to the environment. I think Canadians are at a point of discouragement right now when considering the government's ability to deal with environmental issues that are facing it, whether it is species at risk or climate change, which is directly connected to this questions of the energy mix that we use.

All we suggest and all we encourage is that the debate become as transparent and as open as possible when talking about unlimited or limited liability as to who picks up the tab.

In terms of the mining sector, I will be honest with my colleague that the mining associations I deal with in British Columbia do not mine any of these materials. We have not yet seen an implication of unlimited liability apply to mining for uranium. We would be interested in and look forward to the debate in committee.

However, we know that the bonding scheme that has been encouraged through the mining associations has much improved over the last 15 years but it needs a lot more work.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his very good presentation on some of the key issues here. I also want to acknowledge the fact that he is really talking about deferring liability to future generations.

I want to ask him specifically why he should trust this current Conservative government or, in the past, Liberal governments when they left legacies in communities where the governments have failed to clean up. Although it is not nuclear, we have former DEW line sites in northern Ontario and in other parts of the north where communities, decades later, are still facing serious cleanup issues and they cannot get any results from government to help them out. Certainly there are the tar ponds in the east.

We have a government that is currently looking at converting freshwater lakes to tailing ponds. We know that future generations will need to deal with that cleanup. A cap on liability, which will then be passed on to taxpayers, why would any community have any faith that it would actually be able to get money out of the taxpayer system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know this is the issue of legacy, and liability is significant in her part of the world where there have been a number of near experimentations tried when it comes to energy mix and some more proposed liquefied natural gas and the rest.

I think Canadians can be forgiven for having a great deal of suspicion and doubt when government speaks about the environment. I actually feel a small amount of sympathy for the Conservatives on various days when I watch them try to wrestle their ideology with what the current polling trends in Canada are showing them, which is that there is a deep and heartfelt concern for the environment, particularly around the issue of climate change, but it extends to other issues such as water quality and species at risk.

The suspicion is well warranted, frankly, because I have watched the government and the previous government up close, a little too closely many days, trying to wrestle with the various choices that they have had available to them. Members all remember the initial thrust of the current government coming into office when it had virtually no interest in the environment whatsoever. It has struggled and stumbled. Canadians can be forgiven for suspecting the government all the more.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the question that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had about why this bill has been introduced. It is actually quite simple.

The reason the bill has been introduced and tabled in the House and why we believe it should pass is that sometimes litigation, in our increasingly litigious society, outweighs the public good. If we look at the experience in the United States with litigation on many issues in the past number of decades, often what happens is that private interests trump the public interest.

We have seen, time and time again, south of the border and sometimes here in Canada where civil suits brought against public or private companies or against governments end up hurting the public interest. That is why there have been caps on litigation and why there have been caps placed on liability. That is the purpose of the bill.

I also would say that nuclear power is an important part of the energy mix and Ontario accounts for 50% of our power output. Many of these reactors will need to be replaced in the coming years and this legislation would assist in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is now straight into the realm of law reform and potentially limiting liability and lawsuit claimants in other jurisdictions. There has been much research on this and I claim no expertise, but oftentimes people point to south of the border and what happens there, where someone sues for $6 million and the net benefit to society diminishes through this structure of law and the ability to seek compensation. If that is the proposal of the government, I have yet to see it. It has not been suggested as a priority if that is where it is headed.

On this issue though, all we have asked is if the Conservatives are going to limit liability that they be up front with Canadians because we will be on the hook collectively for any accidents that go beyond the limit.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity today to comment on Bill C-5 and the modifications of Canada's nuclear liability framework.

Canada was, and if I may say so, is a pioneer in the development of atomic energy. We were at the creation, so to speak, in the 1940s at Chalk River and Montreal. During that period nuclear energy was developed through the cooperation of scientists in a few countries. We continue in that mode today but in a much wider circle.

I would like to centre my remarks on the international aspects in comparison of Bill C-5. I want to put the changes proposed by this piece of legislation into a broader global context. They relate to modifications in international conventions that were first influenced by events abroad. I would like to comment on these conventions and their relationship to Canadian interests, both domestic and international.

Let me begin with the proposal that Canada's nuclear compensation and liability legislation should be consistent with international nuclear liability regimes. This requirement goes beyond mere financial issues related to liability and compensation. It extends to definitions of what constitutes a nuclear industry, what is compensable damage and so forth.

Consistency brings Canada broader national benefits. It makes possible for us to subscribe to international conventions we do not already belong to and makes it easier should we wish to subscribe to them in the future.

There are two such conventions which are important and relate to this legislation, both of which date back to the early 1960s. The first is the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. Adopted under the auspices of the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is very much a European accord. It was reinforced by the Brussels Supplementary Convention. The second accord is the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. This is a product of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body. It is modelled after the Paris Convention but is open to all members of the UN and is not merely concentrated on Europe.

Canada is not a party to either of these conventions. However, the Nuclear Liability Act is a sensible step in the direction of these conventions. It is important for our liability framework to remain consistent with these conventions as they evolve with our international partners.

The two conventions establish compensation limits. In the case of the Paris-Brussels regime the maximum compensation is approximately $500 million Canadian--but may I say that with our rising dollar, who knows where that number will be--and is available through a three tier combination of operator, public and member state funds.

At the time it was adopted, the Vienna Convention set the minimum liability limit at $5 million U.S., based upon the gold standard, the common international exchange mechanism at that time. Today the value is approximately $75 million Canadian. However, in 1997 the signatories revised the convention to establish significantly higher limits for operators. It is now approximately $500 million. The operators' liability can be set at $250 million by national legislation provided public funds make up the difference to $500 million.

At the time of these revisions, a new nuclear liability regime called the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage was adopted under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN. This convention guarantees the availability of approximately $1 billion to compensate for nuclear damage. Half of this amount will be available under the national law of signatory nations and half through contributions made collectively by states that are party to the convention on the basis of their nuclear capacity and a United Nations assessment rate.

This convention is open to all countries regardless of whether they are parties to any existing nuclear liability accord. As a matter of interest, the United States ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage in 2006.

Although Canada is not a party to either of these conventions, we participated in their review. We did so in order to monitor international third party liability trends and other issues of interest, such as definitions of nuclear incidents and the extension of time limits for death and injury claims.

For Canada the net result of these changes is a widening gap between Canada's regime and international standards. This makes it increasingly important to update and modernize our own liability arrangements. As a result, the changes in these conventions have influenced Canada's revision of the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act and many of the changes proposed in the new act bear their imprint.

International consistency in these areas benefits Canada at many levels and in many ways. It encourages investment in Canada. It also levels the playing field for Canadian nuclear companies interested in contracts abroad. These companies may be inhibited from bidding because of uncertainty about liability and compensation issues.

Consistency is important for a more fundamental reason. It demonstrates Canadian solidarity with other nations on issues of safety and liability. As a major user and exporter of nuclear power technology, Canada must uphold its reputation for uncompromising excellence, responsibility and accountability.

Bill C-5 is the culmination of a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Liability Act of 1976, which included an examination of its relationship to international standards. This examination led to the proposal of several improvements.

The current $75 million limit has been increased because it would likely not be sufficient in the event of a major nuclear incident. The $650 million that the new legislation proposes reflects the requirements as we understand them today.

Bill C-5 would also extend from 10 years to 30 years the period for a victim to claim compensation, a proposal which increases flexibility for ordinary citizens who may not immediately understand what may have affected them.

The proposed changes also include a redefinition of compensable damages to include environmental damage, preventive measures and also economic loss.

Bill C-5 is important to Canadians, the strength of our nuclear industry and our international stature. It deserves the support of the House.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out earlier that so far no member of the government had talked about what would happen if claims should exceed the cap that is outlined in the bill. I wonder if the member could comment specifically on that since, as I pointed out in an earlier question, we currently have any number of situations in this country where people who are residing in areas who have had other kinds of contamination are still waiting for some sort of movement from the government. The former DEW Line sites would be a classic example.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on that question.