House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was application.

Topics

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker for the ruling on the amendments earlier this afternoon.

We are talking about a nuclear liability act that needs to be updated. The amount of $75 million in nuclear liability compensation is far too low and needs to be increased. However, increasing it to the minimum that was recommended is also not the way to go.

I am pleased that my colleague made many amendments to this bill. In the case of a nuclear disaster the consequences could be disastrous both economically and health-wise. It could be extremely expensive and could cost billions of dollars. Our amendments taken as a whole would mean unlimited liability for the industry. That is what we put forward today. We do not want there to be a cap that would let industry off the hook at $650 million when we know full well the consequences could cost billions of dollars.

By making these amendments, we would bring our country into line with countries like Germany that have unlimited liability on the industry. These amendments are important because they would encourage safety in the industry. They would make the nuclear industry more accountable. The industry would be on the hook. It would want to make sure that it is a very safe industry. It would inspire public confidence in the nuclear industry, something which is important.

We have heard the minister and other parties say that nuclear power is safe, that it is clean energy. I know the minister believes this because he said again today at committee that it was a safe and clean energy source for this country.

I know that those parties want to use nuclear energy to get us out of our greenhouse gas problems, but there are some problems with that, mainly in the mining of uranium for the nuclear industry and what is done with the waste. The public does not have confidence in those aspects of the industry.

Also, because of the fact that there have been incidents over the years and the potential for another incident is still there, Canadians know that in the event of an incident, the costs could be quite high.

Some of our nuclear reactors are located quite near residential and business areas. If there were to be an accident, the cost to business, because it would be seen to be unsafe for many years to come, could be quite catastrophic, not only for that business, but economically for the community.That is where many of the costs lie when we think about compensation. We would have to ensure that the other businesses that would be impacted by an incident would be compensated fairly. When we look at future lost revenues to those industries or businesses, the costs again would be very high.

There was the recent incident with regard to Chalk River, the shortage of medical isotopes and the firing of the nuclear safety commissioner in such a way that Canadians were quite shocked. They wondered why the government would take such drastic measures and take the steps in the way that it did, which did not inspire confidence in the Minister of Natural Resources or in the government's ability to handle this situation in a fair-handed fashion. I think that has led many Canadians to wonder about safety. When a commissioner who is charged with looking after public safety is fired in the dead of night and without any notice and for no just cause, it sends a signal that the government will do what it has to do to take control of this industry.

I would like to go back to the amendments that would make sure that the industry was responsible and held accountable in the event of an accident or a nuclear incident. If we were left with only a $650 million cap for industry, then taxpayers would ultimately be on the hook for the rest of the compensation. If there were billions of dollars in damages, as has been investigated, studied and put forward by independent bodies as the amount of money that could be required to cover the damages, Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for that liability. That is one reason this bill should not go forward in its present form and needs to be amended.

There is also a clause that says that the industry is off the hook for life and limb after 10 years in some cases and up to 30 years. We have asked that that clause be deleted.

Military personnel were called in to clean up a disaster at Chalk River in the 1950s. Even 40 years later some people have experienced many different kinds of cancers. Compensation has been denied over many years. We have to wonder if in some cases the insurers were not waiting until the people simply died off. Sadly, we know there is the potential for waiting them out and then the insurers do not have to pay.

Sometimes problems do not manifest themselves until many years later. If we are looking at it taking 15 to 20 years for the cancers to manifest themselves and a few more years before people actually go through the process of getting compensation, people could well end up not receiving compensation. We think that clause needs to be deleted as well.

There are many issues regarding toxic waste in this country. There are many tonnes of toxic material still present at Elliot Lake. People are still being exposed to contaminants. We are concerned about the toxic waste in this country. The problem has never been dealt with satisfactorily. Now the government wants to bury that toxic waste. I do not think that is necessarily the way to go.

The industry has come a long way. There is more and better technology in place to use the spent fuel rods. There are ongoing innovations in the industry. I would certainly support those innovations, but there is still a lot of waste out there that has not been dealt with and people are still being exposed to it. It is a problem that we have not quite addressed.

We want these amendments in the bill. Taken as a whole, they would make sure that the industry was liable for all damages in the event of an accident.

Canadians are very concerned about safety. They would like to know that the industry would be held accountable in the event of any kind of accident or disaster.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate closely and want to commend the member for Western Arctic in particular for the very salient amendments he has brought forward on behalf of our caucus.

One of the things that has struck me throughout this debate is that members keep talking about nuclear accidents. I do not happen to believe that these are accidents. In fact, most of the incidents that we are contemplating would be completely preventable.

The government members would like us to believe that the nuclear industry is safe. If they make the argument that the industry is absolutely safe, why is the government not putting its money where its mouth is? If the government members believe that the industry is safe, then there will not be any incidents. That means nobody will need to be compensated and it should not matter to the government whether the liability is at $75 million, $600 million or, as is the case in the United States, $10 billion.

Canadians are not trusting the government on that. They do not believe the industry is safe. Moreover, they do not believe that the government is actually undertaking the inspections and regulating the industry in such a way that Canadians can feel safe. That is what is at issue here today.

We are giving a handful of dollars for the loss of homes, businesses and lives, but what we really need to do is look at not just what is happening to families living near nuclear power plants, but families and Canadians affected by any nuclear installation or, indeed, toxic waste sites.

Could the member tell me why the government is so opposed to a limit of $10 billion of industry liability when the government is so certain that the industry is safe and no industry member would ever have to pay under this proposed increased liability?

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am not from the government side. Sometimes I have to wonder what government members think, but one can only guess that the reason they favour the industry so heavily in this regard by allowing it to have a cap on the liability is that perhaps they want to privatize it.

We are hearing from the minister again that there is a review of AECL at the moment. He said that every option is on the table and he will consider privatization of AECL as well. The only guess I can make is that we are going to see that in the very near future once this bill is passed.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. There are two minutes left, so I assume if she takes two minutes, the answer will be nothing.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver Island North for her comments and the member for Western Arctic for the very good work he did on proposing amendments to this bill.

One of the things the member for Vancouver Island North and I share in common is that we live in communities that are being devastated by the layoffs in forestry. Although I agree that nuclear liability is a very important issue, it is unfortunate that we are also not spending time in the House talking about the devastation in the forestry sector.

As to the bill, the member mentioned in her speech that, in part, we also need to be having a discussion about other sustainable and renewable energy sources. I wonder if she could make some comments on what she would like to see the House address in that respect.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North has one minute to respond.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, of course we would love to see more investment in renewable energy. We heard from the minister about the amount of money that has been put into the budget for Natural Resources Canada with respect to wind and solar energy and tidal power. Unfortunately, it pales in comparison to the money that is invested in the oil sands--

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Tar sands.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

The tar sands. I thank my colleague.

The amount that is invested in renewable energy in this country is very small compared to the subsidies that the tar sands and other industries like nuclear receive. I would love to see a lot more invested in renewable energy.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 12.

A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

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

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 5, 8, 11 and 12.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. A negative vote on Motion No. 6 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 21.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

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

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on the Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.