Debates of May 26th, 2009

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had 15 minutes left to conclude his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue this discourse that was interrupted some weeks ago before the House rose.

I want to remind the folks in the House and at home that we are dealing with Bill C-20, the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. This is an attempt to reform a very old piece of legislation that has been sitting on the government's books for a number of years. It does require some modernization but the government has gone about it in such a way as to leave very few, outside of the very narrow band of the industry, satisfied, and has allowed no real sense of security or knowledge that communities will be properly compensated in the event of a nuclear accident.

The bill would limit the liability that a nuclear provider will be exposed to in the event of a nuclear accident to $650 million. On a number of fronts this raises concerns for New Democrats and for Canadians across the country, whether they live in a community that has a nuclear reactor in it, adjacent to a community or just on the broad principle of how this country goes about dealing with the very sensitive and controversial issue of nuclear energy.

This is all happening within the context that is not exactly ideal for the nuclear industry. We hear in the House, day after day, questions put to the Minister of Natural Resources about Chalk River, which is a nuclear facility here in Canada owned by the government that seems to go through problems every 18 months or so, in which it leaks, contaminates and then shuts down. In the shutting down, this facility provides isotopes that are used in diagnostic testing for cancer patients and provides 80% of the Canadian supply and more than 50% of the world supply, throwing the world into all sorts of concern that Canada is becoming an increasingly unreliable partner in this field.

It also falls into the context of Ontario putting many billions of dollars forward foreseeing that it is running out of viable energy supplies and deciding not to put the economy on a green track but deciding to invest in nuclear instead.

Obviously the CANDU reactor, the AECL is one of those bidders, as is the French and some other interests. This is an extraordinarily important file for the government, obviously, because it seems to want to sell AECL, a Canadian subsidized company, an arm's length crown corporation into which the Canadian taxpayer has put more than $20 billion over time.

No other energy sector outside of the oil and gas sector has received the kind of subsidies and special treatment that the nuclear industry has, and that is continued under Bill C-20. We do not offer limited liability to other sectors in the Canadian economy. We do not say to the auto sector, the manufacturing sector or the resort and tourism sector that the Government of Canada will backstop major accidents.

To understand why we feel that the bill falls short at $650 million, one has only to go back to when there have been nuclear accidents and look at the costs to clean it up and the costs to compensate people. What do other countries do when they are faced with the question of liability? There is a variance of degrees in ways that this industry is treated but we cannot find any cases where the limited liability is set at such a small amount.

For example, all nuclear providers in the U.S. contribute to a common pool that approaches upward of $10 billion in the event of a nuclear accident; that is $10 billion to $650 million. It does not matter when we are taking the size and scale in terms of our country being smaller than the U.S. because a nuclear accident is a nuclear accident and a community affected is a community affected. We can take the case of Japan and Germany which are advocating and putting in position unlimited liability.

One needs to ask how viable this technology and industry is if it requires not only $20 billion in government subsidies and subsidies every year, because we just kicked in another few hundred million dollars, but it also requires the government to backstop the liability of the industry. The risks are so great, as acknowledged by the government, that the taxpayer will either be backstopping any large insurance claims or it will just prevent Canadians from suing the government beyond a certain amount.

One needs to wonder how the government comes to the point of saying that if, in the event of a nuclear accident of some scale in Pickering or in any of the other communities associated with these nuclear facilities are seriously harmed or destroyed, that it will set a figure as to how much they can be compensated for the loss of life, industry, home, community, and then we need to imagine that over time.

How would $650 million compensate a community with nuclear toxicity in its soil and water? We know the half-life of some isotopes could be many thousands of years, and taking that over time means hundreds of thousands of years of contamination.

This is the challenge with nuclear that has been described as the saving grace under the carbon constrained economies that we are looking at right now. The liability component is serious and significant and it has to be curtailed by government. The special treatment that is afforded to nuclear is not afforded to other industries.

The government often talks about not wanting to pick winners and losers, about letting the invisible hand of the marketplace dictate what will or will not happen, but then we see bills like Bill C-20. This is not an Adam Smith bill in design or designation. This is not a free market, free capital principled bill. This legislation would have us enter the marketplace, decide, and then tip the scales one way or the other.

That is the debate required here. That is what the government must defend in bringing the bill forward. The Liberals support the bill overwhelmingly, but I am not sure if any of the Liberal members will stand up with conviction.

Many representatives of the nuclear industry appeared before committee when the Chalk River spill and contamination occurred. Canadians heard that there was no leak at Chalk River and that contamination was contained. These words are used in common parlance as meaning to contain something or to withhold it. What in fact happens is that nuclear radiation leaks out of the facility, is held in a pool for a certain amount of time and then released into the Ottawa River. The nuclear industry defines that as containment. A leak is not a leak if it goes into the air. That is something else entirely. Another word is used for that. The government said there was no leak and anything that did happen was contained.

We have all heard in Parliament and in committee folks using words that in common usage mean one thing, but in a specific application mean something entirely different. People are led astray.

The nuclear industry is very nervous because at this moment it is trying to sell a bunch of Candu reactors. It is trying to sell them to Ontario, then maybe to other countries, and then maybe sell off all of AECL. Moving the limited liability act through the House is critical to the government's hope of eventually selling off this public asset.

If we are talking about competitiveness for the nuclear industry, then for heaven's sake, one would imagine the government would look to our competitors, primarily Europe, Japan and the United States, to find out what they are doing for their industries. What kind of compensation regime have they set up? What kind of limited liability have they set up to allow the Canadian product to compete fairly?

From all of our reading of this, and we have yet to see it corrected by the government or anybody else, that has yet to be proven. That is not what our competitors use. Our competitors allow for something that would seek a bit more compensation.

Even undercutting that entire argument, what is proper compensation after a nuclear accident? The industry said the Three Mile Island incident did not typify a major accident in the sense that it did not go through a full nuclear meltdown. The cost in those days was just shy of $1 billion. This legislation limits liability to $650 million.

The Chernobyl accident stands alone in its own rarefied air of when something really goes wrong. The compensation amounts that would be required if a Chernobyl incident happened obviously would exceed anything close to the limited liability act.

As Ontario muses as to whether it will go with the Candu system or the European or some other model, the liability question stands front and centre. This is all meshed into one.

There are the incidents at Chalk River where we have a reactor that is 50-some years old. It leaks from time to time. It contaminates the Ottawa River from time to time. It leaks out the smoke stacks and out the pipe itself. They call them pinhole pricks, but I suppose it does not take much in terms of a nuclear leak to really matter. It throws into question the whole nature, orientation and management of the nuclear industry by the current government and previous governments.

One has to take this all into consideration with the other choices that are available when it comes to producing energy. We have seen the government apply the blinkers when it comes to the tar sands, continuing a $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion tax subsidy into northern Alberta every year, whether or not the market is roaring hot, too hot according to the people who live there, subsidizing an industry that did not need subsidizing.

The government has shown itself to be incapable of properly measuring its own greenhouse gas emissions. It challenges every bill the opposition puts forth. The NDP has proposed a bill for the next round of climate change commitments in Copenhagen and the government's number one criticism has been, “We are not sure that you can properly account for things here, here and here”.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the auditor of all things environmental came before committee this morning and confirmed to government and opposition members who were there that the government has no capacity to measure its own greenhouse gas numbers and the effectiveness of any of the programs that it runs. Yet the government feels completely comfortable in taking credit for all sorts of reductions it is going to have in the future when it cannot actually measure what it has already done.

The whole thing is thrown into suspicion, and into this walks so much certainty from the government with respect to nuclear. Is nuclear part of the debate? Absolutely. Should it be put on the table with the alternatives? Absolutely. But the government is not creating a level playing field. We have seen that with the recent budget that came from the government when we compare it to what came out of Washington. In terms of the alternative resources, in terms of the alternative generation of energy, it is the game. Everyone who has studied this, everyone who has looked at economic recoveries around the world knows that energy has been and will be the central question for economies.

The government is spending on a ratio of one to fourteen per capita to the Americans right now. On the alternative energies--we are not talking nuclear or the fictitious carbon capture and sequestration the government keeps pandering and no one is listening to and certainly no one in industry is interested in investing in--but the true alternatives, the solar, the wind, the tidal and run a river on those fronts that have an extremely high job creation potential, the government is doing one-fourteenth on a per person basis compared to our American counterparts.

What happens to an industry, especially a nascent industry, when it is looking to locate itself on one side of a border or another? Industry representatives from wind, from solar, from tidal, from all of these groups, Canadian firms, have come to us time and time again to say that they are leaving. They want to operate here and they want to create the jobs here, but the investment climate is terrible.

Take wind for example. The government has a program that was meant to run out in year 2011. It was successful. The provinces actually filled in the void and they subscribed to it. This is a program that started a number of years ago. The government should realize there is success to be had in creating wind energy in Canada and perhaps even manufacturing in Canada. It could be helping out those communities such as the one we visited in Welland the other day, where a former auto parts plant is now making components for the wind industry. The government should be magnifying that, making that greater. It should have a vision that Canadians can get excited about and enthralled with. Rather than realizing that, still we see a government tinkering at the edges, putting up fictitious ideas that no one supports. It has yet to present a credible environmental plan that anyone, right wing, left wing, environmental, industry will validate. Not one has said that the numbers the government pretends to have in dealing with climate change can be validated. That was confirmed again by the auditor.

This liability act raises many questions for Canadians who are faced with concerns around nuclear liability and they are given no assurances. They are told that we will have a limited liability and nothing else.

Government members time and time again remain silent on this. Members of the official opposition, the Liberals, seem to give this a wink and a nod and off it goes. It feels more and more like an inside job. It feels like a job where Canadians are not allowed to participate in the conversation, saying that if we are going to support this industry for another $20 billion and another 50 years at cost overruns, leaks and melts and all the rest of that, then for heaven's sake there will be something that will allow--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the hon. member there.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member correctly made the point that the government has cut the wind energy program. I am hoping that as a fellow northerner, quasi-northerner, he would support the effort that because wind energy in the north is a lot more expensive as it is a harsher climate and there is rime icing, the incentive for wind energy has to be even higher in the north so we can take advantage of it and get it going. Hopefully he would support that.

In an industry that he has described as dangerous, how much confidence does he have in the independent regulators? Especially when the government fires the independent regulator, how much confidence does he have in that system?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government fired the regulator once and then appointed somebody new, so I do not suppose it has that tactic to use again. It will have to find another scapegoat if it is looking for one.

We are hearing now that AECL has actually been briefing the department and the minister, suggesting that the shutdown in Chalk River that produces the isotopes may not be for one or two months, that it may be six or eight months.

This is a concern for those who are in cancer treatment and who need these isotopes. We are getting urgent letters from doctors and hospitals across the country wanting to know what the situation actually is. It is one of the reasons we requested an emergency debate yesterday, so that the government could come forward and say what the actual numbers are and what it is doing to fill in the gaps in terms of people who are in cancer treatment or will be in the next number of months. The government has not been forthright on this at all.

In terms of the member's first question, we are as alienated and disaffected as anybody in Yukon, so we hold on to our northern status properly. This place feels as far away where I come from as it does for the member.

We must treat wind energy or any of the alternatives as industrial projects, no different from a mine. We cannot make the mistake that the B.C. provincial government did and throw away the licences for 300 rivers forever, essentially privatizing and hiding behind the idea that it is a green project and therefore it cannot be held up to criticism.

Any industrial project must meet good environmental criteria and must have the local community supporting it. Otherwise it is not a green project that anyone should support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the enthusiasm with which my colleague delivered his speech.

However, as he rightly points out, nuclear power is dangerous. At the same time, and I would like to hear his thoughts on this, we are not like the United States, where there are a great number of nuclear projects. They can afford to pool their money and place $11 billion into a reserve in the event of an accident. That is probably the amount required, if not more, to clean up a nuclear accident.

Given that we are talking about Canada, which has only a few nuclear projects, I would like the member to tell me how many insurance companies could provide more than $650 million in coverage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The situation in the United States is different because there are many more companies. However, the pooling of $10 billion, as in the United States, might be enough to cover the cost of a nuclear accident. The question is not how much the companies are willing to pay but what would be the compensation in the event of an accident.

The liability established in the United States, Europe and Japan is not the same as that provided for in the bill. Who are we trying to delude by saying that the level of compensation is lower in Canada? The Government of Canada wants to show that this is an opportunity for nuclear companies. That is ridiculous. The situation in the United States is different. At the same time, this bill cannot set a liability of $10 billion. It is not possible for us to do the same thing.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only nuclear plant in operation in Quebec at this time is Gentilly-2. Continuing its trend of unsustainable choices, ones that run squarely counter to sustainable development, the current government chose to go ahead with the rebuilding of the Gentilly-2 nuclear plant, at an estimated cost of $2 billion.

Will my friend and colleague tell the people from the Trois-Rivières area, those who are likely to be affected in the event of a nuclear accident at Gentilly, what impact this bill will have? It will deprive them because not only would they never be compensated for losing their health in such circumstances but they would not be compensated for material losses either, at least appropriately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Quebec.

That is the issue for local people, the only one. In the event of a nuclear accident, there is an overall liability limit. That is not an amount just for individuals and another for the municipalities or industries affected. That is an overall amount, for one and all families in the event of an accident. With this bill, the possibility of a nuclear accident has to be considered. We cannot have this debate without taking that into account.

Regarding the limit, the government says it is high enough. I think not. The problem the Liberals are having in committees now is that they cannot get amounts changed. Should the House approve this bill at this stage, it would then be impossible to amend it with respect to compensation amounts and limits. We have a problem with that. I assume and hope that the Liberals, Bloc members and all the other members also have a problem with that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the bill in the setting liability limits, one of the questions that has come up in some discussions is that if the liability limit is set too high, there may be a problem with a party being able to acquire sufficient insurance, which all of a sudden has some business implications.

Is anything in the bill, or may be considered in the bill, to address the situation where limits may be set so high that no one could possibly afford the insurance to provide that service?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the point about the low limit set by the bill in order to attract the investment. Other jurisdictions such as the United States, Japan, Europe, which have viable nuclear industries, much bigger than ours, have set much higher limits. The fact that we have to set such a low and artificial limit for this industry alone should be of concern to Canadians. We do not do that for any other industry

The fact is if an accident were to happen at a nuclear facility, as has been shown in any other accident that happened in the past, the costs are enormous. The true cost of operating nuclear facilities is not simply the cost overruns on the production; it is the eventual and incurred cost of risk that is sitting in that facility. If things go wrong, it gets expensive quickly, not only in terms of dollars but also of human life and suffering.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments on the bill and the concerns he raised. Has he looked at the larger picture? A number of years ago we built nuclear energy facilities in Ontario at a cost that grew exponentially over time. Ultimately they had to be dealt with by the provincial government. People of Ontario now have to pay these substantial costs through their energy bills and we do not know how long that will go on.

Now the Conservatives government has brought forward a bill that suggests the people of Canada will end up bearing the brunt of any liability should anything happen at some of these nuclear facilities. When is this going to stop?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things.

First, it would be helpful if the Ontario government would put a portion on the bill that compensated the nuclear industry for the cost overruns that had already been incurred. It would be helpful for Ontarians to see on every bill how much it costs them.

Second, if there were an accident, I would assume that this place would be taken up with the compensation. That factor has to put into the price right up front. Let us not lie to Canadians about what the real cost of nuclear is, let us be honest with them.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-20.

Let me begin by talking about the highlights of Bill C-20 on nuclear liability. Like much of what the government does, there is not much new here. Bill C-20 is a culmination of discussions that begun under the previous Liberal government. In fact, it replaces the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act. It establishes a clear regime in the event of a nuclear accident. Thank goodness there has never been one in Canada.

The key element of the bill is to increase operator liability from $75 million to $650 million. It is important that my hon. colleagues from the NDP keep that in mind, that the bill is about increasing the liability limit not decreasing it.

This is in response to recommendations from the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. It is interesting to see the government taking its lead from the Senate, which it was so busy stacking just a few months ago. Obviously their overzealous rhetoric about the other chamber is more for show than anything else.

As I have stated, there is not a lot new in this bill. In fact, the same bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and probably would have been on the books by now if not for the fact that the Prime Minister broke his own fixed date election law last fall and called an election.

In the last Parliament, the natural resources committee conducted a comprehensive study of the bill, as it then was, and some amendments were considered, including the possibility of raising the liability limit.

I look forward to hearing from expert witnesses when the bill goes back to committee, as I think it will. I certainly will support having it do that. I am looking forward to hearing ways it may be possible to improve the legislation.

One issue that ought to be addressed would be a possible amendment that would allow for the industry to look for insurance outside of Canada if it would be a problem to be limited. It is important that we at least hear the arguments on that. It is certainly an issue that has been raised by representatives of the industry. Clearly we would prefer that they shop in Canada for things like this, but let us hear what they have to say about the argument for broadening that if there is some limitation or lack of competition for this kind of liability insurance.

We know there are some kinds of insurance that very few insurers will offer. We think of a group like Lloyd's of London as being famous for insuring things that nobody else will. If there is only one insurer in the country that will insure what the industry does, it may be stuck with that price. We have to at least hear what the industry has to say about that.

Other than that, it does not seem to be a particularly controversial bill. As we read through the bill, a few questions come to mind. We could ask why the operators liability should be limited to $650 million, which is a tremendous increase from what it has been. The answer is that if it were higher than that, they would be unable to get liability insurance. It is not available, as I understand it, for amounts higher than that, therefore no new plants will be built. That is an important consideration.

Another question is, are there to be no qualifications for appointment to the tribunal that is set up in the legislation? This is something we ought to consider at committee, considering the views of expert witnesses on what kinds of qualifications the members of the tribunal ought to have and what kind of people we are looking for on the tribunal.

Overall the bill is a good example of civil servants doing their work well, as it probably emanates from them. I thank them for their work.

However, one thing that already concerns me with Bill C-20 is the role of the minister in reviewing the liability amount every five years. My concern on this question of the review of liability stems from the lack of a coherent nuclear energy policy coming from the government. How will the government deal with this liability issue when it does not seem to be able to competently manage this file in its entirety? I have concerns, as many members do on this side—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The government House leader on a point of order.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, time is very short and I want to offer my apologies to the hon. member for Halifax West for this interruption.

There have been discussions among all parties in the chamber and I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders or usual practices of this House,

the House revert to “Presenting Reports from Committees” for the sole purpose of reporting back from committee, Bill C-29, An Act to increase the availability of agricultural loans and to repeal the Farm Improvement Loans Act and Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act; and

when Bill C-29 is reported back, it be deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed; and

during the debate on May 28, 2009, on the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the government House leader have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.