Debates of May 28th, 2009

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Selkirk—Interlake will know, Canadian farmers can compete on any level playing, and that is what these trade deals deliver.

Let me tell the House what an icon of the opposition, the Canadian Wheat Board, said:

Western Canadian farmers cannot afford to be left at a competitive disadvantage to the Americans. We need these trade agreements implemented.

These markets are worth some quarter of a billion dollars a year to western Canadian wheat and barley farmers and some $100 million to the pulse farmers.

The opposition says it supports rural Canada. Now is the time to prove it.

Oral Questions

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when there is a reference to a particular document it is customary in this place that the document be tabled. During question period I noted that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance referred to some articles in a daily publication in Toronto.

I scoured through that same publication to find the items to which they made reference, and here is what I found. That is, with the Minister of Finance, it is difficult to find a worse record than his.

Those who bother to pan through the long, uneven list of federal finance ministers will find that even the perception of such incompetence in that hypersensitive portfolio provides a compelling reason for a cabinet shuffle.

I am prepared to table the document.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. Is the hon. member asking for unanimous consent to table the document?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Yes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There is no consent.

It being Thursday, I believe the hon. member for Wascana has a question.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are now into the final semester of this parliamentary session, the supply period leading to June 23. I wonder if the government House leader is in a position to lay out his business plan for that period, at least the first couple of weeks of that time, and I wonder if he could also be more specific about two things: when he plans to designate the remaining supply days, or opposition days, between now and June 23; and when the government proposes to file its budgetary probation report, which is due at least five days before the last of the supply days.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's questions. Before I get to his specific questions, perhaps we will revert to the more traditional response, which is to lay out the anticipated business for the week ahead.

As members know, today we completed debate at third reading stage of Bill S-2, the customs act. We will continue and hopefully complete the second reading stage of Bill C-20, Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. Following Bill C-20, we will call at second reading, Bill C-30, Senate Ethics Act.

Tonight the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the main estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on Bill C-24, Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The back-up bills for tomorrow will be any unfinished business left over from today.

Next week we will continue with any unfinished business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-15, drug offences, which is at report stage and third reading stage.

We will also consider Bill C-32, the bill that will crack down on tobacco marketing aimed at our youth, and Bill C-19, investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. These bills are at second reading.

As I have been doing, I will also give priority consideration to any bills that are reported back from our standing committees.

Finally, I would like to note that on Monday, June 1, at 10 a.m., there will be a memorial service in the Senate chamber to honour the memory of parliamentarians who have passed away since April 30, 2008.

As well, in response to the specific questions, the hon. opposition House leader would know full well that we just had our House leaders meeting of all four parties and their whips. I thought I took extraordinary steps to inform my colleagues about the anticipated business that I intend to call between now and the House rising on June 23. He has all of that information. He knows as well that much of this is tentative and subject to change because we do not know exactly how fast committees will move and how long debate will take in this place. Having said that, I have tried to be as transparent and as open with my colleagues as possible.

As far as specific questions about the three remaining supply days, I will be designating them in the future, although I did indicate tentative dates for all three, and the member is well aware of that information; in fact, I think it has been made public.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the review of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited summary report by Natural Resources Canada, in both official languages. I have copies of the report here for the House.

The House resumed 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 Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the debate was interrupted, the hon. member for St. John's East had the floor. There are 18 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for St. John's East.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

As I spoke before the question period portion of today's proceedings, I raised the concerns that by raising the amount of limitation of liability, we are still leaving to the public of Canada or individuals the rest of the liability for what could be extremely expensive nuclear accidents.

What we are also learning today and what we believed all along is that this is all part of the effort to privatize or sell-off and make available Canada's nuclear industry.

What is ironic though is that if the bill were not brought before the House at all and American corporations who we understand have some interest in purchasing nuclear facilities or starting nuclear facilities in Canada, they would be bound by American law and lo and behold they would be subject to a compensation limit of $10 billion.

What we are effectively doing is raising our limitation of liability to what is known as an international minimum standard. If that is available in the case of $650 million, then the American law which requires $10 billion would not apply.

What we are effectively doing is making it easier for American corporations to operate nuclear plants or purchase nuclear plants in Canada in the private sector in a cheaper way without the same kind of responsibility that they would have under their own law in their own country or even in this country under existing law.

What is being presented as a significant increase in the requirements, by increasing compensation limits from $75 million to $650 million, in fact is a disguise for lowering the limits for foreign buyers such as the Americans. That may sound complex, but that is a function of how American law operates to protect its own citizens.

My question is this. If we are going to change the law and allow this to happen, why would we not adopt the same standard of $10 billion? Why would we not do that?

The government has deemed fit to continue to have public liability for damages from any nuclear plants, whether it be the liability for an accident, for decommissioning or for public liability of any sort. It will either be falling on the public as the taxpayer, that is the government, or the damages will lie where they fall, just as, for example, the victims of the bankruptcy or insolvency of Abitibi-Consolidated and the pensioners of AbitibiBowater who are losing their promised pensions, severance pay and other things. They are not covered by the insolvency law and therefore the severance payments that they were supposed to get contractually are not available to them. The additional pension payments that had been agreed to are not available to them. The Federal Court of Canada has decided that that is the case under our law. In other words, the loss in a bankruptcy falls on the victims. The public is not stepping up to the plate in that situation.

However, if we had a nuclear accident or a nuclear decommissioning in a bankrupt company for whatever reason, I foresee very easily that the company's ability to look after the cost of the damages would very soon be exhausted and the $650 million is not going to do the job. Therefore, I am assuming that there would be a public outcry and an expectation that the Government of Canada, under whose jurisdiction this falls and who allowed this industry to develop in the way that it was planning, would have to assume responsibility for the damages that were done to individuals financially, physically, health-wise or whatever long into the future.

That is what this bill is about. It is bringing about a situation which takes the direct control of the nuclear industry out of the hands of government and is designed to put it into the hands of the private sector with a special arrangement that says that the nuclear industry will only be expected to have a compensation limit of $650 million. That is wrong and we in the NDP oppose it.

The development of the nuclear industry has been very controversial in Canada and elsewhere. We have seen, as previous speakers from my party have noted, a series of nuclear accidents over the years, which have been very expensive not only in terms of the health costs, the lives lost and the environmental and health damages for many years to come but also obviously in terms of dollars.

Let us look at the enormity of some of the costs of damages. For example, the cost of cleaning up the Three Mile Island nuclear incident a number of years ago in the United States would equal the cost of developing over 1.1 million 100-watt solar panels. We know that solar panels are rather expensive ways to produce electricity. The cost of cleanup alone, not the cost of operating or building, could have produced 1.1 million 100-watt solar panels.

We have the absolute cost of building nuclear plants too, which are very expensive. We have not had examples in Canada of this yet but we have long-term costs and expenses associated with finding a way to look after nuclear waste for many years to come.

We have seen an example of the mining industry running into financial difficulty. It was unable to clean up its environmental waste because it went bankrupt and the public had to step in. There is the example in my own province of the Hope Brook Gold Mine on the southwest coast, which was operated for a number of years. It did not operate for many years, just a handful, during which it made some money. It left a toxic waste situation that required millions and millions of public funds to clean up because the company itself was bankrupt.

That is the kind of situation we would be facing when the liability issue would be brought into question. It would be brought into question when something drastic and dramatic happened. It is not something that is so far beyond the realm of possibility that it ought not to be accounted for. If that were the case, the American government would not be insisting that nuclear plants and developments inside its borders have a minimum of $10 billion liability.

Other legislators and governments have decided that this is an extremely serious matter. The amount of liability that we are exposed to when it comes to the nuclear industry are enormous and must be accounted for.

We see the very mundane example of people who drive motor vehicles, which is provincially regulated, being required to have certain levels of insurance. In some provinces it is $100,000 public liability, in some cases it is $200,000. Some people get $1 million or $2 million public liability, and they do it because they want to protect themselves if there is an accident where the costs are greater than the statutory minimum of, say, $100,000.

There are many examples of car accidents which have incurred costs for recovery, rehabilitation and long-term care in excess of $100,000. Some are in excess of $1 million. Drivers of motor vehicles must protect themselves by law to the minimum but by common sense higher.

The same thing is at work here. If individuals with $100,000 liability insurance have a car accident that they are responsible for which ends up costing $300,000 in damages to an injured party, the $100,000 comes from the policy, but the $200,000 comes from the individuals, from their assets, their homes and their properties. So people protect themselves.

By the same token, in the nuclear industry, where we are talking about the kinds of damages that would be incurred, we are talking about an enormous amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars and into the billions of dollars. Our American friends have decided in their wisdom that a minimum of $10 billion of liability is required to provide for the safety of the public in the United States of America.

That does two things. If the liability were $10 billion, that requires a very strict level of activity by anyone engaged in the nuclear industry, first of all, to get the insurance and, second, to abide by whatever rules, regulations and activities are insisted upon by these insurers with respect to safety. If I were an insurance company and on the hook for $10 billion of liability, I would be acting extremely vigilantly in ensuring that any activity going on under my policy was going to be strictly looked after.

We see that in the offshore oil industry and in other industries where a lot of damages can be incurred. As a result, of course, there are very strict guidelines and international standards organizations actually monitoring, in the case of the offshore, the construction of offshore oil platforms, drilling rigs and all of these things. They get involved because they have the ultimate liability in ensuring that the rules are followed. The same thing would happen in the nuclear industry if it were to be privatized, as the government seems to be hell-bent on doing.

It is a very expensive industry and the biggest problem is that the costs are almost unknown. The additional costs can balloon by millions and billions of dollars fairly readily. With the nuclear system such as the one in New Brunswick, the cost of repairs to keep it going are in the billions of dollars. Where does all that money come from? It has to either come from the public or private enterprise, or the industry has to shut down.

These are enormous costs that are thrown upon the industry and the public without any real control. That is why we in the New Democratic Party prefer other methods of energy generation, for example, electricity generation. Some of my colleagues have talked about wind power, solar power and hydro power.

We have enormous potential in hydro power that has not yet been developed. My colleague from Manitoba spoke about the 5,000 megawatts of power in Manitoba that is yet untapped. We have a huge power potential in Lower Churchill, Labrador, that has not yet been developed.

These are the kinds of first choice developments for energy needs that we would want to see promoted and encouraged by the Government of Canada. It can do that in a number of ways. There is a lot of talk about an east-west power grid where we can provide, within our own country, for our power needs by being able to trade and transport electricity from one province to the other.

We saw an example recently, and it is a model example, where Newfoundland and Labrador is selling power not to Ontario but in this case to the United States through Hydro-Québec's power grid, under the wheeling rights provisions that Quebec is party to.

We should have similar rules in Canada with respect to allowing the transport of electricity so that one province can generate and another province can use. This requires a bit of cooperation and it requires a bit of help from the Government of Canada, for example, a loan guarantee for the province of Manitoba's power corporation or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the case of Lower Churchill.

These are the ways in which the Government of Canada could make these projects more viable. It could allow access to capital at an easier rate for what is essentially a green technology that is renewable, sustainable and will be available for decades to come.

In the case of nuclear, the shelf life of nuclear plants inevitably results in the deterioration of the plants and the need for decommissioning in some cases. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas talked about the project in Washington State in the United States costing $2 billion a year. Those costs will go on for decades in order to decommission a nuclear facility that is not producing any power.

These are the kinds of long-term costs that are very difficult to predict. What we can predict is uncertainty. We can predict uncertainty and a certain amount of certainty that many of these costs ultimately will be passed on to the taxpayer.

We do not see this as the way to go when it comes to the development of power in this country. We see a lot of other alternatives that are better for the environment, produce more jobs, have less risks and less danger and will not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear technology and weapons in the world.

There has been some talk about the changes that are taking place, for example, with India and the sale of nuclear plants and the transfer of nuclear technology. Now India, which did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, is a nuclear power. Pakistan is in the same boat. There is some hope that a new round of nuclear disarmament may take place. I look forward to a government in Canada that can provide some leadership on that. We have not had it from the current government. I guarantee that we would have it from an NDP government.

We are seeing signs that one of the largest nuclear powers in the world, the United States, is ready to embark on a policy of nuclear disarmament. That is a very positive sign. We cannot have a situation where they are the ones holding nuclear weapons and they do not want anyone else to have them. However, if they are saying that they believe in world nuclear disarmament and are prepared to play a part in that, that is a different story. That is a recipe for possible future progress and peace. It is something that I would like to see happen.

This bill is not a step in the right direction. We cannot support it in the form that is before the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that since September 11, 2001 AECL and our different nuclear power plants have been unable to conduct tours on their premises. Before then, they were able to give an education based on-site with people seeing what actually happens.

I would hope that the natural resources committee does conduct a study on the impact of the outage of the NRU reactor at Chalk River and that the committee members take the time as privileged members of the public to go on a tour and see firsthand what happens at this particular reactor. Not only is it the manufacturer of isotopes, but it is also the important research behind Candu technology as well as neutron scattering which helps our material science and our manufacturing study.

There was mention of legacy debts. I wanted to ensure that the member opposite understands that companies that utilize and manufacture products using radioactivity are required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to have a legacy fund so that when their business ends, there is money in place to cover any costs of cleanups. I want to give an example of that. In Pembroke, SRB technologies actually takes the tritium that is emanated from the Candu power plants for Ontario Hydro and instead of burying it, it is reused to make watches glow. It is used for exit signs so that electricity is not necessary. It is used along the aisles of airplane floors so that passengers can find their way out if the power goes out.

I just wanted to make sure he was aware of that. Candu does not use highly enriched uranium for its power reactors. That is a real benefit when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Canada's technology does not use weapons grade uranium for the production of electricity.

Could the member opposite compare and contrast the terms “nuclear waste” and “spent fuel”?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, if I did not know better, I would think that the member was a schoolteacher asking me to compare and contrast certain terms.

There obviously are uses for nuclear, but the fact that something could actually glow in the dark bothers me a little. The concentrations are a problem. I know there are uses for nuclear technology and that the Candu reactor is probably one of the better ones, but the point I was trying to make is that we are dealing with an industry on which there are not really the right amount of controls.

In terms of this bill itself, we are not prepared to say to the nuclear industry, whether it be private or public, that we are going to put the same standards in place that our American neighbours have by saying that the liability should be $10 billion. If we are not prepared to do that, then we obviously do not have faith that the industry is going to develop with the right kinds of constraints.

The same issue goes for the safer world. If we had the kind of world that we are envisaging, if Mr. Obama and the Americans are successful in proceeding with a nuclear-free world, which I would like to be part of and I would like my children and grandchildren to be part of, then it is a different playing field, where we have the responsibilities in place and we have the fears under control, and we have a situation where we can feel more confident. We do not feel confident right now.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments about a nuclear-free world. Certainly we would all like to see that, but the practical realities of the matter are something entirely different.

If we want to combat global warming and climate change, we have to use an array of non-carbon-based fuels. One of those things that we have to use is nuclear energy. Some would dismiss that and say that we simply should not, but there is a cost benefit analysis.

In the case of China, for example, 40% of greenhouse gas emissions are from coal. Would the member prefer that countries such as China and India build more nuclear power plants as part of an array of alternate energy sources, or would he prefer that countries such as China continue to build and expand coal-based power plants that are incredibly destructive to the environment?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, obviously that is a false choice.

The member talked about the practical realities standing in the way of a nuclear weapons free world. We do not make progress unless we take an ideal and go to work to try to make it happen.

The same thing could have been said about medicare in Canada, that we would love to have free medicare but there are so many practical barriers in the way. It happened because people with vision made it happen, because they believed in it and wanted it to happen.

We have to show some leadership as a country in this field. If this legislation were to go through, if the amount were $10 billion, then we might have some confidence that people who are engaged in nuclear activity would be paying more attention to the safety issues than to the long-term costs and all of the things that are involved with that.

I can talk about the percentage of Alberta's electricity that is produced through coal as well. These are false dichotomies. We are talking about the principles of if we are going to develop a nuclear industry for peaceful purposes, let us do it this way, but let us have a nuclear weapons free world too.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, one of the myths out there is that nuclear power is cheap. It never has been cheap.

Look at what is happening in New Brunswick with Point Lepreau. There is talk about billions of dollars of reinvestment into that nuclear power plant, and the reality is that it is outdated now. What can the hon. member suggest be done with those billions of dollars in terms of alternative energies, and not just alternative energies to keep the power going, but also a mass educational program to reduce the amount of energy we use?

I say this with great respect, but Canadians are energy hogs. We use more electricity, more gas and more fuel per capita than most other societies on the planet, yet we do not talk about reductions. We do not talk about the need to slow it down, to look after future generations.

Eventually uranium and coal mining will cease. There will be no uranium left. Eventually it will stop, but what about the waste? There are a million questions about nuclear power that are extremely concerning, but everybody knows that one nuclear mishap can ruin one's whole day for a long time.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that nuclear power is not cheap. It never has been cheap. It is very expensive, and the reality is that the taxpayers of Canada are the ones who would end up cleaning up the mess at the end of it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian government has invested $16 billion to $20 billion in research and development in the nuclear industry. If that kind of money, or anything near that kind of money, were invested in alternate fuels such as wind and solar and the options available for fuel cells, for example, we would see a proliferation of safer, cleaner and less dangerous electricity all across this country.

The wind keeps blowing. We might try to stop it sometimes in my part of the world, but it keeps blowing. We could be harnessing that. The cost of wind power today is down to less than 16¢ a kilowatt hour. I heard a few years ago that the research that was going on in P.E.I., a very modest research project supported by the Government of Canada, was able to generate wind for between 5¢ and 8¢ a kilowatt hour. People are paying more than that on their hydro bills for the marginal cost per kilowatt hour.

We were getting very close, but with more research and development, we could have alternative energy forms available to the public. We do not need to have the proliferation of a nuclear program with the cost, the expense, the danger and with the unlimited liability, as it turns out, in a case like Point Lepreau or other places where for many, many years to come we would have to look after nuclear waste.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

As a short summary, the bill is designed to replace the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act and would establish a clear regime in the event of a nuclear accident, which are laudable goals.

The bill would establish the compensation and civil liability regime to adjust damages resulting from radiation in the event of a radioactive release from a Canadian nuclear installation. The bill would also increase liability limits from $75 million to $650 million and would put Canada on par with internationally standards.

The Liberal Party supports the bill in principle. We are looking forward to getting the bill to committee so expert witnesses can be brought in and our team can ask the pointed questions to ensure the bill will be respectful of and protective of the interests of Canadians.

The principles of the bill are in many ways similar to the principles of the previous bill that it will replace, in that operators are exclusively liable for damages. The operators must carry insurance. The liability is limited in time and amount and suppliers and contractors are effectively indemnified.

I am sure this question will be asked during the committee hearings. Should there be some liability for suppliers and contractors? If contractors are building a new reactor or doing work on an existing one and that work is shoddy, surely there should be some element of responsibility on the shoulders of the contractors. I am sure this issue will be delved into during the questions that will come before the committee.

The bill addresses foreseeable risks and reflects the insurance capacity of companies to pay. If a nuclear event were to take place, then the costs could be quite large. We want to ensure that the liability will be somewhat limited on the part of the companies, otherwise no insurance policy could be purchased. If possible damages to be paid out by an insurance company were to be so large, it would destroy the ability of a company to continue to exist.

I want to talk about a couple of other important issues in this area. It goes to the heart of AECL. A review of AECL found that the structure of the corporation was impacting its effectiveness, that AECL needed significant review and that review should get to the heart of structural changes that would have to take place in AECL and its two divisions, the CANDU division and the research and development division. Both are in desperate need of specific restructuring. We know process has started and we would like to see the outcome of that assessment. All Canadians need to see that.

Nuclear power is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can provide enormous benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in using an energy source that will be needed by large industrial countries such as ours. On the other hand, there is a risk, albeit a tiny one, that has to be managed quite carefully. Therefore, the outcome of these assessments of AECL should be made known to the House and to the public.

We have some extraordinary nuclear scientists in our country and, as a nation, we should be a leader in this field. Some would argue that we should not deal with this issue at all, that nuclear power is bad and we should somehow go down the road of other non-fossil based fuels. However, given the power needs of our country, can we derive enough energy from other non-nuclear, non-fossil based sources? I do not think so.

Hydro power, geo-thermal power and solar power are very important alternate sources of energy and they will be useful to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, but they are not the only answer. The fact is nuclear power, whether we like it or not, is and will be an important part of our strong need to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels.

France, for example, does a very good job. A significant part of its power comes from nuclear power. Canada should also follow suit to some degree. We have other assets, particularly hydro power. On the other hand, we should be able to integrate nuclear power as one of the options in order to wean our country off fossil fuels.

Why is this issue critically important? My very famous colleague, our former minister of the environment and the former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has done, and continues to do, an extraordinary amount of work on the environment. He has been one of the top leaders in the world in dealing with climate change. He has said many times that a 2° Celsius increase in temperature will have potentially catastrophic effects for the world. Right now we are about 1.4°, if we factor in all of the elements. We are getting fairly close to that tipping point. Once that tipping point occurs, we will be faced with the following problems.

We could get into the feedback loop mechanisms. As the temperature of the earth rises above a certain degree, the temperature of the oceans increases. We have removed a lot of the polar ice, as the permafrost has melted, which contains methane and that has 25 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. For example, Siberia has a very large capacity of methane that is stored in the permafrost and that is being released. As the temperature of the oceans increases, the oceans become more acidic. Those two factors reduce the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, photosynthesis.

After a certain point, we get to a place where we have passed the tipping point, where we are getting into a feedback loop that cannot be reversed. The impact of that, as I said before, will be catastrophic, not only for our country but for developing countries in the world. It will produce not only environmental calamities but security and economic calamities as well.

This is why it is very important that we do not dismiss the use of nuclear power because of visions of Chernobyl. The responsible thing to do is to see how we can integrate nuclear power in a way that will be an addition to the tools we use to get us off greenhouse gases. A failure to do that means countries like China, which produces an absolutely appalling number of coal-based plants every year, will continue to rely on those carbon-based fuels such as coal. In the process of doing that, it is going to be releasing more greenhouse gases, which is going to have a catastrophic effect on our world.

When we manage risk, is it better to allow that to occur and dismiss nuclear power, or is it wiser to embrace nuclear power plants if we are to decrease the building of coal power plants? I would argue that the responsible thing to do is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and use an assortment of other tools.

Another area is the issue of Chalk River. About a year and a half ago the Chalk River nuclear power plant close, and that has happened again. The Chalk River nuclear facility is facing a three month shutdown. Why is this important for patients who need those isotopes? Isotopes only last hours, not several days, so we cannot stockpile them. Isotopes are critically important in diagnostics for cardiovascular problems and various cancers. If we cannot produce those, thousands of patients, with a particular disease, will suffer the uncertainty, the unknown, which will potentially affect them.

Do we have options? No. Why did the government, knowing the failure of Chalk River and knowing that it was a 52 year old power plant, not understand that it was absolutely urgent to find new sources of isotopes? I cannot understand that. We are missing an extraordinary opportunity. We have amazing scientists in this area. It is a technically difficult area, yet we are losing this scientific excellence.

Canada could be a leader in the production of radio isotopes, in diagnostics and treatment in medicine, yet we are not. This deprives not only our patients, but patients around the world access to these materials.

This matter will be made even worse. The Petten reactor in Europe will be down for two to three months for a normal overhaul. I believe the reactor in Europe produces about 34% of the world's isotopes. The Chalk River reactor produces over 50% of the world's radio isotopes. Both of those reactors will be out of commission. What is going to patients who are relying on the radio isotopes for their diagnostics? This is a medical catastrophe.

I am flabbergasted. Why on earth did the government not plan to capitalize on Canada's excellence in this area and commission a new reactor to produce these radio isotopes and build redundancy into the system worldwide? We need to have that. The medical system and our patients need this in the production of radio isotopes. AECL scrapped two MAPLE reactors due to design flaws, and they were massively over budget.

People have asked this question. Why on earth can Canada not build a reactor in under a decade? Why does it take more than 10 years to build one? We have the scientists. We have the capability. We have the knowledge. Where are things going wrong? That is why a public review of AECL would be very important. Canadians could have the answer to these important questions. It is not simply an academic exercise. It is a matter of life and death.

The other issue is that the government has lost control of the public purse. A few months ago the Minister of Finance said that the deficit would be $34 billion. Now he has said it will be $50 billion.

At the end of last year, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said that our economy was in top-notch shape and that we would not face any kind of deficit. There are two scenarios. Either the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance did not know we were heading into a deficit when everyone else was telling them we would have one, in which case they are incompetent, or they knew about it and did not tell the truth. People will determine which of those two scenarios it is. Either one is not appealing for the Prime Minister of our country. All Canadians should ask themselves if the Prime Minister and his cabinet are fit to lead our country, since they have messed up so often in so many areas, areas that are so important to them as well as the country.

In order to generate some money, the government will try to sell off AECL. If we sell off AECL to private interests, what will be the checks and balances and oversight to ensure that our nuclear reactors will be managed properly? The public safety factor has to override all other considerations? Where is the public right to know and Parliament's right to know if AECL will be sold to private owners? This fundamental question has to be answered by the government before any kind of tender is put out. That has to be part of the process and it is critically important.

The other area I want to discuss is the fact that Canada has exported our nuclear capabilities to other countries. Right now, Canada and India are poised to potentially sign a deal where India would buy Canadian nuclear capabilities. It is a good thing in principle but there must be checks and balances to ensure these reactors cannot produce fissile materials. We know that India and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities. We also know there is significant, to put a fine point on it, antipathy between both India and Pakistan and we are seeing the consequences of this in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, where our troops are bravely working, people are paying the price in blood and our nation is paying a price in treasure for our mission there. However, the mission in Afghanistan will not be successful and the people of Afghanistan will not have the peace they so justly deserve unless the issue of Pakistan is dealt with. Pakistan can only be dealt with if its own concerns and fears are dealt with about India.

Would it not be a great opportunity for Canada to play a diplomatic role in trying to bring India and Pakistan together to deal with the issue of the insurgency going into Pakistan? It would also help Pakistan to deal with the internal insurgency that it has that has killed thousands of people. Surely, this could be an innovative and diplomatic endeavour for our country.

Unfortunately, the government has eviscerated the Department of Foreign Affairs, cutting more than 20% of its funds just in the last couple of years. How can the government profess that Canada should have a strong diplomatic force in the world and then eviscerate the very diplomats and resources they have to do their job? It cannot.

Herein lies an opportunity and I would strongly advise the government, for the sake of Afghanistan, the Afghan people, our troops and their families in particular, that it act innovatively to address this issue. A failure to do this will simply not allow us to deal effectively with the pressing challenges within the country.

I also want to talk about an issue that deeply concerns all of us and our neighbours south of the border, and that is the loss of control of fissile materials. We talk about fissile materials getting into the hands of organized crime or terrorist groups, and it is a very real concern. Initiatives have been established to control these materials coming from eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. However, the reality is that Canada should be taking a role with its partners, which would improve our relations with our allies, to deal with the lost nuke problem. It is not a tiny problem but a large problem. The failure to grapple with this issue is an international security threat. This is another area where I strongly advise the Government of Canada to use its diplomatic capabilities to deal with this issue.

We know about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the proliferation in countries that are hardly democratic, law-abiding states, such as North Korea, and it is a very serious problem that requires a multinational effort. Canada, as a country with some extraordinary diplomats within its borders, should utilize its diplomatic capabilities, fund the Department of Foreign Affairs and work with its allies to deal with the great challenges of the 21st century, and certainly the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of those.

We in the Liberal Party will support this bill to get it to committee. We have raised many issues in the House relating to the bill and to the larger issues of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and fissile materials. We are willing to work with the government to ensure these issues are resolved in the best interests of our country.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would agree with him that the issue of the medical isotopes from Chalk River is a matter of life and death. We do need those isotopes to continue to provide the kind of medical service that they have been providing, not only to Canadians but to the rest of the world. My colleague is very critical of the current government for failing to take measures that would have ensured the continuation of this production.

He also said that it takes 10 years to build a reactor. The reactor at Chalk River is now 50 years old and worn out. I guess 10 years ago would have been the time to try to fix this problem and put in a duplication of effort or redundancy as he talked about.

I am questioning whether this problem came about in 2005 or 2006 since the Conservative government came into power or whether this problem should have been dealt with by the previous Liberal government 10 years ago in the late nineties. Could he respond to that? I ask that sincerely because I know the member was sincere when he said that this was a life and death matter and that the government should take responsibility for it.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. This cannot fall on the shoulders of one government. However, the breakdown of the Chalk River reactor occurred under the current government's watch. I think all sides have a willingness to work with the government to ensure we come up with a plan to develop redundancies in Canada for the production of medical isotopes.

I honestly believe that the production of medical isotopes could be an area of excellence for Canada. Canada is a net exporter of medical isotopes but we could certainly expand on that in some of the new medical technologies.

Canadian patients have little access to positron emission tomography scanners. This scanner is one of the most effective ways to detect cancer early. Canadian patients do not have access to that because governments do not have the money to pay for it but we could develop innovative partnerships to ensure this occurs. I honestly believe this is something that all parties can work toward.

This problem does not rest solely on the shoulders of the current government but the absence of any leadership after the Chalk River reactor broke down twice, displays an appalling lack of foresight given the fact that all of us warned the government to produce a plan of action to ensure this would not continue to occur, that the situation would be repaired and that redundancy would be developed within the production of medical isotopes in Canada.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I certainly respect the frankness of the answer, recognizing that the full responsibility does not fall on the Conservative government.

However, we have put ourselves forward as a world leader in terms of the production of medical isotopes but we have let the rest of the world down. We have let them and ourselves down because we have not had the kind of sustained commitment to research and development in this country that is necessary, not only to solve the problems that my colleague is talking about now, but in the broader field of science. We talk about it from time to time and we lurch from here to there, but in terms of a sustained commitment to research and development, it needs to be supported by government, where necessary, to make the kind of progress that needs to be made if Canada is going to be a world leader, whether it be in scientific development, technology, or whether it be simply in a way of ensuring that our young people and our workforce have an opportunity to participate in new economies.

Would my colleague not agree that it is not simply a failure of the Conservative government but a failure of governments in the past, including his own, although I am not sure if the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was here, to make that kind of sustained, long range, high level commitment to research and development?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the mid-1990s, when we were battling a very large deficit and Canada was about to have its bonds actually downgraded, and we were going the way of Argentina, the Liberal government of the day said that it could not do this. It decided that the responsible thing to do was to reduce expenditures and get the country's finances under control.

That is what happened. The Liberal government actually moved from a very large deficit to a surplus budget. We had surplus budgets from the late nineties through until the current government came on board. The current government spent wildly in a time of surplus and lowered taxes at the same time. Former President Bush did that in the United States which resulted in the catastrophic economic problem that the U.S. is now facing and which will have a massive effect on us in the future.

On research and development, the then prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, made some of the largest investments into research and development, which took our country from being in the middle to being third in the world in research and development on a per capita basis. Many of the Centres of Excellence were created, excellence research chairs appointed and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and social sciences were created. All the major scientific bodies were created during the time of the Liberal Party with a massive increase in funding.

The government has put moneys into structures but it has failed to do invest in operating costs, which is a serious problem. We have been telling the government for months now that it needs to give our scientists the money they need to actually do the research. It has not, so scientists are leaving our country and destroying one of the fundamental pillars of our strong economy.

The government also is not investing in basic science and without an investment in basic science, we are unable to find the new dramatic innovations that change societies, change countries and change our world. It is only investing in the commercialization aspect in a narrow number of areas.

The other thing the government needs to do is invest in our high tech parks. We are lagging behind countries such as China and India that are massively increasing their investment in technology parks. I have the Vancouver Island Tech Park in my area. The head of that, Dale Gann, is the national president. He has come with a very compelling series of solutions to make Canada a leader in high tech and apply it to science and technologies. Unfortunately, those kinds of issues and solutions have been met with a tin ear on the part of the government. Its failure to act in these areas will compromise our economy and compromise the future of our nation and our citizens, and that is something that we cannot do.

We have given the government umpteen solutions. Sometimes it takes them but frequently it does not. It should listen more, act with resolve and know that in this House, during this economic crisis, it has a willing partner with good ideas in the opposition ranks. In my party, the Liberal Party, our critics have been offering many innovative solutions in a wide variety of areas. The government needs to co-operate with us more in the interests of our public, in the interest of public service and in the interest of our nation.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, in a previous exchange, we talked about alternatives to nuclear power in this country. Hydro development is one alternative that is perhaps underdeveloped but where opportunities could be developed. In Manitoba, for example, there is a large opportunity, and in Lower Churchill in my own province. There obviously is a need for the kind of co-operation that would be required to share this power nationwide but also some support from the Government of Canada.

Would the member support a national government effort to perhaps buy loan guarantees for that type of development?