Debates of May 28th, 2009

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. It is just totally bizarre that we would have private firms developing and owning a new nuclear reactor, having to buy insurance for the reactor and we limit the liability to $650 million when in the United States it is $10 billion and in Germany and Japan it is unlimited liability. We know at the end of the day that if the owners do not buy the insurance some year because it becomes too pricey, or even if they do have the insurance in place and the damages exceed the insurance policy, it will be the taxpayers who keep paying over and over again for the cleanup costs and then the storage costs that go on forever.

There is something in the computer business known as total cost of ownership where one does not just look at the cost of the computer. One needs to look at the total cost of operating the system. That is what we should be looking at.

When we look at those costs in the nuclear industry, we will never win because there is the cost of developing the plant, the huge delays, the cost overruns and the huge insurance costs. The insurance people are not stupid. They know there have been 81 accidents in the last 50 years, which I am sure will scare off a lot of insurance companies. Then there is the storage issue. Nobody wants the waste trucked down their highways nor do they want it stored anywhere near where they live.

What are we going to do with all this stuff? Are we going to store it here in the Parliament Buildings? People do not want it. There is a very limited market. Maybe people are agreeable to nuclear development if it is someone else's problem. If we are going to store it, build it and keep it in Ontario, fine, but the people will not like it there either.

The problem here is that we are dealing with a bad scenario and we have good scenarios for a change. We have hydro development, wind power and other sources. I spoke about the solar panel company that Canada did not help out and it went to Germany. The Germans gave it whatever it needed and it is producing huge amounts of solar panels in Germany right now. Here we are once again on the outside looking in.

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

Madam Speaker, I have three comments to make that might clarify this debate.

The first is about the cost of nuclear. Solar and wind power cost far more than nuclear power does at the present stage in their development. The idea that nuclear is prohibitively expensive and therefore we should not be developing that technology or refurbishing the reactors that we presently have is a fallacy.

Second, with respect to the environmental footprint, nuclear has a very small environmental footprint. When we compare what we need to do in many parts of this country to produce hydro power in northern regions, when we look at the amount of watershed that needs to be flooded in order to produce this hydro power, there are significant environmental effects from the production of hydro in many parts of this country and the development of new hydro.

Furthermore, I would add that with respect to the production of power from other sources, we produce a lot of toxic chemicals, like mercury, through smokestack pollution and coal-fired plants that could easily be replaced with nuclear.

Finally, I would point out that the idea that we can move off nuclear is simply a fallacy. Ontario produces—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has 40 seconds to respond.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I draw the member's attention to former Conservative premier, Gary Filmon, from 1991, who was signing an agreement with the Ontario government at that time to build an east-west power grid because Manitoba has 5,000 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power.

We have exported this power for many years and are making huge amounts of money doing it, all north and south to the United States. All we need to do is build an east-west power grid. The member should talk to his own member, the minister of democratic change, who, last fall, when I made a speech on this matter, made his way over to talk to me about it and said, “Keep up the good work on this. We need that east-west power grid”. He sits only a few seats away from that member. Do they not talk to one another over there? The member for—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, ballet slippers for little feet, cardboard pictures of Lenin and dolls in various states of dress and dismemberment provide a glimpse into kindergarten life before it came to a standstill in April 1986, when Chernobyl's reactor 4 exploded.

The fire burned for 10 days, contaminating tens of thousands of square miles, and the fallout was 400 times greater than that of Hiroshima. Thirty people died in the blast, four thousand died of cancer, a third of a million people were driven from their homes and six hundred thousand registered as cleanup workers or liquidators. Of these, 240,000 received the highest radiation doses.

Over the years, the compensation costs, economic losses, health and cleanup expenditures and lost productivity mounted into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Today Chernobyl remains the world's worst nuclear disaster.

Growing up, our high school teachers and our professors taught us to be concerned about nuclear accidents, nuclear waste, nuclear weapons proliferation and pollution from uranium mining. Unfortunately these problems have not gone away. For example, we continue to bury waste, a policy of “out of sight, out of mind”, despite not knowing the full environmental and health consequences.

Bill C-20 is however a positive step to managing and minimizing the risks involved in the use of nuclear material, namely through preparation, response and reparation. Specifically, Bill C-20 establishes the civil liability regime and compensation to address damages resulting from radiation in the event of a radioactive release from a Canadian nuclear installation, or from nuclear materials being transported to or from the installation. Compensable damage includes bodily injury, damage to property, economic and property losses and psychological trauma resulting from such injury or damage.

It is important that the bill address psychological trauma. The Chernobyl accident impacted economic prosperity, personal health and social well-being. Victims reported high levels of anxiety, stress, medically unexplained physical symptoms and reckless behaviour, including alcohol and tobacco abuse and consumption of game from areas heavily contaminated with high levels of radioactive cesium.

Bill C-20 increases operator liability from $75 million to $650 million and would put Canada on par with liability limits in many other countries, as well as responding to the recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. The latter is important, as private insurers have consistently and systematically refused to provide coverage for damage resulting from nuclear incidents.

When discussing nuclear accidents, bodily injury may range from radiation sickness through to leukemia and other cancers. Radiation sickness is a serious illness that occurs when the entire body receives a high dose of radiation, usually over a short period of time. Many survivors of Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki became ill with radiation sickness, which often began with nausea, diarrhea, skin damage and vomiting and progress to seizures and coma.

Most people who did not recover from radiation illness died within several months of exposure, usually from the destruction of bone marrow, which led to infections and internal bleeding. Unborn babies can also be exposed to radiation and they are especially vulnerable between two and fifteen weeks of pregnancy. The health consequences can be severe, including abnormal brain function, cancer, deformities and stunted growth.

Ionizing radiation can also cause certain types of leukemia. An elevated risk of blood cancer was first found among the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan two to five years after exposure. Recent investigations suggest a doubling of the incidence of leukemia among the most highly exposed Chernobyl liquidators.

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to describe all potential health impacts such as cardiovascular problems, cataract and thyroid cancer.

Neither Bill C-20 nor its predecessors Bill C-63 and Bill C-5 have been the subject of lengthy public debate outside Parliament or have they attracted much media attention.

Members of the Canadian Nuclear Association have commented that the bill responds to society's needs and represents a balanced approach. The association further reports that the bill provides protection of the public under a coherent, explicit and stable framework.

Before putting forth questions that might be asked at committee, it is important to remind the House that while the government puts forth the bill, it is also responding to the leak at the Chalk River nuclear reactor, which provides a third of the world's medical isotopes.

The general manager of the Association of Imaging Producers and Equipment Suppliers points out that there have been at least five crises of medical isotope production in the last eighteen months. What makes the present crisis so challenging, however, is that three out of the four other reactors in the world that supply medical isotopes, in Belgium, France and South Africa, are also shut down.

While I support the bill in principle, it requires study at committee and careful questioning. For example, what are the projected economic, environmental and health costs of a nuclear release in Canada and possible impacts farther afield? Does the proposed compensation address those impacts?

We must remember that the Chernobyl fallout had far-reaching effects, spreading radionuclides as far away as Lapland in northern Scandinavia. The Arctic's Sami people are reindeer herders and face significant problems from the accident because of the high transfer rate of radioactive material from contaminated lichen to the reindeer. Many herds had to be slaughtered to avoid consumption of the meat. Scientists estimate that it will take another 20 years for radioactive levels in reindeer to fall to pre-Chernobyl levels.

The executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada reported:

A nuclear accident on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in cleanup costs—conceivably 100 times more than the maximum liability industry would face under Bill C-63.

Belarus and the Ukraine are paying approximately $460 billion over 30 years to clean up Chernobyl. Twenty years after the accident, these countries still pay 5% to 7% of their budgets toward the cost of the catastrophe.

The bill is only a small part of a web of protection needed to make Canada more nuclear safe as well as providing life-saving medications to those in need.

We have had multiple wake-up calls. In August 1945, an American war plane dropped a nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. An estimated 80,000 people were incinerated and in the months that followed, another 60,000 died from the effects of radiation.

A few days later was Nagasaki. About 30% of the city, including almost all of the industrial district, was destroyed by the bomb and nearly 74,000 were killed and a similar number injured.

In 1979 radioactive steam leaked into the atmosphere in Pennsylvania when a water pump broke down at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. There were fears that some of the plant's 500 workers had been contaminated.

Complacency cannot be an option when it comes to nuclear safety. Today we know the tremendous costs and we must take action.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend the member on her speech, which consisted of a lot of facts and figures and a broader perspective on the issue of nuclear liability. I thought it was quite well researched. I have a comment to make.

I think many people do not realize how integral to our electricity production our nuclear reactors are. Ontario produces 50% of its 25,000 megawatts a day from the nuclear reactors in the province. Many other jurisdictions around the world produce even higher percentages of their electricity from nuclear power. It is a greenhouse gas freeway of producing electrical power. It is also something that has been proven reliable for decades now. Yet there are still people out there who believe we can somehow eliminate or remove nuclear power from the electricity generation equation, and that simply is not possible.

In Ontario alone, as I mentioned before, 50% of the electricity comes from nuclear power. The idea that we can, through conservation alone and through solar and wind, replace 12,500 megawatts a day with environmentally-friendly measures, like conservation, wind or solar, is simply living in a fairytale land.

The bill will go a long way to ensuring the long-term viability of nuclear power in the country. Nuclear power will be part of our electricity generation mix for a long time. It is something I strongly support because it produces electricity without any greenhouse emissions. Of all the environmental choices we have to make, that is the most challenging one and the one on which we have to put the biggest emphasis.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, nuclear energy is part of the mix today. However, we have to ensure that it is safe. Chalk River had leaks in 1952 and 1958. There are leaks today. We do not know what the environmental and health hazards are going forward. Therefore, safety has to be paramount.

In talking about climate change, it is our most pressing environmental issue. We must look at many options for reducing climate change, from adaptation to mitigation. We have to look at nuclear energy. We have to look at renewable energy. We must look at the whole gamut of opportunities. There is no one solution to this global problem.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with a lot of my colleague's comments up to the point where she says she supports the bill.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party have said many times that when we look at other jurisdictions, this just does not add up. What does add up is the cost burden to the taxpayer, which does not make financial sense to us.

However, I want to ask her about what we can do to further strengthen regulation. I guess my colleague from the Conservative Party forgets that the fuel for nuclear power does not fall from the sky. It is mined and there are many consequences to that. In fact, greenhouse gases are emitted. Should we not look at the life cycle of nuclear power?

Our water, which is sourced from the Ottawa River, has tritium in it. There will be more of it because of the recent leak. We are not following the standards they have in other jurisdictions on tritium. It should not be going into the Ottawa River, but it is. I have a problem with that, as should everyone in the country and, indeed, the people who live here.

Is she okay with the limit on liability? Does she not think we should do more in terms of regulation, be it on how things are regulated and how things are put into the environment, and look at the life cycle of nuclear power and how uranium is mined?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree that we must look at the life cycle in the production of nuclear energy.

I was very clear that the bill is part of a web of protection that is needed, in terms of mining the material and how we store it. I was clear in mentioning that we do not know the long-term environmental and human health impacts. The bill must be a part of a web of protection.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question concerns the environment. We have heard about viability from my Conservative friend across the way regarding the nuclear plants. There is no question that we need electricity and we are going to have to decide where it comes from. Nuclear energy is an option. It is out there and it is a reality.

When we look at viability, viability is one thing. Does it work? Does it pay the bills? Does it work as far as finances go? That is a very important part of it, because with the profits, we have to keep up a certain level of safety. However, we cannot have viability at the expense of eliminating all liability so that if something happens, someone can walk away.

My concern is that the responsibility goes from $75 million to $650 million. What is the environmental cost, and is $650 million sufficient?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important that liability has been increased from $75 million to $650 million, but is that enough? Does that take into account the environmental impacts? It depends on where the reactor is and the size of the leak. Will it take into account the human health impacts? If we look at Chernobyl, there are 4,000 cancer cases. We have to look at the economic impacts. We do not know how great the leak would be. The amount of $650 million is not a very large sum of money. This requires careful consideration at committee.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, also known as the nuclear liability compensation act. I had the pleasure of speaking to the bill in the previous Parliament when it was known as Bill C-5. This is at least the third attempt to bring forward this legislation.

Unfortunately, it is the same legislation all over again. We had serious problems with it as New Democrats in the last Parliament and none of our concerns have been addressed with the new legislation that has been tabled by the government in this Parliament. Bill C-20 still has the failings we were concerned about last time around and we continue to oppose this legislation because of its very serious shortcomings.

With respect to some of those shortcomings, when we put it all together, some of my colleagues have called this the “worst nuclear practices act” to really give voice to our concerns about its very serious problems and why we are taking it so seriously in this new Parliament as well. We are very opposed to the legislation. We thought that it needed significant improvement before we could ever support it. We are very disappointed that the government did not see fit to strengthen the bill before it tabled it again, but we will work hard in Parliament and at committee to try to change it, to improve it and make further judgments of it as it comes forward. The fact that we have to do that, that those concerns that were raised in debate in other Parliaments have not been addressed by the government, should be very disappointing for most Canadians.

We know that Canadians have very serious concerns about nuclear energy. Most Canadians understand that nuclear energy is not green energy, that there are very serious problems associated with it, including the potential for accidents and other safety concerns, including concerns about the disposal of waste from the nuclear power process which we have not been able to solve over many, many years. Most of those issues continue. We have not found good, long-term solutions to the question of nuclear waste. There remain many serious issues about nuclear power in and of itself and ones that most Canadians would share.

We have heard from members of our caucus who raised issues related to the nuclear power process. The member for Timmins—James Bay in the last Parliament made it very clear that attempts to deposit waste from nuclear plants in northern Ontario would be resisted by the people of northern Ontario again and again because of problems related to that process of storage and disposal and to the waste itself. The folks in northern Ontario have time and time again spoken out against other parts of the country depositing their waste and their problems in the neighbourhoods in northern Ontario. We need to be very cognizant of the fact that this remains a very serious and unresolved problem of the nuclear energy industry.

The member for Ottawa Centre remarked about ongoing issues related to Chalk River and the presence of tritium in the water of the Ottawa River to this very day. It will continue to be there because we cannot get rid of it. There are problems when there is a release at Chalk River. It is contained and then diluted and released into the Ottawa River. There should be better processes in place for that kind of release. It should be treated. The radioactive material should be removed and then stored. But we are still back at that same problem of what to do with waste and storage issues related to that. The whole issue of how it is eventually released into the atmosphere, into the environment is a very serious question and an ongoing problem with the nuclear industry here in Canada.

The legislation before us was developed to limit the amount of damages a nuclear power plant operator or fuel processor would pay out should there be an accident causing radiological contamination to property outside the plant area itself.

The legislation really only applies to power plants and fuel processors. Unfortunately, those are not the only places where nuclear material is used and where there is potential for an accident that might cause a claim for liability and compensation. There is a limitation to this legislation in regard to its scope and what industries, what processors, what is exactly covered by the legislation.

This legislation is very old. It dates from the 1970s. That also makes it very inadequate. Even those of us who oppose the bill before us appreciate that changes are needed to the legislation. Under the existing legislation, the liability limit is only $75 million, which is incredibly insignificant when one considers the kinds of accidents and liability claims that might come about as a result of a nuclear accident.

We heard the previous speaker talk about Chernobyl, the disaster that that represented and the huge costs associated with cleaning up that accident and the ongoing problems associated with it. Certainly the current liability limit of $75 million or even the one that is proposed in this legislation of $650 million would go nowhere near dealing with the kinds of compensation and liability claims that would arise out of an accident like Chernobyl. We need to be very cognizant of that experience because it is a serious question related to the nuclear power industry.

The bill before us, as I said, only considers raising the liability limit to $650 million, which is the absolute low limit of the international average on this kind of legislation around the world. We have gone for the bottom line, the very lowest level of liability that we could possibly contemplate when looking at this legislation in the current day.

We know, for instance, that in Japan the liability is unlimited and that each operator has to carry private insurance of $30 million. Germany is another country where the liability is also unlimited. There is an exception, as there is in this legislation, for accidents caused by war, but in Germany each nuclear operator has to have $500 million in private insurance, almost equalling what the liability limits set in this legislation would be. That is a far different approach than is taken by the current legislation or what is proposed here in Canada. Even in the United States there is a limit of $10 billion, with each operator needing up to $200 million in private insurance.

This legislation, by any consideration of what is done around world, falls very short. The liability limit of $650 million that is proposed in the current legislation does not come anywhere close to what should be in place. When we look at other countries from which we would take advice on this particular question, it is not near to what they themselves are doing.

We have to be very cognizant that $650 million just does not cut it, especially when for any costs beyond that $650 million it is the taxpayers who are on the hook to deal with the fallout of any accident or problem that arises in a nuclear facility. The nuclear operator would only have to pay out a maximum of $650 million and then it would be up to Canadians to cover the rest. There is a provision in this legislation for a special tribunal set up by the Minister of Natural Resources to look at liability beyond $650 million, but again that liability is paid out of the public purse. I do not think this establishes an appropriate level.

I suspect that Canadians, should there be a serious problem, incident or accident, would want to be part of the solution to the problems that arise from that, but I do not think they want to do that with the alternative being the protection of the operators or the nuclear industry itself from that liability. I do not think this sets up any reasonable standard for a level of liability. I do not think that Canadian taxpayers should be put on the hook because of the failure of this legislation to find that reasonable level.

This goes to the whole question of establishing the true cost of the nuclear industry. When we fail to establish a reasonable limit for liability and compensation, we underestimate the cost of this industry. I think this is one way where we have downplayed the true cost of nuclear energy, the true cost of the nuclear industry, here in Canada and perhaps around the world.

This is a very serious process. Things can go wrong and when things do go wrong, the consequences are very serious. I think it is high time we took into account the true cost and the potential of the problems when we are looking at this industry.

In this corner of the House, New Democrats have said that establishing such a low liability limit is perhaps related to the government's interest in getting rid of this national asset, of selling off our interests in nuclear energy, and making it more attractive to potential investors who would see it as a real bargain to get into a nuclear industry that has such a low level of liability attached to it by government statute.

Again, that is an irresponsible approach to dealing with a resource, as something that Canadians own, that is an appropriate thing for Canadians to own, for government to own, but also is an inappropriate approach to establishing the true cost of doing that kind of business. I think we have to bear that in mind when we are looking at this legislation.

We should not be supporting legislation that will contribute to a fire sale of the assets of Canada. We want to make sure that what we do in this place establishes a reasonable price, a reasonable cost for this industry.

I am pleased as a British Colombian that British Columbia has made decisions over the years not to engage in nuclear power generation. I think most British Columbians are relieved by that fact, and I suspect, Madam Speaker, that you share that relief that our province has not gone that route.

We have, however, been concerned as British Columbians about the nuclear station in Washington State, just south of the Canadian border, at Hanford. For many years that has been a source of real concern to British Columbians. We know that Hanford had nine nuclear reactors and five massive plutonium processing complexes, and that they did release nuclear radioactive contamination into the air and into the water of the Columbia River.

We also know that it has leaked, and the storage facilities have leaked, into the ground surrounding the Hanford station site in Washington State. For many years, when we talk about concerns around the nuclear industry, when we talk to British Columbians about it, it is Hanford that comes first to mind. We have often talked about the concerns we had with that particular facility.

Thankfully, Hanford has been decommissioned and it is now in the process of cleanup. That process of cleanup, I think, again draws our attention to the need to establish reasonable liability and compensation limits for this industry. The decommissioning and cleanup of Hanford is not a cheap prospect. It is not a matter of turning off a switch and mopping out the room, putting a lock on the gate and walking away.

The estimated cost of cleanup is $2 billion a year, and the cleanup will go on for decades, not just a couple of years, not just a decade but decades. It is $2 billion a year for decades to clean up this decommissioned facility in Washington State.

Part of the cleanup involves the establishment of very specialized facilities, like a vitrification plant, which is one method of combining dangerous waste with glass to render it stable. The vitrification facility alone costs $12 billion to be established at Hanford to be part of this decommissioning and cleanup operation.

The costs involved with just decommissioning and cleaning up an existing nuclear site, let alone contemplating any accident or any release of radioactive material is hugely expensive, hugely significant. Unfortunately, I think we are all concerned that the timelines for the cleanup of Hanford have been delayed and put off time and time again.

The timelines which were originally established are not being met and it means that the ongoing concerns we have about this facility are not relieved to any great extent. It is still leaking and leaching radioactive waste into the groundwater in the surrounding area. It will take many decades to complete this process and many billions of dollars to actually see this plant decommissioned.

I think it is an example of the huge costs associated with this industry. It drives home for me the importance of ensuring that we have liability and compensation limits that are adequate to the task that may arise from a nuclear accident. It again points out the inadequacy of Bill C-20 before us.

A liability limit of $650 million just does not come anywhere close to dealing with the true cost of what an accident could render here in Canada. We need to follow the example of countries that we respect around the world that have made choices around nuclear energy like Japan and Germany, that have set unlimited liability for nuclear accidents.

We should take a very close look at establishing that kind of liability here in Canada because we know the dangers associated with this industry are so significant and ongoing. They do not just disappear. The question of waste will be with us for many generations and we have to make sure that we solve those problems, that we put the money into understanding those problems and solving them in a permanent kind of way, and not just leave them for a future generation to deal with.

It is irresponsible of us to go down that road without making sure that all of those arrangements and due caution is taken to make sure that we are not leaving a mess for someone else down the road. I think that is exactly what we are doing now.

We have to make sure too that we are not sticking taxpayers yet again with the bill for an accident and that we put the true costs before the industry to make sure it appreciates the true value of safety, health and security for Canadians who live near these installations, near these facilities, and who want to make sure that they do not suffer the consequences of an accident in these cases.

I think it is a very important piece of legislation. It is absolutely clearly a bill that needs to be updated and needs to see a review. However, as it stands, it is wholly inadequate to that task. We need to make sure that a reasonable liability limit is established. The liability limit of $650 million just does not cut it.

I hope the bill will be significantly amended or if not, defeated because it is just not up to the task.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that many of us have about the bill is the wider issue of nuclear energy and where Canada is going.

We know that we have entered into arrangements with the government of India. It is important to note that. As the House knows, when we sold to the government of India before, in 1974, there were concerns about what it did with that technology and certainly with the energy. India has not signed the non-proliferation treaty and that would be a concern.

We have, it seems, many things in play. We have nuclear energy liability which seems to be a gift to potential buyers. We have Canada exporting nuclear technology to governments that have not signed on to an international non-proliferation process, which we are all concerned about. Finally, we have a lack of regulations.

I want to ask my colleague his thoughts about the wider view of the government's policy when it comes to nuclear energy, be it on proliferation, the liability or regulation.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Before the hon. member answers, I would like to ask members in the House to please be respectful in their conversations debate is going on.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Ottawa Centre is very concerned, as I am, about the broader issues around nuclear energy, disarmament and proliferation. He raises a very important question about what happens to nuclear technology and how it is used around the world.

We have to be very cautious and there should be absolutely ironclad agreements in place before Canada exports nuclear technology anywhere in the world. We must have a backup of all of those kinds of agreements. We must ensure that we are not trading with countries that are not signatories to non-proliferation agreements, for instance. It just does not make sense that there be some opportunity to use Canadian technology to further engage the nuclear arms race. That would be totally inappropriate and I think most Canadians would see that as absolutely contrary to Canadian values.

Canada was one of the first countries to renounce the possession and use of nuclear weapons even though it would have been easily possible for this country to have adopted those kinds of weapons as part of a Canadian arsenal. I think that Canadians would want to see and ensure that we did not go down that road.

Canada has had an important role to play over the years on nuclear disarmament issues. Many individual Canadians such as Douglas Roach, Peggy Mason and others have taken a significant role there. The Pugwash movement had its foundation here in Canada. They and many other NGOs have been significant players in the movement against nuclear weapons. I think that to honour that history and maintain that place is very important.

Recently, Canada has been less prominent in the nuclear disarmament movement, the movement around the non-proliferation treaty and the test ban treaties. We still have Canadian diplomats who are working very hard. Marius Grinius is our ambassador on disarmament. John Barrett, who is an expert on verification issues, has been very active. There are still individual Canadians, but it seems that our government has taken a less prominent role in those kinds of issues as they are debated and negotiated around the world. I think that is a sad commentary, since Canada is known for its history of support for those kinds of measures.

We do need to see the whole question of nuclear liability in a broader context. What is our moral liability as Canadians when our technology is exported around the world to ensure ongoing safety in the country where it is exported? We need to make sure that it does not find its way into some kind of weapons process.

I think there are all kinds of ways that we can see the broad picture of liability. It would be worthwhile for all of us to consider at any time these issues come before us as both legislators and Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for St. John's East.

Again, I would like to ask for a little order in the House. There is a debate still going on.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the member for Burnaby—Douglas about both the liability issues as well as the whole notion of nuclear proliferation and the need for nuclear disarmament to be advanced by not only the government but throughout the world.

I have a specific question having to do with his remarks about the decommissioning in Washington State. There is a cost of $2 billion a year for a nuclear plant decommissioning. Is that something that is borne by the taxpayers of the State of Washington or is that something that is covered by the greater levels of liability found in the United States?

I do not know if he has the answer to that. I suppose that it is a significant cost either way and well above the $650 million we are talking about here. I do not know if he has the answer to that, but if he does I would certainly be happy to hear it.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have an exact answer to my colleague's question, but I believe that significant government funding is involved in the decommissioning and cleanup of the Hanford site in Washington State. It is $2 billion a year for decades, not just for a decade, not just for a couple of years, but for decades, to clean up that site. It also requires other kinds of specialized facilities, such as the vitrification plant, which is an additional $12 billion.

None of these costs are insignificant. They are huge costs. Whether they are costs to industry, to the taxpayer or to government, they are huge costs. It goes to show that we do not fully appreciate the true costs of this industry when we do not understand how much it could potentially cost to deal with an accident and when we do not understand how much it truly costs to deal with the remediation of a retired nuclear facility of any kind.

We could look at the kind of remediation effort that has to happen at a gasoline filling station that has been closed. We often see the structure being torn down and the tanks being removed, but then the fence goes up and testing goes on for biohazards that continue. That site stays vacant for some period of time while that remediation goes on. We are talking about a gasoline filling station and not a nuclear facility with all of the extra, and more serious perhaps, concerns about waste, leakages and other problems that may have occurred on that nuclear facility site.

When I compare the process of remediating a filling station site to what is required of the nuclear industry in the event of the retirement of a facility or an accident, it behooves us to make sure that we have in place the best possible regime to deal with liability and compensation that we can possibly construct.

Bill C-20 falls far short of that, especially when we look at the costs associated, and when we look at the examples from other nations around the world. Some of the countries that we look to, for example, on how to deal with various issues, countries like Germany and Japan and even in this case, countries like the United States, have set far higher and even unlimited in the case of Germany and Japan, compensation limits in the event of an accident at a nuclear facility.

We need to look at that very carefully and try to find ways to avoid passing that cost on to the taxpayers, should there be an accident or should there be a retirement of a facility.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. John's East will have three minutes before statements by members.

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

Madam Speaker, It is my pleasure to join in the debate. In the three minutes I have now, I would like to reflect on some of the things my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas said concerning liability.

We are talking about to what extent a company that owns a nuclear facility is responsible for the damages that are caused, whether it be in the case of an accident, a decommissioning or a situation where damage is done to individuals or to the environment.

We have just been through a situation in the forestry industry where, as a result of economic hardship, mismanagement or overcapitalization, et cetera, we have seen companies go bankrupt to the point where they cannot meet their obligations for pensions and other obligations to their employees. The situations where we would see this kind of liability are probably massive situations where the damages are so large that the companies actually would be put into a situation of insolvency or bankruptcy. Whatever expenses there are beyond the limit now of $75 million, and if the bill passes as is, $650 million, will actually fall on the victims or be picked up by the taxpayers.

We really are setting up a situation where we are suggesting that the owner of the facility will have a limited liability and members of the public, as individuals or the government collectively, will take full responsibility for all the damages. That is the essence of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I see you are about to rise, so I will continue along those lines after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have 18 minutes when the debate resumes.

National Prayer Breakfast

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today after a very successful event this morning. It was my distinct privilege and honour to chair, for the third time, the National Prayer Breakfast here in Ottawa.

Over the last 44 years, the National Prayer Breakfast has brought together people from all faiths and political philosophies to celebrate the spirit of Jesus Christ. I was pleased to see many of my colleagues from each party in attendance at this morning's event. People from across our great nation joined members of Parliament and senators, diplomats and ambassadors to pray under the theme of faith in uncertain times.

It is especially important in light of the challenges we face in today's worldwide recession that we recall and lean on the principles of faith. We are experiencing a global financial crisis. In these uncertain times, faith and hope are precious commodities. As parliamentarians, we are called to lead our nation. How can we convince Canadians to have faith and hope in our nation without demonstrating them ourselves?

It is the spirit of Jesus Christ that gives many of us here today faith and hope in these uncertain times.

Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent in my riding of Scarborough Southwest, William McDonald, who on May 11 received the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation. This award is presented to individuals who have contributed to the well-being of veterans and to the remembrance of their contributions, sacrifices and achievements.

Mr. McDonald lobbied Toronto city council to have streets named after fallen soldiers in a new subdivision in Scarborough Southwest, a project which received unanimous council support. The official unveiling ceremony for the first two signs was held on November 4, 2008, and marked the first time Toronto had honoured its fallen soldiers by emblazing a poppy of remembrance on street signs.

Thanks to William McDonald's efforts, those brave men who gave their lives defending our country shall never be forgotten. It is for these efforts that I honour him today.

Fiftieth Anniversary of the Boucherville Daughters of Isabella

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Mgr Poissant Circle of the Order of the Daughters of Isabella in Boucherville, which will celebrate this event on May 30 with the book launch of L'Ordre des Filles d'Isabelle, d'hier à aujourd'hui, 1959-2009 and a banquet dinner.

The circle's 108 members provide assistance to society's least fortunate using the money they raise through their second-hand clothing store for disadvantaged families, and their civic and charitable activities.

On behalf of those whom I have the honour of representing, I would like to highlight the community spirit, engagement and dedication of these women. I also wish to thank them for their involvement in this organization, especially their young regent, Diane de Champlain, who has served in this role for the past four years.