Geoff Regan

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, clearly the bill is about nuclear liability and I am certainly talking about the nuclear industry. I think the points I have been making are very relevant to the debate before the House and it is important we consider these issues.

When we talk about the crisis situation we are in, it is clear the government has no plan whatsoever to deal with it. I guess the Conservatives will look for another scapegoat to blame for their incompetence. We can see why Canadians have a lack of trust in the government and why the opposition has it on probation.

With respect to Bill C-20, while we support the principles of the legislation, it is important that we hear from witnesses in committee on important issues, issues like concerns the industry may have about how this bill will impact the competitiveness of the nuclear industry. It is important to assess the level of support for the bill within industry and whether this is the right liability limit.

I very much look forward to the future study of Bill C-20, with an eye to improving the legislation where it is needed.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was speaking to Bill C-20, the nuclear liability and compensation bill, which is a bill that has been in the House before. We studied essentially the same bill in the previous Parliament and now it is back before us.

I was saying yesterday that one of the concerns I have about the situation with this is the role of the minister in reviewing the liability limit every five years. The idea that this needs to be reviewed is valid, but my concern stems from the lack of a coherent nuclear energy policy from the government. It raises the question of how it will deal with the liability issue when it cannot competently manage this file.

We have not seen competent management. If we look at the history of what has occurred over the past year and a half, there was the closure of Chalk River and the decision of the government to try to scapegoat the nuclear regulator and blame Linda Keen for the problems which, as we can see now, clearly were not simply problems with the regulator, but there was a fundamental problem at Chalk River, which I am sure we are going to hear more about in the coming days.

There are concerns, indeed, about the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the lack of leadership from the government in that regard. We are all anxious to see the direction in which the government wants to go.

Recently, we have seen media reports where a professor from the University of Calgary actually asked if AECL was about to follow the path of the Avro Arrow and be sold away from Canada, with the loss of many scientists and so forth. The professor detailed the history of neglect for the nuclear sector under the Conservative government over the past three years.

The fact is that internationally over 200 nuclear plants are planned, involving billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. It is an industry in which Canada has been a true leader internationally. We all know the lack of value that this neo-conservative government puts on science. It seems to me at times that it really does not believe in empirical evidence but only in anecdotal evidence. The Conservatives do not believe in science, so to speak.

In fact, one of my colleagues suggested the other day that Barney the Dinosaur should be the official Conservative Party mascot. The Conservatives probably would not like that. They would want him to wear blue instead of purple, I suppose, because purple is too close to red, but I digress.

There is a serious lack of clarity by the Conservatives when it comes to the question of AECL's privatization. They will not tell us if it is on the garage sale list with the CN Tower, for example. The budget documents this year muddied the waters further in their reference to some obscure partnership in stating that the minister is reviewing AECL's structure involving private sector participation in the commercial operations of the corporation. We do not know what that means.

It is distressing to know that since last August there has been on the minister's desk a report from the National Bank done on the future of AECL, which has not been publicly released, even though the government has had since last August to review it. Of course, the minister has had since November, when she was appointed, to review it. It has still not been made public. We still have no idea where the government is going with AECL. One wonders why the government has sat on the report since August. It raises the question of what the government is hiding in this regard.

Is the government going to accept a recommendation to privatize more than 51% of AECL's design service departments, for example, or what is it going to do? Would the minister sell AECL to France or would it go to Canadian interests? What is it going to do? What is the value of AECL during a period of recession?

That is the problem with the government's theory of having a garage sale and selling major government assets worth billions and billions of dollars at a time when their prices obviously are reduced by the recession. We all see how the prices of things are down across the country, perhaps not enough things in some cases for families, but the fact of the matter is for items like government owned buildings and major items like that these days, clearly the dollars one can get for those sales are dramatically reduced. It makes it a terrible and unwise time to unload those kinds of things in a garage sale.

AECL is another example, and there are a lot of questions about AECL's future and no answers.

There is also the issue of the government's lack of support for AECL's bid to build nuclear plants in Ontario. Ontario is going the route of building more nuclear plants. It is making a choice about who the builder is going to be, and AECL is one of the bidders.

Many industry observers see this question of where the government stands as critical to the future success of AECL. They consider the question of whether it wins its bid as critical as well. The government appears to have abandoned AECL on this front.

Unlike the Conservative government, Canadians understand the value of a Canadian nuclear industry. A recent survey of attitude toward nuclear power found that 75% of Canadians are “not comfortable with the presence of non-Canadian nuclear plant manufacturers and plant operators in Canada”. The study also found that the contribution to the local economy and the use of Canadian technology were rated most important for nuclear projects by Canadians. We can see why. Imagine how many jobs this involves in Canada, how many scientists and our top minds are engaged in the work of AECL.

As that professor from Calgary noted in a recent media story, when the Diefenbaker government killed the Avro Arrow project in 1959, the result was the demise of a unique Canadian high-tech invention, an innovative process where Canadian minds were very much engaged. It forced thousands of world-class scientists and engineers to leave our country. This is the same kind of issue, where the Conservative government is talking about the possibility of giving AECL away, or not supporting it and allowing it to fail.

Hopefully, we are not about to witness a repeat of the Avro Arrow. With the Conservative government's neglect and incompetence in this sector, Canadians are understandably worried.

It is not surprising that there are serious questions being raised about the future of CANDU reactors and the fate of the thousands of dedicated scientists and engineers who work for AECL and about what the government intends to do about the production and supply of medical isotopes. It is hard to tell. There seems to be no clarity or no plan from the government.

When there was a shutdown of the NRU in Chalk River in December 2006, we would have thought the government would have started then to produce a plan to replace Chalk River, to come up with some other way to produce medical isotopes. There is no apparent evidence of efforts being made by the government to produce a plan and to move forward with solving that problem.

What was the government's answer? It blamed Linda Keen. She was the scapegoat. The government took no responsibility. It is like we see so often in question period. Whatever questions we ask, it seems the government wants to go back more than three years ago when the Liberals were in power and blame the Liberals for everything. The Conservatives do not take any responsibility for the fact that they are now government.

We would think they were still in opposition. They have not really made the transition. They have not adjusted to the fact that they are government. The Conservatives have been in government for three years. It is time to be responsible. It is time to take responsibility for the job they have to do. Their duty to Canadians is to take action and take responsibility on a matter like dealing with medical isotopes, which is so important to Canadians.

There have been at least three radioactive leaks at the Chalk River site in the past few months, and now we have the indefinite shutdown of the laboratory there. The fact that the government still does not have a plan to ensure the security of our isotope supply is shocking. Canadians were exposed to the situation in 2007, so it is no wonder, after all this period of not seeing any action, they do not trust the Conservative government.

The Conservative government's answer in 2007 was not to find a long-term solution to secure the supply of medical isotopes. Instead, it was to fire the nuclear safety regulator for doing her job. It is even more clear now that she was doing her job. And the government did it in the middle of the night, not even in broad daylight, which was amazing.

A few weeks ago, Canadian Medical Association representatives were on the Hill and I spoke with a few of them, including a nuclear medicine doctor from Halifax, Dr. Andrew Ross, who is an outstanding physician and researcher. He told me that the nuclear medical community was very worried at that time about the isotope supply. That was before this shutdown and before the current crisis. He said that one major incident with a closure would create a crisis.

We had a situation already where the reactor in the Netherlands, which is a major producer of isotopes, was shut down over a long period. I gather it is now back up, but Canada was supplying over half of the world's isotope needs and the closure of Chalk River was going to cause a crisis regardless. Therefore, that has been a very big concern for the CMA—

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 26th, 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Feed Nova Scotia, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dianne Swinemar, executive director of Feed Nova Scotia, on receiving an honorary doctorate of civil law from St. Mary's University. This degree recognizes Ms. Swinemar's outstanding leadership in community activism.

I had the pleasure of working with Ms. Swinemar and I have long admired her commitment to ending chronic hunger and alleviating poverty.

Dianne led the transition of the Metro Food Bank Society from a Halifax based distribution centre to Feed Nova Scotia, a provincial food collection and distribution centre serving 150 food banks and meal programs province-wide. During the 2008 fiscal year, Feed Nova Scotia distributed 1.8 million kilograms of donated food valued at $14.4 million to local feeding programs across the province.

I ask the House to join me, her husband Lloyd, and her daughters Rebecca and Jennifer, in congratulating Ms. Swinemar on this well-deserved honour.

[Medical Isotopes, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada last failed to supply the world with medical isotopes 18 months ago. The Prime Minister's response was to scapegoat Canada's nuclear safety regulator.

Now we have the Prime Minister's hand-picked new minister, new executive at AECL, new nuclear safety regulator and over $300 million invested in Chalk River. The end result is things are worse, an indefinite shutdown, 5,000 Canadians put at risk every day.

What is the government doing to ensure this never happens again?

[Medical Isotopes, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the government announced that all activities at the Chalk River laboratories will stop for an indefinite period. The government does not know if it will be two months, eight months, or something else.

For the 5,000 Canadians awaiting diagnosis every day in Canada, this is a “catastrophe”, as one expert, Dr. François Lamoureux, said yesterday.

What will this government do to assure Canadians that this will be the last isotope crisis?

[Competition Act, May 13th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to be recorded as voting in favour of the bill.

[Forestry Industry, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has abandoned thousands of families that are suffering because of growing job losses in the forestry sector. The industry was virtually ignored in the budget, and it is clear it has been written off by the government.

Its silence is stunning when it comes to the $860 million in direct subsidies being given to the U.S. pulp and paper industry. Why is it missing in action when it should be standing up for our forestry workers?

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that they will have this 20% reduction as part of their so-called “Turning the Corner” plan, but they have not brought in any regulations to make it happen. They have done nothing to make this come into reality.

I encourage the member to speak to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources and get the Prime Minister working on this so they actually have some real effective measures. I take it from the member's comments that he must be concerned about this, at least I hope he is.

I want to mention this. He is the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I was just in Vancouver and the name of his riding describes the area very well. It is certainly a beautiful city and it was a pleasure to be there this weekend.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a reasonable concern. My hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is correct when he says this is a popular measure. People who are building decks on their cottages are probably delighted to get a break on that. We would like to get a break on all kinds of things.

If people are concerned about climate change and the environment, what would be the best place to target these? People across the country were polled back when the recession started. They told us that they wanted a stimulus, a stimulus that would focus on things to help the environment and make us more competitive. What should the focus be for that? It seems to me that it would be reasonable to say that we should focus on things that will help people make their homes or apartments more energy efficient.

While I think it is important to include homeowners in that, I do not see why we could not give people who are in apartments an opportunity to benefit from the same kind of program.