Jack Harris

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2009]

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.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2009]

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.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2009]

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.

[Search and Rescue, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is 25 years since the Ocean Ranger commission recommended a fully equipped search and rescue helicopter be stationed at the St. John's airport and we are still waiting. Now Labradorians have learned that their search and rescue base will be empty for six weeks while the crew gets trained in Alberta.

The Minister of National Defence says it is not his problem. That is not acceptable to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially those who are now being asked to resume flying to work offshore after the tragedy two months ago.

When will the minister take responsibility and finally give the people of my province the search and rescue coverage that they need?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 11th, 2009]

With respect to equipment issued to personnel of Crown corporations, agencies, organizations and departments, on an annual basis over the last four years: (a) how many uniforms, firearms, explosive devices, stun grenades, tasers, and pepper spray canisters have been lost in this period; (b) to which Crown entity did the items belong; (c) when and in which locations did they go missing; (d) what is the estimated cost of these losses, by item; (e) how many vehicles were stolen during this period; (f) to which Crown entity did the vehicles belong; (g) when and in which locations did they go missing; (h) what is the estimated cost of these losses, by incident; (i) how many security passes have gone missing from locations that could pose a threat to national security or public safety; (j) to which facilities did the passes belong; (k) in which month and year were the losses reported; (l) what was the evaluated security threat posed by each loss; (m) how many laptop computers containing information sensitive to national security have gone missing; (n) to which facilities did the computers belong; (o) on which month and year were the losses reported; and (p) what was the evaluated security threat posed by each loss?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, clearly not and that underscores the difficulty that most of us in Canada have, particularly those who are engaged in this seal harvest.

Here is a community which is saying that on the one hand, morally it does not think the animals should be harvested, even though it is sustainable, and at the same time, the EU is not condemning the practices of its own member countries in the same oceans and ecosystem.

I think that is wrong and why we need to condemn that ban. It is not consistent with the high moral tone that the EU purports to have, which is totally absent when it comes to its fishing practices which have not only destroyed our coasts, but as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, other coasts throughout the world.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, obviously Canada has been trying to take the lead. In fact, the fisheries committee has been urging Canada to take the lead with respect to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks in ensuring that the fish stocks are not destroyed.

The Globe and Mail, on Tuesday, May 5, contains a nice story, which I find disturbing. The headline is “Whales make comeback, other marine life in peril”. As we know, whales were hunted almost to extinction in the latter part of the last century and the early part of this century due to over-hunting.

This is obviously not happening to the seals, but one of the species that is at risk is called American plaice, found off the east coast of Newfoundland. It is being overfished by, guess who, the same people who are banning the import of seal products into Europe and at the same time engaging in overfishing practices. We have a great deal of difficulty controlling them.

Canada should be playing a role with international organizations to try to bring this under control. We have been having great difficulty with NAFO, as anybody who has been following that knows. We have to take a stronger role in terms of control off our own shores but also insist that other nations be more diligent as well, and stop the illegal and obviously unsustainable practices.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the concurrence debate on the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I will be sharing my time with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who is a member of the committee and took part in the unanimous report that is before us.

The committee considered the matter of the seal harvest. I want to talk about some of the elements of the report and the very brief statement approving that the methods of harvesting are fully acceptable, that the harp seal hunt is humane, responsible and sustainable, which are the three elements that people in the European Union have attacked in trying to justify the ban of the seal harvest.

The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor talked about the history of the seal harvest in Canada. It goes back many hundreds of years. Seals have been harvested for food, fuel, shelter, fur and other products for hundreds of years. Seal products consist of leather, oil, handicrafts, meat for human and animal consumption, as well as seal oil capsules rich in omega 3 fatty acids and other nutraceuticals. It is a product that has been used for many years and for many reasons and has a legitimate place in the market.

If we think of the island of Newfoundland as a triangle with St. Anthony at the top, Port aux Basques in one corner and St. John's in another, some people do not know that the whole northeast coast, the area from St. Anthony to St. John's, was only able to become settled year round by virtue of the fact that there was a seal harvest. That enabled people to live through the winter. Until the seal harvest there was a migratory fishery. The only people who stayed were the ones who escaped their masters and managed to find a way to survive. The viability of that coast came about as a result of the seal harvest, which was a fairly precarious and dangerous livelihood but one people engaged in.

Throughout most of Newfoundland's history, the seal fishery, as it was known, was the only source of cash for people who lived and survived on what was known as the truck system. They lived off their obligations to the merchant who supposedly looked after them, bought all of their product but only charged them a fee for what they consumed. They never had any cash. The seal fishery was the cash component of their income. Today it still accounts for between 25% and 35% of those engaged in the seal harvest.

I want to go back to another fisheries report. It has been studied by Parliament on a number of occasions. One of the most recent and comprehensive reports done by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was done two years ago and it was issued in April 2007.

My colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, was a member of that committee. As well, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte participated in that report. It was a very comprehensive report. It focused on the sustainability, the humaneness, the economic, social and cultural importance and the role of the seal harvest in achieving and maintaining an ecological balance within the marine ecosystem. It was a very serious report on the study of these aspects. It concluded the following on sustainability, and this is a quote from the European Commission:

It agrees with the European Commission that: “The seal populations in question are currently not endangered and are therefore not regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).” In addition, experts told the Committee that the Northwest Atlantic population of harp seal was probably one of the best managed wildlife species in the world.

We have heard other colleagues say that the population has grown from about two million animals in the early 1970s to nearly six million, and some say seven million, today. That is an indication that the issue of sustainability is not in question and that it is being properly managed by DFO.

On the issue of humaneness, again, upon reviewing the evidence presented by expert independent veterinarians, the committee believes that the harp seal harvest is humane. The methods used to kill the seals, the hakapik and rifle, satisfy standards for humane killing and euthanasia, and compare favourably to methods used in slaughterhouses across the country. That would be true of Europe as well. If the issue were about humaneness or cruelty, people would not be dealing with the seal harvest, but they might be dealing with issues having to do with pâté de foie made in France and other countries, and the treatment in the production of veal.

Humaneness is not the issue here. Most of the seals are actually harvested with the use of the rifle on the front, which is the area off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. The estimates go from 75% to 90%. In the gulf and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the hakapik is the more traditional harvesting tool.

On the issue of the economic, social and cultural importance of the seal harvest, the committee concluded that the seal harvest was an important part of the economic, cultural and social fabric of Canada's east coast and the north, where thousands rely on this activity as an important source of income. We are dealing with something that has a value economically, socially and culturally.

There is another point which is not often talked about, although we heard some colleagues talk about it today. The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine spoke about the importance of the seal harvest to the ecological balance within the marine ecosystem. Here the committee said that it believed that the seal harvest has a crucial role in achieving and maintaining an ecological balance with other marine species, including those valued by humans.

Many people who talk about ecology talk about the relationship between animals and the environment, but they leave out one of the animals that is pretty important to all of this, and that is humans who are also part of the marine and other ecosystems. Humans and animals interact in this environment. The role of the seal harvest is part of that ecological balance. If we took the seal harvest out of this equation, we would see an ecological imbalance that would lead to an increase in seal numbers, perhaps an increase in predation upon the food supply, such as the cod fish and other marine species, to the point of collapse of them as an economic harvest and also to the point of collapse of the food supply, a collapse of the seal population itself or the necessity for a cull. The balance is achieved in part by the role of the seal harvest.

After considering the four principles of sustainability and conservation of marine resources, all political parties represented on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans remain united in their support for the commercial seal harvest, and then recommendations followed.

It is important to understand that today's motion concerns a report which is the product of many years of study by committees of the House. They are responsible, objective and understanding. They listen to experts. They try to be independent. They recognize the historical, cultural, social and economic value of the harvest. It has been determined on each and every occasion that this is a sustainable, viable, humane hunt. It is not that they did not recommend changes. The regulations have been changed and improved over the years. Yet we are still faced with the ban by the European Union.

We have heard about the role of the ban and the images that have been generated in order to encourage public opinion to impose the ban. The image we have seen for 25 or 30 years is the white coat seal, normally with a tear running down from its eye, which is supposed to indicate the sorrow of the animal. I understand that it does not indicate that at all, but rather is a natural tearing. Nevertheless, that image is used to raise money to support the advertising. It is a vicious circle of using money to raise money to get more images to provide political support.

I agree with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. There are many people on the other side of the issue who have a very responsible, philosophical position for which I have great respect. A person who chooses not to eat meat, not to wear animal products such as leather belts or shoes and decides he or she wants to live without relying on animals, I have a great deal of respect for that opinion. A person who is a vegetarian by philosophy or belief has every right to do that and I have great respect for people who choose that way of life. However, there is a bit of a difference, and I am not saying this is what everybody is into, between being a vegetarian and insisting that no one else be allowed to eat meat. That is what we are dealing with here, a very great difference of opinion.

I see that my time is up and I hope I can elaborate on one or two of these points--

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2009]

With respect to the death of Canadian Forces member MCpl. Joshua Roberts: (a) what information did the government possess that informed Lt Gen. Leslie’s initial explanation to MCpl. Roberts’ family at the repatriation ceremony that MCpl. Roberts was killed by gunfire from Afghans contracted by Compass Security; (b) what information did the government uncover subsequent to Lt Gen. Leslie’s explanation which resulted in the conclusion reached by the National Investigation Service (NIS) that MCpl. Roberts was killed by insurgent gunfire; (c) what information does the government possess that is sufficient to dismiss the statements by Afghans working for Compass Security that they fired their weapons during the firefight in which MCpl. Roberts was killed; (d) what information does the government possess that is sufficient to dismiss the statements made by Canadian and U.S. soldiers present at a roadblock a short distance away from the firefight that indicated they believed it was Compass Security personnel who fired on MCpl. Roberts’ unit; (e) how can the government consider the investigation to be closed and Compass Security completely exonerated when the forensic examination from the bullet that killed MCpl. Roberts was inconclusive; (f) what information does the government possess to explain how the bullet that killed MCpl. Roberts fell out of his body during transit; (g) as the medical officer who wrote the initial report into MCpl. Roberts death concluded that the direction of the bullet that killed MCpl. Roberts could not be determined, what information does the government possess that informed the conclusion in the NIS report that the bullet was fired from an insurgent position; (h) as the NIS report notes that Canadian soldiers came under fire from friendly call signs during the firefight in which MCpl. Roberts was killed, what information does the government possess which definitively rules out any role for friendly fire in causing the death of MCpl. Roberts; (i) why was the video footage from the helmet cameras of soldiers present during the death of MCpl. Roberts ordered erased before it could be analyzed as part of an investigation; (j) why was the family of MCpl. Roberts repeatedly told that they had to realize that an election was going on in response to their repeated requests for the release of information related to the death of MCpl. Roberts; and (k) is it the policy of the government to require families of Canadian soldiers killed in action to go through access to information mechanisms to obtain the official documentation, such as NIS reports or autopsy reports, into the death of their relative?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2009]

With respect to public opinion polling undertaken by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office only, for the last four years: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to public opinion firms; (b) which firms won contracts, on what date and in what amount; and (c) what was the general topic probed by each contract?