Nathan Cullen

[Bicycle Path Promotion Act, June 1st, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, An Act to promote the development of bicycle paths.

Mr. Speaker, this is the result of the second winner of our contest. A young man, Luke Santerno, who is here with his mother, was able to come forward with a bill that is backed by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, a strong advocate of bicycles in Canada.

This young man has realized that with all of the infrastructure development that has either been promised or committed to in the country, there is almost no consideration for those who wish to use bicycles, those who wish to get themselves to and from work by a means of transportation other than the automobile. This young man has come forward to say that all future considerations of funding coming from this place must consider the use of bicycle lanes in all of those infrastructure implementations.

This, again, is the young people of Canada coming forward and pointing us in a direction, showing us what the generation to come wants to see now and in the future. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to consider that voice, to give strength and power to that voice and to support the bill. Let us get it done.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, June 1st, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (asbestos).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce two bills that are the product of a competition called “Create Your Canada”, which we have been running in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the last year or so. We believe it is the first time in Parliament's history that a competition has been run among young people to come forward with their best ideas for the country.

This idea, presented by Hayley McDermid, Claire Hinchliffe and Chloe Staiger, who are looking on right now, is to ban asbestos in all its forms. It is backed by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who has worked long and hard on this issue.

It presents to Parliament, in all clarity and purposefulness, the vision of what young people in Canada look for, which is leadership from the House to protect the health and welfare of Canadians and also of our trading partners, so we do not export our cancer overseas or we do not export misery to the countries with which we deal.

These young people have shown us the way. I look for the full and confident support of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a medical crisis the Conservatives created, a $50 billion deficit of their own making and a global recession they ignored until it was too late, those financial geniuses across the way think it is a good time to have a fire sale of public assets.

Canadians will be on the hook for any toxic waste produced in the future, any cost overruns in Ontario and the liability in the event of a nuclear accident.

Why is the government hitting the panic button and putting the health of Canadians at risk?

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government has stumbled from one nuclear crisis to another.

First, it runs Canada's isotope producer into the ground, causing distress and concerns for thousands of Canadian cancer patients, which, a year and a half ago, the government said was a life-and-death situation but now thinks a three month study group will be enough.

Then, in the middle of a global recession, when prices are at their lowest, the Conservatives are hell-bent on privatizing a crown corporation for which Canadians ponied up $20 billion.

Why now, during an economic crisis, do the Conservatives see an opportunity to hack up AECL for bargain basement prices?

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-20 is about limiting liability in the case of a nuclear accident. It is something that needs modernization, but I have a curiosity about one of the points the member raised. The Liberal Party has concerns about whether this is the right amount of liability to apply to the nuclear industry. For Canadians to follow this, a cap is placed on the amount of compensation that can be paid out to individuals or communities in the event of an accident.

He has expressed concerns about whether the limit of $650 million is the right limit. We have seen a number of nuclear accidents happen over the years. I am not talking about Chernobyl, but relatively small ones have gone through $1 billion or more in compensation with a start. The Americans have a $10 billion pool. The Japanese and Europeans have unlimited liability in their nuclear facilities in terms of compensation. Canada is putting in $650 million in liability.

If the member is concerned about the level of liability that is placed in the bill, is he aware, from all of the advice that we have received, that it cannot be amended at the committee stage? If the Liberal Party votes for the bill at second reading and puts it to committee, it is also endorses and votes for the liability level set out in the bill. He must be comfortable with that liability level. This is something I hope my colleague will be clear about with us today.

If he is comfortable with that, then great. That is his choice and his party's decision. However, he cannot raise concerns about it not being enough money and then say we might fix it later. This cannot be fixed later. It either is this amount or it is not.

I would like a clarification on what my colleague has expressed as a concern so far.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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