Nathan Cullen

[Phthalate Control Act, November 1st, 2007]

moved that Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, no offence to the distinguished Speaker, but one of my favourite parts of this bill is to hear the various Speakers in the House attempt the pronunciation of the name of this bill, which we did not do, Mr. Speaker, I will offer you that. That was done by some of the drafters of the legislation who worked with us.

All kidding aside, this is a very serious piece of legislation. We have been working through it for over a year and a half now with various supporters from across the non-profit sector and the health community and various members of Parliament. It has received broad support.

While I have to mention a small source of disappointment here, there have been many inspirational moments along the way as we have worked diligently on this bill to see it through. It is something that we believe is good for Canadians and particularly good for the health of our children.

The first point came when we saw that what was meant to be an hour or so of debate in committee turned into four to six hours, with constant foot dragging by some within government, and with some within the bureaucracy itself taking out elements of the bill that, I would remind those in government, have now been adopted in full scale and measure in California law and in the entire European Union.

Somehow the claim that this was dangerous for the Canadian economy was some sort of excuse for stripping out the important aspects of health. Now, tonight, when we have an opportunity, an opportunity we believed we had with all four parties in this place, to move this bill through quickly and get it into law, which all parties claim to want to do, we have the government deciding that it needs to take the full measure of its time to debate.

To debate what exactly? Nothing. The government has nothing to fundamentally disagree with in this bill. We have made the changes. We have listened to department officials. Now the government wants to spend yet more time on it. This is apparently a government in a hurry to not do much, because tonight we have the opportunity to move this bill through and all three opposition parties are willing to do so. The government is not willing to do so and for no coherent reason whatsoever.

We have attempted time and time again to work with government officials and to work with my colleagues on the government benches, to allay their fears, to modify the bill and to work this legislation through to a point of satisfaction. We have arrived. The bill is satisfactory to all parties. We expect unanimous consent on the bill.

However, here in an opportunity we have to move it forward, there is some strange alchemy that happens in the deep bowels of the government such that it decides this cooperation just does not feel right somehow, so it has to wind the clock out again.

Nevertheless, we need to talk about the merits of the bill and its prospects of improving the health and welfare of Canadians in regard to dealing with phthalates. This group or family of chemicals is the absolute poster boy for unintended consequences.

Typically when a chemical is designed by chemical manufacturers and producers, they design it for an industrial purpose, to apply it in some commercial product and to perform some function. In this case, it is the softening of plastics. Phthalates allow certain plastics to be more malleable. It seems like a pretty innocuous effort, but unfortunately this type of chemical also leaks out and causes serious and considerable health effects, particularly in children.

Now clearly we took on an issue and wanted to prove a point. We think we have been able to establish that point: the merits of the precautionary principle, the principle that says we must take all precautions before we allow something onto the market and into Canadians' blood. Unfortunately, the sad history of chemical law in Canada has been far too cautious in the other direction. There is an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Unfortunately, that has led to far too many ailments for Canadians, far too many illnesses and deaths.

In this case, phthalates now have been substantially proven across this whole region, in Health Canada reports and in others in the United States and Europe, to have serious health considerations. We think the bill is measured in its approach to banning this in some of the most serious and significant areas.

It is also duly noted that one of the few ways phthalates can be released from a product is through mastication, or chewing, and the unfortunate convergence of having this material in toys and implements for children that are meant to be chewed has created this awful scenario. That of course was not designed by the manufacturers, but it creates a health worry for Canadians.

Right now in Canada when a parent or a family member buys a toy for a child, there is absolutely no way to know whether it contains these chemicals or not. There is no proper labelling system in this country and there obviously is no proper ban; hence the need for this bill. We also find this chemical in women's cosmetics and certain vinyl sidings and floorings and in some surgical equipment.

Through all of this, there is this constant effort to pit the economy against the environment. We heard time and again from some witnesses, particularly those from within the department, what would happen if we banned phthalates in medical equipment. I can remember one official who said that Canadians would die on the surgery tables because there would be no medical equipment available to them because of this bill.

That is remarkable because in that same testimony there were nurses and doctors from the United States who brought products with them that were phthalate free. They had lists of entire hospitals that have declared themselves phthalate free and have banned the chemical entirely from their hospitals with no consequence.

It is an important lesson for us all as parliamentarians when we think about doing our work in this place, that the interests of the people we hope to represent must be first and foremost. Any argument made against those interests has to be verified before we accept it.

When the manufacturing sector, for example, comes forward with a doom and gloom scenario, or a department official for whatever reason presents evidence, too often in this place we are willing to take it as scripture. We are not willing to challenge it to its core and present alternative views and really get to the truth of the matter.

WIth respect to phthalates, the truth of the matter is that the role and responsibility of government is to protect our citizens. Whatever stripe the government has, its role and responsibility first and foremost is to look after the well-being particularly of those who are unable to look after it themselves, in this case children and those receiving care at a hospital.

As these plastic softeners are removed in California and Europe and many other states, Canada must get in line because there will be a reverse consequence on industry. If we do not ban this chemical in our manufacturing cycle, it will put Canadian companies at a disadvantage because they will not be able to sell into those markets anymore. They will only be able to sell to the Canadian market which allows these toxins to be present in materials.

It becomes an absolutely insane scenario. Clearly we have made enough arguments in this place and at committee that this should be accepted.

It is important for us all to look at how the government has functioned to this point similar to the previous regime when dealing with chemicals. It is very difficult for Canadians to get a full grasp of the myriad of chemicals, thousands upon thousands of chemicals, where the studies are often limited and scripted to not necessarily bring us to the full conclusion.

There are studies that have been done over a 24 hour period, nothing longitudinal at all. There are studies that have been done where there is no combination of chemicals given. Two chemicals may appear safe on their own, but combine the two and put them in a breakfast cereal and there is a real problem.

There is no capacity within the government as it goes through its chemical screening to present to Canadians a completely safe product stream with any kind of certainty.

This is a bill which sets a precedent. Health Canada did a study and tested the products not so long ago and came to the conclusion that this was safe for Canadians. We questioned what products had been looked at. Did the study look at children's toys? Did it look at cosmetics? No, it did not.

The study had excluded the very products where the concern lay and yet officials were standing in front of us saying that these things were okay. They said that a certain group of chemicals was okay to apply when the main area of concern, the main way in which they enter the human system, was excluded from the study. It is patently ridiculous, specious and dishonest. It is time for us to take full measure and account for what it is that we accept and what we allow into Canadians on a daily basis.

[The Environment, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the environment, the Conservatives are starting to look a lot more like the Liberals. Another commissioner of the environment report and another disaster for Canada's environment. Spanning two disastrous regimes, twelve years, four government plans, six department strategies and there is one more failing grade for a government on the environment.

When is the government going to take the issue seriously and start delivering for this country?

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is now straight into the realm of law reform and potentially limiting liability and lawsuit claimants in other jurisdictions. There has been much research on this and I claim no expertise, but oftentimes people point to south of the border and what happens there, where someone sues for $6 million and the net benefit to society diminishes through this structure of law and the ability to seek compensation. If that is the proposal of the government, I have yet to see it. It has not been suggested as a priority if that is where it is headed.

On this issue though, all we have asked is if the Conservatives are going to limit liability that they be up front with Canadians because we will be on the hook collectively for any accidents that go beyond the limit.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is the issue of legacy, and liability is significant in her part of the world where there have been a number of near experimentations tried when it comes to energy mix and some more proposed liquefied natural gas and the rest.

I think Canadians can be forgiven for having a great deal of suspicion and doubt when government speaks about the environment. I actually feel a small amount of sympathy for the Conservatives on various days when I watch them try to wrestle their ideology with what the current polling trends in Canada are showing them, which is that there is a deep and heartfelt concern for the environment, particularly around the issue of climate change, but it extends to other issues such as water quality and species at risk.

The suspicion is well warranted, frankly, because I have watched the government and the previous government up close, a little too closely many days, trying to wrestle with the various choices that they have had available to them. Members all remember the initial thrust of the current government coming into office when it had virtually no interest in the environment whatsoever. It has struggled and stumbled. Canadians can be forgiven for suspecting the government all the more.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the communities' representation in taking on the risk of containing and holding nuclear waste for generations, the record is certainly mixed.

When the Nuclear Waste Management Organization was asked how many of the couple of hundred communities it visited came forward with interest in proceeding with the investigation into taking in this waste, the answer from that organization was none. I know its agenda was different.

The important thing for communities to consider is who gets to make the decision at the end of the day, and whether the people making that decision have the necessary information in order to make a decision that will have long-lasting implications far beyond their tenure, far beyond their lives on this earth.

The promotion of false promises is a very dangerous thing when it comes to the environment. I think Canadians are at a point of discouragement right now when considering the government's ability to deal with environmental issues that are facing it, whether it is species at risk or climate change, which is directly connected to this questions of the energy mix that we use.

All we suggest and all we encourage is that the debate become as transparent and as open as possible when talking about unlimited or limited liability as to who picks up the tab.

In terms of the mining sector, I will be honest with my colleague that the mining associations I deal with in British Columbia do not mine any of these materials. We have not yet seen an implication of unlimited liability apply to mining for uranium. We would be interested in and look forward to the debate in committee.

However, we know that the bonding scheme that has been encouraged through the mining associations has much improved over the last 15 years but it needs a lot more work.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we think the folks at the agency do good work. They attempt to mitigate the inherent risks that exist within this industry.

Part of the intention of my speech earlier was to highlight and acknowledge those risks. I think it is specious to present to Canadians what some elements of the nuclear industry have done, which is to present little puffy white clouds on a blue background with words like “clear” and “giving assurance”. The reason we need to give assurance is that the nuclear industry had a bit of a rough ride through the eighties and nineties in terms of liability.

I have a question for the government, which remains unanswered. We are very well aware of the concept of limited liability for insurance. If claims go beyond the cap that is set under the bill--and other industries have put caps of $1 billion and more, by the way, for contextual reasons, higher density populations and the rest--we simply want to know who picks up the tab. I think it is a fair question. We have yet to hear an answer from any member on the government benches.

If the answer to that question is no, that this will not be levelled on the taxpayers, this will not be spread across every federal taxpaying person in Canada, that this will be concentrated back to the industry and the industry will then need to somehow grab those costs, then we look forward to the answer. However, we are yet to hear it. That is a straightforward and simple question and it deserves a straightforward and simple answer.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I enter the debate today. I have listened to a number of my colleagues from all sides of the House, and it is with growing concern rather than reassurance that I rise today to address the bill, simply because of my concern about the depth of knowledge of my colleagues and about whether some colleagues who have spoken to the bill have read the piece of legislation or considered its implications.

In the nuclear energy context, I think there are two central facts around which people pivot their concerns. One probably gets an undue amount of attention, and I think there is a need for greater balance, and it is around the environmental component and the fact that the off-products of nuclear are serious, long-lasting and immensely damaging not only to human health but to the planet in general. The second is financial, as to whether the nuclear industry, if left to its own devices, would be able to compete with the other forms of energy that exist within our energy mix in the country. It is a subsidized industry at various points along the process, and now we are entering the debate very specifically about the limited liability that the government is putting forward.

Allow me to say two things first before I get into the details of each of those aspects. One is that the review of this act is long overdue. The world has moved on significantly from when the act was first put together. Its application is no longer connected with any reality in regard to what is happening in the world and in the state of the nuclear industry.

Second, let me just comment that I think the Minister of Natural Resources, who spoke earlier today, did himself and the issue a disservice by not coming forward completely and transparently with what the implications are. There were several direct questions that we in my party put to him, just to simply lay the facts on the table, not one way or the other, but simply to put them on the table so that we can have a fair and honest debate in this place. At every opportunity, the minister chose to avoid answering the questions directly.

This pertains specifically to the liability question and the fact that within the bill the movement is from a $75 million cap to a $650 million cap on limited liability. The minister pretended, and in a sense stretched the point to nearly misleading the House, to say that the cap was a floor and that liability would start from $650 million and then go up.

I then took the bill itself to the minister to show him that in fact this is not a floor. As written in the bill, it is a ceiling. If he wishes to change that, then we look forward to the amendments, but presenting it as a floor as opposed to a ceiling changes the whole context. The $650 million that is noted in the bill as limited liability for the industry suggests to us and to many others who study these issues that beyond $650 million there is another question that arises: who picks up the tab in the event of a nuclear disaster or accident if the claims go beyond $650 million?

To some Canadians who are watching and following this debate, a little over half a billion dollars might seem like quite a bit, but we have to localize and contextualize the discussion. These nuclear plants do not tend to be located in far-flung places. They tend to be located in densely populated parts of our country. They tend to be located right next to much of the most significant drinking water supplies for our country and also for our neighbours to the south.

As for the implications of an accident, we certainly do not wish it and we encourage the government to take every mean and measure possible to prevent it, but an accident by its very nature is not predictable. An accident is an unknown, but it can happen, and if it never did we certainly would not need the insurance industry at all. However, the implications are extraordinary.

Of course when we get into debates on energy use and the profile of this country, the words and specific attributes of every energy source are important. The nuclear industry has gone to great lengths and measures to present itself as clear and clean. It uses a very well polled and well versed terminology to assure Canadians that it is an okay source of energy with few implications.

We do not have to be rocket scientists to understand that nuclear waste is extraordinarily dangerous. It lasts far beyond our lives and may last far beyond the existence of countries as we know them today. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of years.

There are implications for us as parliamentarians, as decision makers and leaders of this country, when dealing with issues that have implications that last many generations. There are implications that are more serious than we have seen in the debate to this point. We have a responsibility and an obligation to dig through the bill, to dig through the issue itself with the greatest scrutiny available to us, with all the information and the power we can muster, simply because the ramifications of what happens as a result of our decisions will not in all likelihood be borne by us but by generations to come.

We all care for our children, our grandchildren and our families. It is most important when dealing with issues like this one that we take the time as the parliamentarians to scrutinize those issues to the fullest extent.

So when the nuclear industry comes forward and says it is clear and clean, with all the rest of the jargon and spin it hires very competent marketing agencies to do, it flies in the face of what is actually in the bill. That is simply because to say there is no risk or no element of risk within the nuclear industry is a bit specious considering that under the list of compensatory damage are listed: “Bodily injury or damage to property; Psychological trauma; Close personal relationship; Liability for economic loss; Costs and wages; Power failure”; and “Environmental damage”. These are all conditions under which, in this piece of legislation, the supplier of nuclear energy can be taken to court and sued.

Let us take a look at that list. What is the limit for psychological trauma as a result of a nuclear accident? What is the limit on psychological trauma suffered by anyone in a close personal relationship with a person who has suffered bodily injury as a result of a nuclear accident? What about liability for economic loss? What about economic loss due to power failure or economic loss due directly to the incident itself? As for costs and wages, again, is it for those people directly affected or for anybody in an ancillary position who has been affected as well?

These are extraordinarily extensive realms and parameters in which someone could apply for compensation from the courts. As for suggesting, then, that we are going to limit the liability for this to provide what is essentially investor certainty for anyone looking to make a dollar through the nuclear industry, and then suggesting that this Parliament will then convene a special committee to pick up the tab for the rest of any damages that are forthcoming, let us be honest about the debate, folks.

Let us simply name it as it is and say that this is the ceiling. That is what is described in this bill as we have read it. The minister has said otherwise. In that case, I am not sure that he has read the legislation or if he is choosing to interpret it in a way opposite to how it is written.

There is obviously special treatment for the nuclear industry. This has been an industry that Canada has fostered for many decades. It has attempted to export it to other countries, with some success and some failure in bringing our technology to other countries. There are negotiations going on right now with some countries in the developing world to further export this technology, again with long term and serious implications in regard to the decision.

One wonders if the same application, the same treatment, is given to other industries, other industries with major investment, which the nuclear industry has had, other industries that have incurred liability. When an airline is begun in Canada or when someone brings an airline to Canada, does the government offer a limited liability insurance guarantee through the Parliament of Canada? When the auto industry got its start in Canada, was there an implication of the limited liability applied to the auto sector to say that if it had a major malfunction in any of its products, any of its cars, that the government would pick up the tab beyond a certain point?

We are aware of none. Perhaps some of my colleagues from the government can offer some points and suggest that in fact the nuclear industry is not treated as a special circumstance. That would be enlightening for us.

The nuclear debate is an extraordinarily sensitive hot topic. There is a lot of to-and-fro. There are extremes on both sides. Over the years we have seen various politicians go to the lengths of actually taking effluent from a nuclear plant and drinking it to show just how incredibly safe that effluent is. Those folks are no longer with us.

It is lamentable, but it shows that in the face of serious concern and evidence, in order to play politics, in order to assure Canadians that everything is okay despite overwhelming evidence, some politicians have gone to the extreme and have threatened and ended their own lives.

There is also the other extreme, with people presenting the case of nuclear energy in such tones of conflict as to suggest that it is the devil incarnate and brings forward all sorts of destruction by its very existence.

We think the balance point is in between. We think there is a place where we can achieve a serious and honest debate about the use of nuclear energy in our energy mix in this country. It is necessary to do that and we need to have representatives of the government come forward to present the facts as they are written in the legislation and not try to pretend they are otherwise.

There is indeed a lesson of unintended consequences when looking through legislation like this. It is very difficult for parliamentarians to imagine the various trajectories that can be taken with an issue like this. It is difficult to imagine what the energy mix, profile and demands will be in 50 or 100 years.

That brings me to the second point, which is about the environment. The financial circumstances of the nuclear industry, at least within this province in which we are debating, Ontario, have been mixed at best. There have been cost overruns. There have been liability claims. Ontario taxpayers, and through them the federal coffers as well, have picked up an enormous debt. It is for the Ontario voters to decide what they will do. Let us not kid ourselves. There have been rampant issues with and difficulties faced by the nuclear industry in making ends meet in simply operating cost-efficient electricity production.

On the environmental side, there are obviously the two main components of this. In this particular bill we are dealing with accidents. We are dealing with those times when things go wrong in a serious and significant way with implications that are far-reaching.

My colleague spoke earlier of the nature of a nuclear accident and its ability to produce a variety of contamination effects that can spread out over many thousands of hectares. The cleanup of such effects is extraordinarily expensive, never mind the cost to human health and insurance as dealt with under the bill.

The other component of the environment, of course, is the legacy of the waste. What do we do with the waste? The minister did speak truthfully earlier. It was a unique and enlightening moment when he talked about the creation of a committee that has gone around the country to talk about the issue of nuclear waste.

When those committee members came before the environment committee some time ago, the only real question I had for them about the 200 or so community visits they conducted across the country was to find out in how many communities, as I suggested at the end of their presentation, a nuclear waste facility was welcome in the municipality. Most of these presentations were done at the municipal level. If we want to talk for a moment about a legacy, the question is being put to these small regional districts and small communities in a presentation of facts by this nuclear waste committee in regard to making a decision that would last for generations to come.

It is a fascinating thing to look at the structure of municipal politics within this country, because most people enter politics for a three year term. They enter for a variety of reasons, such as making the sidewalks better or changing the tax base within their community, but rarely have I heard a municipal politician running for office say, “Vote for me because I want to make decisions about nuclear waste for our community”. Rarely have I heard municipal politicians say they want to make decisions that will have implications and effects that will last for generations to come. It is just not within the general context of what happens within municipal affairs.

I asked the committee members how many communities, mayors, councillors and presidents of chambers of commerce approached them during, afterward or before the presentation and said, “Please come and be a part of our community and form your industry here”. After four attempts at getting an answer, one was finally delivered. “None” was the response. There were no communities that said this. Of course the government has since gone ahead and is pushing the debate further in trying to find a place to put the waste. It is a serious implication.

Earlier a number of my colleagues raised the issue of climate change. We have to keep in mind that globally in the nuclear industry the amount of power provided by it is smaller than that provided by what we now call the alternatives: wind, solar, wave and tidal. There is often a perception out there that the nuclear industry and nuclear power provide this source of energy that is just absolutely irreplaceable.

This is so often trotted out as an excuse for why the energy mix is the way it is and why it will be so forevermore. Governments will come forward with self-fulfilling prophecies and say that currently we produce 13% of our energy through coal or nuclear, or whatever the case may be, and if we were to strip that out tomorrow, this is what the implications would be; therefore, they say, we need to continue with the source of energy that we find worrisome, whether it is with respect to climate change or other environmental concerns.

If we continue to point ourselves in that direction, that is the place we will end up. That has been the legacy of energy policy in Canada for the last 40 years. It is a continuance of more of the same.

Now we have questions and concerns coming out of the U.S. The energy agency is now looking at the tar sands as one of its major focuses, not simply to take energy from them but concerns around the climate change impact of what that energy delivers. This is a classic example of a government getting on a track and enjoying the gravy train so much that it cannot consider pulling in the implications of what the true cost of doing business is.

Looking at the nuclear front, we must include the true cost of doing business. If we put false ceilings on liability, if we continue to subsidize various parts of the chain, we present a false debate and a false option to Canadians. We pretend that the cost of production is only so much per kilowatt when actually it is much more because the subsidies are built in all along the way and not accounted for, as are the externalities, in this case the externality of liability, the externality that is put forward as waste management.

We can no longer consider this term “externality” as a viable economic argument. It is specious, it is wrong and it will continue to lead us in the wrong direction when it comes to caring for the planet and the implications of climate change.

If business is what the government claims to be all about, then it should allow business to do what it does, which is to find economic solutions to the problems posed by society. Subsidies are no way to solve an energy mix. Subsidies are no way to look at what it is we want our future generations to be left with. Clearly, the forces of the market can allow themselves to work and find a happier compromise.

If levelling the playing field is what the government is truly interested in doing, then I can assure it, and many Canadians will join me, that in given options, time and again Canadians will pursue the option that has the least implications and impact for the environment. We clearly see this on a number of fronts that are happening in the commercial sector and in its products.

Time and again, industries realize where the benefits may be. One of the greatest challenges the auto sector has been faced with is the continuance of the making of models that it believes Canadians want while, on the other hand, the price of gas at the pump goes up week on week and Canadians are seeking lower emission cars, higher efficiency cars and yet we stay in a rut that takes us in a different direction and then lament the fact and look for help from government, which the previous government and the current government consider somehow to be a viable economic strategy.

The truth presented in this bill is that there are serious and significant implications when dealing with a nuclear accident. If it were not so, then the government would not need to, under the advice of its lawyers and insurance consultants, list bodily injury, psychological trauma, close personal relationship and trauma to somebody affected, liability for economic loss, costs of wages, power failure and environmental damage.

If there were not strong and significant implications, we would not need to list any of those. If there were not strong and serious implications for human health, we would not list them. Of course we need to list them because they need to be considered. The consideration back to government is: Why would one limit liability within the industry? Why would one then share the liability across the entire country?

I represent people from British Columbia. They will rightly ask me, as they will ask any member from British Columbia or the other provinces that do not currently use nuclear energy, “If there is an accident and if the accident exceeds the government's cap, why is the cost then spread across all provinces and all taxpayers?” It is a reasonable question. It is a question that the government needs to answer. If the government has a viable and ready answer for us, then we are prepared to discuss it. It is only in the interests of truthfulness and looking for full disclosure as to what this debate is really about.

The final point I would like to make, which has been raised by some of my colleagues, is that in the United States no similar cap can be identified that limits the nuclear energy producers to this liability limit. Does this start to create a scenario in which there is an enhancement for creating nuclear facilities north of the border rather than south? One of the greatest costs is the cost of insurance when dealing with the nuclear industry. If one of those costs is considered more favourable in another country, it starts to distort the market forces that we think deserve their time to work.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

This is very intriguing, Mr. Speaker. I am fascinated by the member's response because he is talking about worst case scenarios. We are talking about nuclear disaster. That is a worst case scenario. That is why we are talking about insurance and liability, because Canadians need to have that assurance in case there is an accident.

Nuclear energy has benefits but there are also concerns. One of them is waste and another one is accidents.

In the scenario that there is an accident, the bill right now has a limit to what the nuclear provider will carry in terms of liability. Beyond that limit, which is possible in terms of claims, especially considering where these reactors are based, their proximity to a massive amount of drinking water for a huge number of people, the public purse is likely to pick up the rest of the tab. Is he comfortable with that scenario, yes or no?

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague has such enthusiasm for a bill I am not entirely sure he has read.

When the question was put to the minister in terms of what happens to liability claims that go beyond the cap of $650 million, the minister replied that there is some legislation in front of the House which means that, just so everybody is clear and we understand, if the claims go beyond the liability the provider is meant to hold, then a committee is set up by this place and the committee would designate how much money the public coffers of Canada would dole out to the actual victims of a nuclear reactor disaster.

If the public in this case were to pick up the cost of any unforeseen accidents, is that a good scenario in terms of the public purse?

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question for the minister as he may have missed it the first time.

It is possible that there will be more than $650 million involved with respect to claimants considering where these nuclear plants are actually located and the number of people who would be affected by a major nuclear disaster such as a meltdown or other such thing. I know the minister has based this amount on others, but we do know of countries that have gone into the billions of dollars in terms of setting their cap. Why limit the liability? If the liability is limited to this point, clearly it is an investment certainty, who would pay the tab beyond that? Will it fall to the public sector? Would Canadians, who are in the process of suing for some compensation, be left out in the cold?

It is a very straightforward question, and I would appreciate an answer.