Madam Speaker, the legislation before the House is Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
In dealing with nuclear energy and every aspect of its regulation, we also deal with the choices we make as a society in terms of the energy sources we use as fuel to carry out our economic activities. When we talk about energy resources, we are talking not only nuclear energy, but also about hydro power. We are talking about renewable energy sources, like coal. We are talking about energy resources of all kinds. So, of course, we have to talk about the need to ratify Kyoto. It would be the first step to take.
The bill amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to vary the classes of persons that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may order to take measures to reduce the level of contamination of a place.
As I mentioned earlier, when putting a question to a member, the bill stipulates that the commission may, and I quote:
--order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.
The wording, “any other person with a right to or interest in the affected land or place”, is quite broad. This is the situation at this time and thus funders could be held responsible, should the owner or the person in control of a place become insolvent, for decontaminating a place contaminated by nuclear activity, whether by waste or by the activity as such.
We believe this is appropriate, not only for the owners and persons in control of a place who use this form of energy, but also for all those who take the risk of investing in that form of energy. We believe the amendments proposed in the bill are not relevant. The bill would replace the words:
--any other person with a right to or interest in the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination
by the following words:
--any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.
Under the bill, a whole category of corporations and persons who, at this time, have obligations under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, would no longer have those obligations. As I said earlier, as matters now stand, the commission could compel a bank that has loaned money to a business that is unable, by reason of insolvency, to decontaminate its site, to do so. With Bill C-4, the bank would not have to bear that responsibility, and we do not believe this is appropriate.
We support the intent of the bill, namely that nuclear energy involves an extremely high risk. The natural resources minister recognized it himself when he introduced his proposal. He said that it is intended to exclude funders from the categories of persons who could be asked by the commission to decontaminate a place or a land, because those people would probably not want to take the risk of investing in businesses that own or operate nuclear plants, considering the high risks involved in nuclear energy. We do not see why those investors, who are aware of the risk, should be exempted from their responsibilities in terms of decontamination.
It bears repeating that nuclear energy should be dropped. Obviously, that cannot be done overnight. In Ontario, for example, it is an extremely important source of energy. Quebec has long stopped building nuclear plants. We realized that it was not only dangerous, but that it also produced an enormous amount of waste. Besides, there are other much more attractive alternatives. More on that later.
The minister is aware that nuclear energy involves great risks and wants to exempt some investors from their responsibilities so that they protect their assets.
The minister himself admits that nuclear energy is dangerous. Instead of turning to other less dangerous energy sources, the only solution he can think of is to let the investors walk away from their responsibilities. It is totally unconscionable.
The dangers of nuclear energy are well known. I do not need to remind the House all the disasters of the last few decades. As the minister himself said, investors would end up with an unknown financial risk that could be way out of proportion with their business interest.
If that is the case, they should not invest in nuclear projects. Why do I say that? If investors do not pay for decontamination, and if the company or owner cannot do it either because he has gone bankrupt or absconded, as has occured, why should society pick up the tab for a private investment?
We are in a situation where the profits would be private, but the costs would be public. It is not appropriate for a responsible government to take away the responsibility of private investors with regard to a source of energy that presents unknown risks, to use the words of the minister. Therefore, we cannot support the passage of this bill. We think that the rules governing nuclear safety should be tightened, which is certainly not what Bill C-4 does.
I repeat, if this kind of investment is too risky for the private sector, why would society have to take that risk? If potential investors, having assessed the costs and the benefits from a financial and an economical point of view, believe that the investment is too risky for them and decide not to invest, maybe certain projects will not get off the ground because they are just not financially viable. Everyone will be better off in terms of safety and in terms of energy choices.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill. However, we do think that the debate on Bill C-4 is an ideal opportunity to reflect on development and on the energy choices that were made by the federal government in the past. It is clear that the decision to go nuclear was made around the 1970s, when we went through two successive oil crises.
Members will remember that in 1973 and 1974, we saw a first hike in oil prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, had been created a few years earlier, but it understood that, by acting as a cartel, it could get much higher prices for this non-renewable resource. That is what became known as the oil rent, which led to the creation of what became known as petrodollars, which are also the cause of the huge debts of third world countries.
At some point, these countries, and particularly a number of extremely small Arab countries, found themselves with this financial windfall and tried to reinvest this money. This is where we saw western banks reinvesting these dollars from oil production—which have been called petrodollars—by lending them to developing countries, which, unfortunately, were not able to meet their financial obligations. The crisis that we are currently in, the foreign debt of a number of developing countries, is due in large part to this first sharp rise in oil prices in 1973.
This is a first concern, especially because Quebec had been forced, with the Borden line, to pay western prices for its oil, to make the Leduc oil fields economically viable.
Also, because of this first oil crisis, the federal government realized that we were not independent enough in this regard. So it started to do some research on oil sands. And in order to be able to create an environment that would make these projects viable, it forced eastern Canada, Quebec in particular, to pay far more for its oil than it would have paid if it had gone directly to the international market. So, Quebec paid in large part for the development of the oil industry in western Canada, and the same is also true, I must say, for the Atlantic provinces.
So, there was a first oil crisis in 1973. The government realized that oil was a non renewable resource. At that time, there were all kinds of scenarios. Some said that there would be an oil shortage in 2001, that prices would be around $90 per barrel. So alternatives were developed, as well as the nuclear energy alternative, which spread in Europe and in some parts of North America.
Quebec made different choices and, among others, it opted for hydroelectricity, following some heated debates. The James Bay project was not a minor venture. Some very important debates took place regarding this choice, because it was obviously going to inconvenience people living in northern Quebec.
I clearly remember the days when people wore T-shirts saying “Stop à la Baie James”—that was before Bill 101; now they would probably read “Arrêt à la Baie James” with a red hand—to protest against the development of a hydroelectric project that is now seen as a bonanza for Quebec.
So, the first oil crisis occurred in 1973, and it triggered an interest in nuclear energy. The second oil crisis came in 1979. That was during the Islamic revolution in Iran, which provided another opportunity for the OPEC cartel to jack up the price of this non-renewable product. It was then that choices were made all over the world regarding nuclear energy.
As we know, the price of oil has now gone down and it is compatible with the economic activity. Currently, we are talking about $23, $24 or $25 a barrel. It goes without saying that should the United States do something irresponsible in Iraq, there would be a sudden albeit temporary increase in the price of oil. However, because of all the efforts that were made to promote energy conservation, we now know that there is a future for this non-renewable resource, which allows us to work, not be careless and do nothing, but to work on energy alternatives.
Almost every country has agreed that nuclear energy is not the solution. We know that Germany, which is one of the countries that currently makes the greatest use of nuclear energy, has commited to completely eliminate the use of that form of energy in the coming decades. This shows that it can be done. Hopefully, France will follow Germany's example.
As for Canada, it seems to me that, given all our natural resources, we have the capacity to develop alternative energies and that we should completely rule out the development of the nuclear industry.
In this regard, Bill C-4 is not clear, because it sends the wrong message. It hints that nuclear energy, or the use of nuclear energy for production and economic activities, may be a worthwhile option for Canadians and Quebeckers.
I for one think that the government should state very clearly that the nuclear industry is something we will try to drop, and, if some people still want to experiment with nuclear energy, let them do so at their own risk, financially speaking, provided they do not endanger people and communities in the areas where they build their plants.
Bill C-4 goes directly against the present trend in the west, which is to drop nuclear energy for alternative energies.
Canada still has good oil reserves. Clearly, using them is a problem, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. And we have the Kyoto accord, which Canada cannot afford not to ratify. It is also obvious that we have hydroelectricity in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, like Labrador and other places, where this source of energy should be the preferred option.
We have to wonder what the federal government has done. Since the early 1970s—members will recall Pierre Elliott Trudeau's energy policy, which was not very popular in western Canada, but that was nevertheless the choice made by this House at the time—efforts have been made to develop energy self-sufficiency. Oddly enough, when we take stock of the situation nearly 30 years after starting to look into our energy self-sufficiency, we realize that the federal government has consistently made the wrong choices.
It did so because it concentrated more on its political interests than on the interests of the people of Canada and of Quebec. With Bill C-4, I believe it is still on the wrong track.
Let me quote figures that should be thought provoking. For instance, between 1970 and 2000, the federal government invested $66 billion in oil production. It has now been established that oil burning is largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, $6 billion was invested in nuclear energy, and $329 million in renewable energies. This shows the disproportionate choices made by the federal government.
At first, oil development in western Canada was given greater importance. Also, it must be recognized that the Hibernia project alone, in Newfoundland, cost the federal government $3.8 billion in all sorts of subsidies, loan guarantees and interest assistance loans. Hibernia was the last megaproject to be implemented. It was completed just a few years ago.
Since 1970, $66 billion has gone to the oil industry, nothing to hydroelectricity, and nothing or nearly nothing to wind power, even though it is an extremely promising energy source. I mentioned Germany earlier. Not only did Germany ban the operation of nuclear plants in the next few decades—it has put a plan in place—but it is the first western country to rely on wind power. Approximately 35.8% of the energy produced in Germany is produced using wind generators.
Using wind to produce energy is definitely not some fad borrowed from some recycled 1970s hippies. Thought should also be given to solar energy, as a matter of fact.
Even in the United States, not a country to be held up as a model in terms of energy choices--as we all know--17.3% of the energy is wind-generated. It is not that hard to see in all of this a very promising way to generate energy and ensure safety. All members would agree that it is not as dangerous as a nuclear plant. Environmentally, it also creates fewer problems than a nuclear plant. The Americans currently use wind power to generate 17.3% of their energy.
Spain, a country not known as a leader in many areas, uses the wind to generate 13.6% of its energy.
In Canada, only 0.8% of our energy is wind-generated. In this area, we have fallen way behind. Not only can wind power be safe and meet a lot of our energy needs, but it can also create jobs. I will come back to these issues some other time.
Because of all these reasons and because of the risks associated with nuclear energy, we believe that, if private investments are made, the risks should be taken on by the private backers. Measures found in the current Nuclear Safety and Control Act should not only be maintained, but they should be strengthened.
The federal government should focus on clean energy sources, like hydro power, wind power, and even solar energy, instead of disproportionately investing in the nuclear industry and the oil industry as it is currently doing. I am not saying that the government should drop the oil industry, because the battery-powered car is still not ready, but it should not invest in it as much as it is doing right now.
The first step to solve all of our energy problems would be to ratify Kyoto.
