There has been no industry that constitutes such a giant white elephant in terms of its fiscal impact on Canadians. Contrary to what we heard earlier from a Conservative colleague, this industry has gobbled up about $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Removing the cap would not affect provincial electricity rates in any provinces that still use nuclear energy.

The reality is that, there but for the grace of God go we, every single event that occurred at Three Mile Island had previously happened in Ontario nuclear plants but not all on the same day and at the same reactor. Human error is always the biggest risk. As more reactors are brought on stream, the promises made when they are built are never fulfilled. We are always told they are going to be reliable and then we find that retubing is required or that the Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick is over budget, as always, or that it takes much longer than the government thought it would take. The government of the day in New Brunswick that approved retubing Point Lepreau ignored the recommendations of its own public utilities commission to do so. It ignored the advice, by the way, of the current leader of the Green Party of New Brunswick, David Coon, who clearly said more money would be wasted.

It is interesting to hear Conservative members defend an industry that has gobbled up things that they usually would have opposed, massive subsidies to something that simply cannot bear market forces.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he would not agree to just removing the cap on liability and making this industry pay its own way if, God forbid, we ever have a nuclear accident.

Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to deal with in the member’s question.

Those of us who live on the west coast are very conscious of nuclear accidents. We were concerned about possible radiation coming on the shores of British Columbia as a result of the Fukushima plant accident. Government monitoring has been cut, so it is hard for us to determine the exact extent of this radiation.

However, I am quite excited about a new technology called fusion. A very active company in my riding called General Fusion is trying to move toward a much safer use of nuclear energy. I try to visit it every year and see its progress and it is going quite well. I am proud of its work and hopefully that technology will develop.

The post Bill C-22: Energy Safety and Security Act. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Initially, it was put forward as an excuse for holding it to $1 billion as a liability cap that if it were not there, it could affect provincial electricity rates. However, through questions on the order paper I had it confirmed that it would not affect provincial electricity rates to remove the cap.

I would like to ask my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary, this. Would it not be more prudent to have no cap at all and to ensure that the nuclear industry, under the polluter-pay principle, pays the full cost of the accident we hope will never happen, but could in fact happen any day in our country?

Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, again, what we are talking about is absolute liability that will be paid in the event of an incident.

Operators will be expected to carry insurance to cover the costs of any incident should it occur. The $1 billion absolute liability will place Canada’s regime squarely among those of its peer countries.

The post Bill C-22: Energy Safety and Security Act. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I actually have had questions on the order paper. They are now answered. They confirm that the $1 billion liability could be removed. The Conservatives could remove the cap altogether without having any impact on provincial electricity rates, which has been one of the arguments used for keeping the cap. Also found in the response to the question on the order paper is that they have estimated that the risks of a large-scale nuclear accident would reach $100 million. We know what happened in Fukushima, Japan and $100 million as an estimate of loss is completely out of the realm of real estimates of a catastrophic accident. Then in the response to the question, they do go on to say, “The limit is not meant to address a catastrophic loss involving loss of containment”.

We need a lot more time to debate the bill so we find out why the regulator has decided not to address a catastrophic loss involving loss of containment. That is exactly the kind of nuclear accident for which Canadians want to know the operators are fully responsible.

The post Energy Safety and Security Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Hon. Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i), for all monies loaned to China as part of this agreement, Export Development Canada, EDC, entered into a loan agreement in an amount of $1.5 billion in accordance with the terms and conditions of a ministerial authorization implementing a decision of cabinet. In response to (a)(ii) the total sum of the loan was $1,497,354,054. In response to (a)(iii) the scheduled due date of the loan was July 20, 2018, and the commencing date was January 12, 1997. In response to (a)(iv) and (v), the loan has been fully repaid. In response to (a)(vi), there is no outstanding balance of the loan. In response to (a)(vii), the value of the interest accrued over the term of the loan was $414,169,012.51 in U.S. dollars.

Regarding (b), it is not applicable.

Regarding (c)(i) and (iii), they are not applicable. In response to (c)(ii), EDC did not conduct any special studies, reviews or audits aside from its standard due diligence practices.

Regarding (d), it is not applicable.

The post Question No. 904 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It has now been revealed that data were not released from a Calgary Health Canada monitoring station detecting levels of radioactive iodine in rainwater well above the Canadian guideline for drinking water.  This isotope was known to be released by the nuclear accident and also showed up in tests in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa.  Lower levels of contamination resulted in a don’t-drink-rainwater advisory in Virginia.

“Serious questions are arising about how Health Canada tests for radiation, and why it has failed to properly alert the public,” said May.  “We find out now that monitoring appears inadequate, Health Canada data does not agree with that from independent researchers, and no information is making its way to the public.  In effect, Health Canada has not allowed Canadians to take any preventative steps to reduce our exposure to this radiation.”

“We now ask, what changes will be implemented to restore public trust in our health regulators?” said May.

The post Health Canada failed to reveal radioactivity in rainwater appeared first on Elizabeth May.